Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – The Court emphasized that the determination of juvenility must be conducted in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. The inquiry should rely on documents such as matriculation certificates, school records, and birth certificates. Medical opinions should be considered only if these documents are unavailable [Paras 26-27]​​.

Scope of Inquiry – Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules – The Court reiterated that the inquiry under Rule 12 is not an investigation or trial under the Criminal Procedure Code but a specific inquiry under the Juvenile Justice Act. The evidence considered should be primarily documentary, and oral testimony should be limited to exceptional cases [Paras 27-28]​​.

Presumption of Age – Section 49 of the Act – The age determined by the inquiry conducted as per Rule 12 should be considered conclusive. This presumption ensures that the juvenile's age is accurately and fairly determined without unnecessary delays or complications [Paras 35-36]​​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The Court set aside the orders of the lower courts which dismissed the appellant's claim of juvenility. The Court directed the Juvenile Justice Board to determine the appropriate sentence considering the appellant's age and the time already served. The appellant was found to be a juvenile at the time of the offense [Paras 47-48]​​.

Revisional and Inherent Jurisdiction – The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is limited and should be exercised only on questions of law or perverse findings. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be used sparingly and with caution to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice [Paras 8-15]​​.

Quashing of Charges – The High Court quashed the charge under Section 306 IPC on the grounds that the ingredients of the offense were not made out based on the suicide note and witness statements. The Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing charges, the Court is not to meticulously judge the veracity of the evidence but to see if there is a strong suspicion that the accused committed the offense [Paras 10-11]​​.

Presumption of Guilt – For framing charges under Section 228 CrPC, a tentative view that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offense is sufficient. The standard is not as high as required for conviction and the material on record should be examined to see if it can sustain the charge [Paras 11-12]​​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The order of the High Court quashing the charge under Section 306 IPC is set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial for offenses under Sections 306 read with 107 and 448 IPC, based on the presumption of guilt at the stage of framing charges [Paras 28]​​.

Eligibility for Allotment – Special Scheme – The application sought modification of the court’s earlier order to allow eligibility for allotment of two plots under the Special Scheme. The court reiterated that the Special Scheme is distinct from the General Scheme of NOIDA and is subject to specific restrictions, including the ineligibility of individuals who have already been allotted a plot under any previous NOIDA scheme [Paras 1-2].

Double Benefit Prohibition – The court emphasized that no individual should derive double benefits under the Special Scheme, even if they were running multiple clinics or nursing homes. The intention of the scheme was to prevent the allocation of multiple plots to a single individual, ensuring fair distribution of resources [Paras 2, 4].

Policy Implementation – The court noted that Clause 3 of the Special Scheme, which permitted bidding for two plots, was inconsistent with the scheme's purpose and ordered its deletion. The scheme aimed at providing single allotments to ensure wider access and prevent monopolization of resources [Paras 2-4].

Net Worth Irrelevance – The net worth of an applicant was deemed irrelevant in determining eligibility for multiple plots under the Special Scheme. The focus remained on equitable allocation rather than financial capacity to acquire multiple plots [Paras 3-4].

Decision:

Application dismissed – The court refused to modify its earlier directions, maintaining the prohibition on double benefits under the Special Scheme. Clause 3 of the Special Scheme was quashed, and NOIDA was directed to formulate a General Scheme for any unallotted plots, under which the applicant could apply if eligible [Paras 5-6].

Conviction and Evidence – Ocular and Medical Evidence – The prosecution relied on the statements of eyewitnesses and medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The court held that minor discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts do not undermine their credibility. The medical evidence, including the postmortem report, corroborated the eyewitness testimonies, proving the injuries and cause of death consistent with the assault described by the witnesses [Paras 8-10]​​.

Reliability of Eyewitnesses – The court emphasized that the statements of the eyewitnesses, although having some inconsistencies, were credible and trustworthy. The fear and immediate response of the witnesses were deemed normal human reactions under the circumstances. The presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene and their accounts of the events were corroborated by other evidence [Paras 11-15]​​.

