Criminal Law - Kidnapping and Rape – Appeal against conviction – The High Court upheld the trial court’s conviction of appellants for kidnapping and raping the victim, sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine – Supreme Court found inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution's case, and noted that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable – The delay in filing the FIR and the contradictions in the victim's testimony weakened the prosecution’s case – Held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside, and appellants acquitted. [Paras 1-48]

Evidence - Reliability and Contradictions – Analysis – Held – The testimony of the victim and other prosecution witnesses contained significant contradictions and inconsistencies – Delay in filing FIR not satisfactorily explained – Medical evidence did not conclusively establish the victim’s age as below 18 years – Transfer certificate and medical reports lacked credibility – The behavior of the victim and her relatives during the alleged incident was inconsistent with the prosecution's story. [Para 20-41]

Legal Principles – Burden of Proof – Application – Held – Prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving serious offenses like kidnapping and rape – Benefit of doubt given to the appellants due to unreliable and contradictory evidence – Convictions based on improbable and inconsistent evidence cannot be sustained. [Para 19]

Decision – Appeal Allowed; Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, and directed their release – Appellants acquitted of all charges due to lack of credible evidence. [Para 48]

Urban Development Law - Land Acquisition - Applicability of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act to the BDA Act – Appeal against High Court's judgment – Appellant challenged the acquisition of land by the BDA, contending that the lapse provisions under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act should apply – Supreme Court held that the BDA Act is a complete code in itself and the specific time frames under the BDA Act exclude the applicability of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act – Acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act do not lapse merely because the award is not made within two years as specified under Section 11A – High Court's decision affirmed. [Paras 1-36]

Legislation by Incorporation vs. Legislation by Reference – Interpretation – Analysis – Held – The BDA Act incorporates the Land Acquisition Act by reference only to the extent necessary for procedural aspects of land acquisition, not including the lapse provisions of Section 11A – The BDA Act is intended to be a self-contained code with its own specific time frames and procedural requirements, which take precedence over the Land Acquisition Act. [Para 17-29]

Constitutional Provisions – Legislative Competence – Analysis – Held – The legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the BDA Act is traceable to Entries 5 and 18 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution – The BDA Act deals with planned development and incidental land acquisition, falling under the State List – No conflict or repugnancy with the Central Land Acquisition Act, hence, BDA Act prevails in its domain. [Para 37-45]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed; High Court Judgment Affirmed – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s judgment – Affirmed that the BDA Act’s provisions prevail over Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act in cases of land acquisition for planned development – No order as to costs. [Para 46-47]

Election Law - Non-compliance and Material Effect – Appeal against High Court's dismissal – Appellant challenged the election of the returned candidate on the ground of non-compliance with Sections 25, 31, 56, 57, and 58 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Rules 3 and 15 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 – Polling took place at a non-notified polling station initially – High Court held non-compliance but found no material effect on the election result – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings, emphasizing the requirement to prove that non-compliance materially affected the result of the election – Appellant's evidence deemed hearsay and insufficient. [Paras 1-27]

Burden of Proof - Material Effect on Election Result – Legal Interpretation – Analysis – Held – To declare an election void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act, it must be proven that the non-compliance materially affected the result – The burden of proof lies on the election petitioner, who must provide cogent and reliable evidence – Mere allegations or hearsay evidence are insufficient – The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, not broad probabilities. [Para 13-16]

Evidence - Hearsay Rule and Its Applicability – Legal Principles – Analysis – Held – Hearsay evidence is inadmissible in election petitions – Testimonies based on information from others are not reliable and cannot be used to establish material facts – Courts require direct evidence from witnesses who have personal knowledge of the facts. [Para 18-22]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed; High Court Judgment Affirmed – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s judgment that the non-compliance with election laws did not materially affect the election result – Appellant failed to provide direct and reliable evidence to prove that the outcome was impacted by the initial polling at a non-notified station – No costs awarded. [Para 26-27]

Criminal Law - Dying Declaration – Admissibility and Reliability – Criminal Appeal challenging High Court's acquittal based on reasons for discrediting the dying declaration – Supreme Court examines the credibility and circumstances under which the dying declaration was recorded – Held that the dying declaration made by Jyoti, recorded by the police officer after receiving the fitness certificate from the attending doctor, was credible and reliable – High Court's reasons for discarding the dying declaration found unjustified – Conviction restored based on the dying declaration as primary evidence. [Paras 1-6]

Sentencing - Rare of the Rarest Doctrine – Determination of Sentence – Appeal regarding the sentence awarded – Supreme Court acknowledges the brutal nature of the crime but considers the time elapsed since the incident and the accused's acquittal – Capital punishment deemed inappropriate at this stage – Accused sentenced to life imprisonment instead of death penalty despite the heinous nature of the crime. [Para 6]

Decision – Conviction and Appeal – High Court's judgment set aside – Trial court's conviction under Section 302 IPC restored – Accused sentenced to life imprisonment instead of death penalty due to the passage of time and the nature of the crime – Criminal appeal allowed, resulting in the reinstatement of the conviction and the modification of the sentence to life imprisonment. [Para 6]

