Criminal Law – Rape – Conviction – Minor Victim – Intact Hymen – Slightest Penetration is Sufficient – Appellant found committing rape on 12-year-old prosecutrix in bushes by police officer (P.W.3) – Prosecutrix, though initially declared hostile, gave consistent account corroborated by FIR, medical history (Exh. P-9), and eyewitness testimony – Medical report indicated intact hymen, but Supreme Court reiterated legal position that slightest penetration constitutes rape under Section 375 IPC – Held: Offence of rape proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Section 376 IPC upheld [Paras 12–16, 24–28].

Evidence Law – Prosecutrix as Sole Witness – Hostile Witness – Corroboration – Though prosecutrix was declared hostile, her version aligned with FIR and Section 161 CrPC statement – Medical history recorded immediately post-incident also consistent – Testimony of P.W.3, who caught appellant red-handed, provided strong corroboration – Court reiterated that testimony of prosecutrix, if trustworthy, does not require corroboration – Held: Conviction can be based on prosecutrix’s evidence even if uncorroborated [Paras 12, 15, 20–23, 30].

Medical Jurisprudence – Intact Hymen – Impact on Rape Allegation – Role of Medical Evidence – Defence contention that intact hymen disproved rape rejected – Court cited Modi and Parikh on Medical Jurisprudence to affirm that full penetration or emission of semen is not necessary – Slight penetration sufficient for legal definition of rape – Held: Medical opinion not determinative of legal conclusion on rape – Rape is a legal term, not a diagnosis – Non-examination of doctor not fatal to prosecution case [Paras 24–28].

Precedent – Applicability – Radhu v. State of M.P. Distinguished – Appellant relied on Radhu v. State of M.P. to seek benefit of doubt – Court held that unlike Radhu, present case had consistent evidence of prosecutrix, corroborated by eyewitness testimony of police officer – No major discrepancies found – Held: No ground to extend benefit of doubt – Conviction rightly upheld [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC confirmed – No interference warranted by Supreme Court.

Criminal Writ - Child Custody – Removal from Jurisdiction – Foreign Court Orders – Habeas Corpus – Appellant-father, a U.S. citizen, filed habeas corpus petition under Article 32 seeking custody of his minor son, an American national, removed by the respondent-mother to India in violation of U.S. custody orders – Child had been missing for over two years until traced by CBI – Supreme Court held that the natural habitat of the child is the United States and that the custody orders passed by American courts by consent of both parties should be respected – Held: In such cases, courts can exercise summary jurisdiction and order return of the child if no evidence suggests harm in repatriation – Detailed inquiry not warranted where custody arrangements have been judicially settled in the country of habitual residence [Paras 21–23].

Parens Patriae – Comity of Courts – Child’s Welfare Paramount – Supreme Court reviewed international and Indian case law on custody of foreign nationals – Held: Indian courts are not bound to blindly enforce foreign orders, but must give them due weight, especially when they are by consent and there is no evidence that enforcing them would harm the child – Comity of courts demands serious consideration of foreign custody decrees; the paramount consideration remains the welfare of the child [Paras 15, 18–20, 23].

Summary vs. Elaborate Inquiry – Application in International Custody Disputes – Court emphasized that the choice between summary return and full inquiry depends on the time elapsed, child’s integration, and any risk to the child – In this case, despite the child having stayed in India for two years, there was no settled life or roots developed – Child changed multiple schools and was concealed by the mother – Hence, summary return to the USA ordered [Paras 22–23].

Maintainability of Article 32 Petition – Habeas Corpus in Child Custody – Objection regarding maintainability under Article 32 was rejected – Supreme Court held that in exceptional cases involving liberty of minor and breach of foreign court orders, Article 32 jurisdiction is rightly invoked [Para 24].

Appreciation – CBI’s Role – Court commended the Central Bureau of Investigation for tracing the child and mother within two months, enabling the Court to exercise its jurisdiction effectively after years of failure by state police authorities [Para 25].

Decision: Habeas corpus petition allowed – Respondent-mother directed to take the child to the USA within 15 days and report to the competent U.S. court – Petitioner-father directed to bear travel and living expenses and provide assurances regarding non-prosecution – In case of failure by respondent, custody to be handed over to petitioner – No costs imposed – Liberty granted to respondent to approach U.S. court for review of custody [Para 26].

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder of Minor – Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant convicted for kidnapping, rape and brutal murder of a two-year-old child – Recovery of stolen jewellery and frock of the victim under Section 27 Evidence Act – Presence of accused in locality admitted by defence – Medical evidence confirming sexual assault and death by smothering and drowning – Prior convictions for similar offences – Held: Circumstances clearly establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Sections 302, 364, 376, 449, 392 IPC upheld [Paras 2–10].

