Criminal Law - Acquittal Reversed - Reappraisal of Evidence – Criminal Appeal against High Court's acquittal – Trial court convicted respondents for murder under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC based on circumstantial evidence – High Court reversed, citing lack of direct evidence of conspiracy – Supreme Court reappraised evidence, found High Court's acquittal order perverse – Concluded respondents exceeded right of self-defense – Convicted under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC. [Paras 1-20]

Circumstantial Evidence – Incriminating Circumstances – Held – Sufficient circumstantial evidence establishing guilt of respondents – Injuries inflicted on deceased were grievous and on vital parts – Efforts by respondents to seek medical help and inform deceased's family indicated absence of intention to kill – Held liable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. [Para 9-12, 19]

Right of Private Defence – Exception and Exceeding Defence – Analysis – Respondents’ plea of self-defense considered – Established that respondents exceeded right of self-defense – Initial reaction to molestation attempt could justify self-defense, but subsequent actions were excessive – Supreme Court modifies conviction accordingly. [Paras 8, 19]

Decision – Modification of Conviction and Sentence – High Court's order set aside – Trial court’s conviction modified – Respondents convicted under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC, sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment – Time served during trial and appeal to be set off. [Para 20]

Land Acquisition - Compensation and Resettlement - Scheme for allotment of plots to oustees - Interpretation of 'normal allotment rate' - Civil Appeal challenging the price for plots allotted to appellants whose land was acquired for urban development - Supreme Court held that the 'normal allotment rate' should be the rate prevailing when the sector was first floated for sale, not at the revised rate at the time of delayed allotment - Directed HUDA to charge the rate at the time of initial sector launch - Appellants entitled to compensation for delayed compliance. [Paras 1-14]

Allotment Rate for Oustees - Analysis - Held - The term 'normal allotment rate' refers to the price when the sector is first offered for sale, as per the policy requiring claims of oustees before public sale - Delays by HUDA in allotting plots to appellants should not result in higher charges for them. [Para 12-13]

Decision - Appeal Allowed in Part - Allotment Rate Adjustment - Court directs HUDA to charge Rs. 1032/- per sq.m. (or Rs. 863/- per sq.yd) as the allotment price for the six plots allotted to the appellants instead of the revised rate of Rs. 1342/- per sq.m. - Appellants awarded costs of Rs. 2500/- each. [Para 14]

Criminal Law - Bail - Proviso to Section 43D(5) of UAPA - Interpretation and Application – Appeal against High Court's order granting bail to respondent, a dentist, alleged to have treated one of the assailants involved in a violent attack. The Supreme Court emphasized the absence of prima facie evidence proving respondent’s involvement in the crime or conspiracy. Highlighted the respondent’s professional duty under the Hippocratic oath, allowing for medical treatment in emergency situations. Differentiated the case against the respondent from that against the alleged assailants. Discussed the relevance of organization membership and the necessity of proving active and knowing participation in unlawful activities. Reiterated the significance of Article 21 of the Constitution regarding undue delay in trials and the implications of prolonged incarceration on an accused. Held that denying bail in the absence of prima facie evidence constitutes a violation of Article 21. [Paras 1-14]

Role of Respondent in Crime – Analysis and Professional Duty – Held – The Supreme Court found no evidence to substantiate the claim that the respondent was part of a conspiracy or directly involved in the attack. Stressed the duty of a medical professional to provide treatment, even to alleged criminals, in emergency situations. The court highlighted the distinction between professional duty and criminal conspiracy. [Para 12]

Decision – Grant of Bail to Respondent – The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent, considering the lack of prima facie evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy and his adherence to professional duties as a doctor. The court also noted the delay in trial and potential violation of Article 21 as significant factors in its decision. [Paras 13-14]

Transfer of Property – Sale During Pendency of Partition Suit – Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Appellant purchased property from second Respondent during pendency of a partition suit filed by first Respondent – Trial court, appellate court, and High Court rejected suit in entirety citing Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act – Held: Sale not void but subject to decree in pending suit – Appellant entitled to title and injunction only for portion of property ultimately allotted to his vendor in final decree [Paras 5–12, 16].

Partition Suit – Division of Property by Final Decree – Suit property (house and site) divided on equitable basis – Portion containing house allotted to second Respondent; remaining vacant portion to first Respondent – Held: No collusion or illegality in final decree – Equitable division justified by value allocation, not subject to challenge by third-party purchaser [Paras 6–8].

Lis Pendens – Rights of Pendente Lite Purchaser – Sale not invalid but does not affect rights of parties to pending litigation – Transferee’s rights limited to extent of transferor’s share determined in final decree – Court recognises partial title in favour of transferee based on final allocation in decree proceedings [Paras 10–11].

Evidence and Procedure – Validity of Sale Deed – Sale by second Respondent was not fraudulent – Sale of undivided share during pendency of suit is not per se illegal – Courts below erred in entirely rejecting purchaser’s claim without recognising his limited entitlement to part of property [Paras 12, 16].