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – The court found that the accused acted with a common intention to commit the crime, as evidenced by their coordinated actions and the nature of the assault. Section 34 IPC was applicable, making all participants in the crime equally liable for the murder and abduction [Paras 31-33]​​.

Hostile Witnesses – The fact that some witnesses turned hostile did not weaken the prosecution's case, as the remaining evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The statements of hostile witnesses were not relied upon for corroboration [Para 27]​​.

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 IPC and ten years under Sections 364/34 IPC were upheld. The evidence presented by the prosecution was found credible and sufficient to sustain the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 34]​​.

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Article 226 – The writ petition is maintainable against an unaided private educational institution performing public functions. The High Court's reliance on the institution being a private body to dismiss the writ petition was incorrect. The institution's role in providing education is a public function, bringing it within the scope of Article 226 [Paras 11-13]​​.

Disciplinary Proceedings – Fairness and Bias – The disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were vitiated by bias. The participation of the Principal, who was a key witness against the appellant, in the Disciplinary Committee violated the principle that no person can be a judge in their own cause. The Disciplinary Committee's decision must not only be fair but also appear to be fair, ensuring justice is done and seen to be done [Paras 18-19]​​.

Alternative Remedy – Appeal to Education Tribunal – Given the disputed questions of fact, the case is best suited for determination by an appropriate tribunal. The State of Punjab has established the Punjab School Education Tribunal, which can hear appeals from disciplinary decisions of even unaided private institutions. The appellant is directed to file an appeal with the tribunal, which shall decide the case on merits without being barred by the limitation period [Paras 16, 20-21]​​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside. The appellant is directed to file an appeal before the Punjab School Education Tribunal, which shall decide the case on merits within three months, disregarding any limitation period [Paras 22-23]​​.

Murder Conviction – Eyewitness Testimony – The conviction of the appellant for murder was based on the consistent and credible testimonies of eyewitnesses PW2 and PW3, who saw the appellant attacking the deceased with a Daranti (sickle) while another accused held her down. Despite minor inconsistencies, the witnesses' accounts were found reliable and corroborated by other evidence [Paras 8-15, 18]​​.

Medical Evidence – The medical evidence, including the post-mortem report, supported the eyewitness accounts. The report detailed incised wounds and injuries consistent with strangulation, confirming the cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation, which matched the witnesses' descriptions of the attack [Paras 16-17]​​.

Defective Investigation – Impact on Conviction – The court held that defects in the investigation, such as the failure to obtain a serological report for the blood-stained Daranti and pyjama, did not vitiate the prosecution's case. The defects were seen as lapses by the investigating officer, but the overall evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that defective investigations should not automatically result in acquittal if other evidence is credible and sufficient [Paras 19-21]​​.

Interest of Witnesses – The court rejected the argument that the witnesses' testimonies were unreliable due to their relationship with the deceased, stating that related witnesses are not necessarily interested witnesses. Their presence at the scene was natural and their testimonies credible [Paras 11-13]​​.

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC were upheld. The court directed disciplinary action against the investigating officer for serious lapses in the investigation process, underscoring the need for accountability in police investigations [Paras 22-23]​​.

Revenue Law – Adverse Possession – The respondents claimed continuous cultivation and possession of land for over 20 years, seeking Bhumidar rights under Section 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The SDM dismissed the suit, finding no proof of adverse possession, and stated that non-Tharu tribes could not claim Bhumidar rights on Tharu tribe land [Paras 4-5]​​.

Appeal and Revisional Jurisdiction – The Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue also dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the finding that the land belonged to the Tharu tribe and adverse possession was not established. However, the Board of Revenue allowed the respondents' appeals based on the Lekhpal's admission of possession and overturned the SDM and Additional Commissioner's decisions [Paras 6-8]​​.

Substantial Question of Law – Section 331(4) U.P. Act – The Supreme Court examined whether the Board of Revenue correctly exercised its power under Section 331(4) of the U.P. Act, which requires framing substantial questions of law as per Section 100 CPC. The Board of Revenue failed to frame such questions, making its order legally unsustainable [Paras 12-17]​​.