Property and Business Separation – Textile Undertakings – Appeal against High Court's judgment – Respondent's premises at Calcutta was primarily a departmental store business separate from the textile mill in Bombay – Government enacted the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983, and later the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995, due to mismanagement and strikes in the textile industry – Supreme Court held that the premises in Calcutta was not related to the textile undertakings at Bombay and could not be taken over under the said Acts – Affirmed that the premises business was independent, with separate accounts and management. [Paras 1-17]

Legal Interpretation – Nexus with Textile Undertakings – Analysis – Held – Premises at Calcutta, used for a different business, had no nexus with the textile undertakings at Bombay – Ownership and operations of premises and textile mills were distinct and separate – Legislative intent and statutory provisions support separation of assets and liabilities – Government's compensation only covered the textile mills at Bombay, not the Calcutta premises. [Para 11-16]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed; High Court Judgment Affirmed – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the Calcutta premises were not part of the textile undertakings subject to takeover under the relevant Acts – No order as to costs. [Para 17]

Motor Vehicles Act - Concurrent Claims – Appeal against High Court's judgment – Respondents, legal heirs of the deceased, initially claimed compensation under Section 166 and subsequently under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act – Tribunal awarded compensation under Section 163A, and respondents sought to continue the Section 166 claim – Supreme Court held that once compensation under Section 163A is awarded, a claimant cannot proceed with a claim under Section 166 – High Court’s decision allowing concurrent claims contrary to the principles laid down in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which established the finality and exclusivity of claims under Section 163A. [Paras 1-14]

Legal Principle – Finality of Compensation – Analysis – Held – Compensation awarded under Section 163A is final and precludes further claims under Section 166 – Claimants must elect to pursue remedies under either Section 163A or Section 166, but not both – High Court erred in permitting continuation of Section 166 claim after awarding compensation under Section 163A. [Para 13-14]

Decision – Appeal Allowed; High Court Judgment Set Aside – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and the Tribunal’s order permitting respondents to proceed with the Section 166 claim – Established that the compensation under Section 163A precludes subsequent claims under Section 166. [Para 15-16]

Property and Business Separation – Textile Undertakings – Appeal against High Court's judgment – Respondent's premises at Calcutta was primarily a departmental store business separate from the textile mill in Bombay – Government enacted the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983, and later the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995, due to mismanagement and strikes in the textile industry – Supreme Court held that the premises in Calcutta was not related to the textile undertakings at Bombay and could not be taken over under the said Acts – Affirmed that the premises business was independent, with separate accounts and management. [Paras 1-17]

Legal Interpretation – Nexus with Textile Undertakings – Analysis – Held – Premises at Calcutta, used for a different business, had no nexus with the textile undertakings at Bombay – Ownership and operations of premises and textile mills were distinct and separate – Legislative intent and statutory provisions support separation of assets and liabilities – Government's compensation only covered the textile mills at Bombay, not the Calcutta premises. [Para 11-16]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed; High Court Judgment Affirmed – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the Calcutta premises were not part of the textile undertakings subject to takeover under the relevant Acts – No order as to costs. [Para 17]

Motor Vehicles Act - Concurrent Claims – Appeal against High Court's judgment – Respondents, legal heirs of the deceased, initially claimed compensation under Section 166 and subsequently under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act – Tribunal awarded compensation under Section 163A, and respondents sought to continue the Section 166 claim – Supreme Court held that once compensation under Section 163A is awarded, a claimant cannot proceed with a claim under Section 166 – High Court’s decision allowing concurrent claims contrary to the principles laid down in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which established the finality and exclusivity of claims under Section 163A. [Paras 1-14]

Legal Principle – Finality of Compensation – Analysis – Held – Compensation awarded under Section 163A is final and precludes further claims under Section 166 – Claimants must elect to pursue remedies under either Section 163A or Section 166, but not both – High Court erred in permitting continuation of Section 166 claim after awarding compensation under Section 163A. [Para 13-14]

Decision – Appeal Allowed; High Court Judgment Set Aside – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and the Tribunal’s order permitting respondents to proceed with the Section 166 claim – Established that the compensation under Section 163A precludes subsequent claims under Section 166. [Para 15-16]

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Application of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Appeals by two appellants convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder committed as juveniles – Appellants were minors under 18 years at the time of offense – Supreme Court reviewed applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 to ongoing proceedings initiated under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 – Held that proceedings should continue under the new Act, providing protections and benefits to the appellants as juveniles – Convictions upheld but sentences set aside as appellants have exceeded the maximum period provided under juvenile sentencing provisions. [Paras 1-20]

Determination of Juvenility – Relevance of age at the time of offense – Analysis – Held – Date of commission of the offense is the relevant date for determining juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Appellants, being under 18 at the time of the offense, are entitled to benefits under the Act – Sentences set aside as they exceeded the maximum period permissible under juvenile law, despite appellants now being over 40 years old. [Para 8-18]

Decision – Conviction Upheld; Sentences Set Aside – Supreme Court upholds the conviction of the appellants for the offense of murder – Orders their release considering the time already served exceeds the maximum period under juvenile law – Emphasizes the protective purpose of juvenile justice legislation and ensures fair application of the law to offenders who were minors at the time of the offense – Appeals partly allowed. [Para 19-20]