Law Reform – Title Verification Mechanism – Court recommends legislative reform to address hardships faced by bona fide purchasers unable to verify pending litigation over immovable properties – Suggests model adopted in Maharashtra for registration of notice of pending suits under Section 52 TPA – Advocates for compulsory registration of sale agreements to reduce property fraud and litigation [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Appellant entitled to declaration of title and injunction in respect of portion of suit property allotted to second Respondent (A-B-I-H-A in Ex.C-5 sketch) – Suit dismissed as to remainder – Parties to bear their own costs.

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Statutory Remedy – Writ petition under Article 226 filed against order of the Appellate Tribunal refusing waiver of pre-deposit of penalty – High Court dismissed petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction – Supreme Court held writ petition was not maintainable as statutory appeal under Section 35 of FEMA was available – Held: Writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when efficacious statutory remedy exists [Paras 1-5, 8-9, 14, 33-34, 41].

FEMA – Section 35 – Appeal from Tribunal Orders – Scope – Section allows appeal from “any decision or order” of the Appellate Tribunal to the High Court on a question of law – Held: Word “any” is to be read as inclusive of interlocutory as well as final orders – Argument that only final orders are appealable rejected [Paras 21-24, 28-29].

Interpretation of Statutes – Use of “Any” – The word “any” in Section 35 must be given its plain and expansive meaning in absence of contrary intention – Supported by precedents and interpretation in Black’s Law Dictionary and earlier Supreme Court judgments [Paras 25-28].

Article 226 – Judicial Review – Limits – Writ jurisdiction part of basic structure but cannot be used to circumvent statutory procedure – High Court should not entertain writ petition where statutory appellate forum exists under a fiscal legislation like FEMA [Paras 33-34, 36-38].

Alternate Remedy – Principle – When a statute creates a right along with a special remedy, such remedy must be pursued – Writ jurisdiction not maintainable unless exceptional circumstances like lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice shown – No such exception made out in this case [Paras 42-44].

Case Law Distinction – Monotosh Saha, Kusum Ingots, and Ambica Industries not applicable – Either based on different facts or dealt with questions of territorial jurisdiction, not maintainability of writ in face of alternate statutory appeal [Paras 45-48].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court held writ petition was not maintainable – Liberty granted to appellant to file statutory appeal under Section 35 of FEMA before appropriate High Court within 30 days – Delay in filing to be considered sympathetically under Section 14 of the Limitation Act [Paras 49-51].

Election Law – Corrupt Practice – Bribery – Distribution of Money in Name of Pension – Section 123(1)(A) of the Representation of the People Act – Allegations made against appellant (former Minister) for distributing pension benefits and appointing Anganwadi workers to induce voters – Evidence led showed pension sanctioned during tenure as Minister prior to nomination date – Held: Acts done in discharge of official duty before becoming a candidate cannot amount to corrupt practice – Allegation of pension distribution after nomination unsupported by credible and independent evidence – No conclusive proof of bribery or inducement [Paras 43–47, 55–56, 66–67]

Representation of the People Act – Section 83 – Material Facts and Particulars – Defective Pleadings – Challenge raised regarding lack of material particulars in election petition – Held: Election petition must disclose complete cause of action – However, requirement depends on facts of each case – In this case, petition disclosed cause of action and was not liable to be dismissed for want of particulars – Evidence admissible as per pleadings [Paras 34–40]

Burden of Proof – Corrupt Practice – Standard of Evidence in Election Disputes – Charges of corrupt practices require strict proof beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence must be unimpeachable and from independent sources – Testimony of partisan or interested witnesses insufficient – Held: Evidence of PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 insufficient to establish corrupt practice – No corroboration from official records or bank documents – Allegations of cash distribution on 10–12 February 2002 not established [Paras 48–52, 55–57, 62–63]

Misuse of Official Position – Appointment of Anganwadi Workers and Grant of Pensions – Official Acts Not Constituting Corrupt Practices – Appointments and pension disbursals traced to period before nomination when appellant was Minister – Held: Acts within official capacity prior to candidature cannot be treated as electoral misconduct – No evidence linking such acts to electoral inducement [Paras 44–46, 64]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Section 116A – Scope of Supreme Court’s Review – Supreme Court in election appeal has jurisdiction to reappreciate evidence and interfere with High Court’s findings if legally flawed – In this case, High Court failed to adequately scrutinize evidence and relied on uncorroborated testimony – Held: Findings perverse and unsustainable [Paras 48–49, 65–66]

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court setting aside appellant’s election reversed – Allegations of corrupt practices not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Election result restored – Parties to bear their own costs. [Para 67]

Constitutional Law – Tenth Schedule – Expelled Legislators – Deemed Membership – Writ petition challenges legal fiction created by Explanation (a) to Paragraph 2(1) of Tenth Schedule whereby expelled members are deemed to continue as members of their original political party – Petitioners argue this interpretation exposes expelled members to party whip despite cessation of affiliation – Held: G. Viswanathan’s decision requires reconsideration in light of legislative history and intent behind exclusion of expulsion clause in 52nd Amendment – Matter referred to larger Bench [Paras 5–16]