Legislation by Incorporation vs. Reference – The Court differentiated between legislation by incorporation and reference, stating that Section 331(4) incorporates the unamended Section 100 CPC. Subsequent amendments to Section 100 CPC do not apply, and the Board of Revenue must adhere to the original grounds for second appeals [Paras 17-26]​​.

Remand for Fresh Consideration – The appeals were allowed, and the orders of the High Court and Board of Revenue were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Board of Revenue for fresh consideration, directing it to frame and address substantial questions of law as required under the original Section 100 CPC [Paras 27-28]​​.

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Orders of the High Court and Board of Revenue set aside. The matter is remanded to the Board of Revenue for fresh consideration in accordance with law, directing the Board to frame substantial questions of law as per the original Section 100 CPC and decide within three months [Paras 28]​​.

Death Reference – Duty of High Court – The High Court must undertake a thorough examination in death reference cases. It is mandated to independently scrutinize the nature and circumstances of the crime, the mens rea, the impact on the victim, and societal repercussions. Merely relying on concessions from counsel or showing undue leniency undermines justice [Paras 8-12]​​.

Conviction and Sentencing – Review Standards – The High Court’s role in reviewing death sentences under Section 366 CrPC involves a detailed analysis, ensuring the ultimate decision reflects the gravity of the offense and serves as a deterrent. The High Court's casual commutation of the death sentence based on the counsel's request for leniency and lack of opposition from the Public Prosecutor was inappropriate [Paras 13-15]​​.

Medical Evidence and Eyewitness Testimonies – The trial court had relied on extensive medical evidence and testimonies indicating severe injuries, consistent with strangulation and attempted sexual assault. These findings were crucial in establishing the guilt and intent of the appellant [Paras 5-7]​​.

Remand for Proper Consideration – The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive review and set aside the High Court’s decision. The case was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration, directing it to address all relevant factors and ensure a decision that upholds judicial integrity and public confidence [Paras 17-19]​​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The judgment of the High Court commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment was set aside. The matter was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision on the reference under Section 366 CrPC, ensuring a thorough and lawful examination. The High Court was directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude within three months from receipt of the records [Paras 19]​​.

Eyewitness and Medical Evidence – Consistency – The conviction of the appellant was based on the consistent and credible testimonies of eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical evidence. The post-mortem report confirmed the nature and location of injuries consistent with the assault described by witnesses [Paras 5-7, 11]​​.

Inconsistency Between Evidence Types – The court held that unless oral evidence is entirely irreconcilable with medical evidence, the former holds primacy. Only when medical evidence entirely rules out the possibility of the oral testimony being true should the latter be disbelieved [Para 5]​​.

Prosecution's Narrative – The court upheld the prosecution's narrative that the appellant, along with co-accused, inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased following a verbal altercation. The assault resulted in injuries leading to death from hemorrhage and shock due to damage to vital organs [Paras 2, 6-7]​​.

Motive and Direct Evidence – The absence of a clear motive does not diminish the credibility of direct eyewitness testimony. The court reiterated that direct evidence outweighs the absence of a motive, especially when the testimony is reliable and corroborated by medical findings [Para 9-11]​​.

Defective Investigation – The court noted that defects in the investigation, such as not producing certain statements, did not vitiate the trial as the overall evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The investigation's shortcomings did not create reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt [Para 18]​​.

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – The appellant's participation in the crime, along with co-accused, indicated a common intention to commit the murder, justifying the application of Section 34 IPC even if not explicitly charged. The lack of a specific charge under Section 34 did not prejudice the appellant's defense [Para 17]​​.

Procedural Irregularities – Section 464/465 CrPC – Procedural defects in framing charges do not automatically invalidate a conviction unless they cause real prejudice to the accused. The appellant was fully aware of the charges and had the opportunity to defend himself adequately [Para 14-15]​​.

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC were upheld. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding inconsistencies between medical and eyewitness evidence, procedural defects, or investigation flaws [Paras 19]​​.