Tenth Schedule – Interpretation – Explanation (a) to Paragraph 2(1) – Legislative debates revealed deliberate exclusion of expulsion as ground for disqualification – Clause 2(1)(c) dropped to avoid injustice and arbitrary party control – Despite this, Viswanathan ruling effectively reintroduced expulsion as disqualifying ground – Held: Such judicial interpretation may override legislative intent – Question framed whether deeming fiction of party membership can survive expulsion [Paras 10–13, 15]

Parliamentary Privilege – Expelled MPs – Exposure to Whip – Expelled MPs face vulnerability to party’s will without being heard or protected – Deemed continued membership restricts independence of expelled legislators and suppresses dissent – Such interpretation raises constitutional concerns under democratic principles – Interim protection granted to petitioners from application of Viswanathan doctrine [Paras 13, 17]

Judicial Review – Reference to Larger Bench – Seven questions framed regarding status of expelled members, applicability of Tenth Schedule, and validity of deeming clause post-expulsion – Pending decision, Viswanathan shall not apply to Amar Singh and Jaya Prada – Matter referred to Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of larger Bench [Paras 16–18]

Dowry and Cruelty – Sections 498A and 306 IPC – Reversal of Acquittal by High Court – Alleged demand of gold chain and cruelty by husband and in-laws leading to wife’s suicide – Trial Court found no consistent or credible evidence of cruelty or dowry demand – High Court reversed acquittal without dislodging Trial Court’s findings – Held: Witness statements were full of contradictions, embellishments, and uncorroborated allegations – No clear motive or cruelty proved – Reversal of acquittal unjustified – Conviction set aside [Paras 1–3, 25, 29, 34–36].

Mental Health – Suicide – Medical Evidence – Deceased was under psychiatric treatment for depression and epilepsy – Doctors prescribed serious psychiatric drugs and ECT – Medical witnesses confirmed mental illness, suicidal tendencies, and long-standing disorder – Held: Suicide more likely due to mental condition than cruelty – High Court failed to appreciate expert testimony properly [Paras 10–12, 26–28].

Appreciation of Evidence – Contradictions and Improvements – Witnesses made major improvements in court over prior police statements – Allegations of dowry demand and cruelty not stated in FIR or initial statements – Letters exchanged between parties showed no dowry harassment – Held: Material contradictions and embellishments fatal to prosecution case – Testimony of interested relatives lacked credibility [Paras 8, 17–21, 29–32].

Presumption – Service of Letter – Letter by father-in-law alleging wife’s misconduct sent via registered post – Complainants denied receiving it – Postal proof of dispatch not rebutted – Held: Presumption under Section 27 of General Clauses Act and Section 114 of Evidence Act applies – Service presumed – Prosecution failed to rebut [Para 33].

Reversal of Acquittal – Interference by Appellate Court – High Court reversed acquittal despite two possible views – Trial Court had extensively discussed evidence and found no cruelty or demand – Held: Appellate court should not casually overturn acquittal unless findings are perverse – High Court failed to show compelling reasons – Reversal unsustainable [Paras 22–24, 35–36].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC set aside – Judgment of Trial Court acquitting the appellants restored – Bail bonds discharged.

Landlord and Tenant – U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Ejectment and arrears of rent – Petitioner (tenant) challenged title of landlords and alleged fraudulent transfer of property – Held: Small Cause Court rightly refused to frame issues on ownership or title – Under Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, Small Cause Court cannot adjudicate upon questions of title – Tenant or sub-tenant cannot dispute landlord’s ownership when tenancy is admitted – Only a person claiming title may challenge the transfer before a competent civil court [Paras 4–7].

Jurisdiction – Section 23, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 – Explained – Small Cause Court has limited and preferential, not exclusive, jurisdiction – Where determination of relief depends upon proof or disproof of title to immovable property, plaint may be returned for presentation before competent civil court – Findings of Small Cause Court on title do not operate as res judicata – Budhu Mal v. Mahabir Prasad AIR 1998 SC 1772 followed [Paras 6–9].

Civil Procedure – Scope of revision and review – High Court rightly confined itself to issues of arrears of rent and sub-letting – Issues not argued at hearing cannot be adjudicated later – Recall and reconsideration applications based on unsubstantiated allegations against the Chief Justice held mala fide and devoid of merit – Courts not to entertain scandalous and reckless allegations against judicial officers [Paras 11–12].

Res Judicata – Supreme Court had earlier upheld the impugned judgment in SLP (C) No. 28029 of 2009 – Entertaining present petitions would amount to review of earlier decision – Same cause and same parties – Impermissible in law [Para 13].

Decision – No illegality or jurisdictional error in trial court or High Court orders – Small Cause Court rightly decreed eviction and arrears of rent – Petitions dismissed with costs [Para 14].