Evidence – Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Admissibility of Disclosure – Recovery of victim's frock and stolen jewellery from accused following disclosure statement – Recovery corroborated by eyewitnesses – Matching forensic evidence linking fibres from frock to crime scene – Held: Disclosure and recovery legally admissible and credible [Paras 4, 8].

Criminal Sentencing – Death Penalty – Commutation to Life Imprisonment – Though offence gruesome and appellant a repeat sexual offender, sentence of death converted to life imprisonment without remission – Applied ratio of Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka – Held: Crime falls just short of 'rarest of rare' threshold – Life sentence without possibility of release till remainder of natural life appropriate [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction confirmed – Death sentence modified to life imprisonment till end of natural life, without remission [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Murder by Poisoning – Acquittal – Appellant (A-1) convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC after initial conviction under Section 302 IPC – Co-accused (A-2) acquitted – Allegation that both accused conspired to murder deceased by administering sleeping pills (barbiturates) – No conclusive medical evidence of forcible administration – Doctor conducting post-mortem found unreliable and his opinion riddled with contradictions – No injuries suggesting forced ingestion – Evidence showed deceased had swallowed tablets voluntarily – Held: Prosecution failed to establish homicidal poisoning – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 16–23, 36]

Witness Testimony – Reliability of Sole Eyewitness – Key prosecution witness (PW-5), a domestic servant, claimed to have witnessed assault and conspiracy between A-1 and A-2 – Testimony marred by material contradictions, omissions, and admitted coaching – Witness had close connection with complainant’s private investigator – Court found testimony suspicious and unworthy of reliance – Held: Evidence of PW-5 insufficient to base conviction [Paras 24–26]

Motive – Alleged Illicit Relationship – Prosecution theory of motive based on alleged extramarital affair between A-1 and A-2 – No independent corroboration or concrete evidence adduced – Entire motive based on hearsay and assumptions – Court rejected prosecution’s inference of relationship as speculative – Held: Motive not proved [Paras 27–28, 31]

Forensic Evidence – Cause of Death – Chemical analysis revealed barbiturate and alcohol in deceased’s viscera – Doctor admitted it was impossible to distinguish homicidal from suicidal poisoning – Injuries found were minor and unconnected to poisoning – Broken and undissolved tablets found in vomit indicated oral ingestion by deceased – Held: Evidence consistent with suicide – No proof of administration by accused [Paras 16–20]

Criminal Procedure – Investigation – Allegation of Bias – Accusation of dishonest or influenced investigation by police officers – Court examined testimony of investigating officers and found no basis to conclude mala fide or suppression – Officers acted fairly and thoroughly – Held: No reason to discredit investigation [Paras 30, 33]

Decision: Appeal of Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part I IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Appeal against acquittal of A-2 (Assadid Poddar) dismissed – High Court’s finding of acquittal upheld – Both accused discharged from all liabilities [Paras 35–38]

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Delay – Amendment sought by plaintiff in eviction suit rejected by trial court and affirmed by High Court on ground of delay – Supreme Court held delay alone is not a valid ground to reject amendment – Amendment can be allowed even at a late stage if it helps resolve the real controversy between the parties – Courts should lean in favour of rendering full and complete justice – Delay can be compensated by costs – Refusal of amendment solely due to belated filing is unsustainable [Paras 4, 7]

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Nature of Suit – High Court rejected amendment on ground that it would alter nature and character of suit – Supreme Court held that suit was originally filed for eviction based on arrears of rent and would continue to remain so even after amendment – Held: Amendment does not alter fundamental nature or cause of action of the suit – High Court erred in this view [Paras 4, 8]

Civil Procedure – Discretion under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Scope – Wide discretionary powers under Order 6 Rule 17 must be exercised to advance the cause of justice – Application of rigid or hyper-technical rules regarding delay or change in nature is discouraged – Reference made to B.K.N. Narayana Pillai v. P. Pillai supporting liberal approach to amendment of pleadings [Para 7]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of High Court and trial court set aside – Application for amendment of plaint allowed subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 as costs to the respondent – If cost not paid within six weeks, amendment shall stand rejected [Paras 9–10]

Military Law – General Court Martial – Rule 34 of Army Rules – Mandatory Nature – Respondent charged under Army Act and tried by General Court Martial within less than 96 hours from being informed of charges – Supreme Court held that the 96-hour interval stipulated in Rule 34 is mandatory, not directory – Purpose is to ensure fair opportunity to the accused for preparing defence or arranging witnesses – Violation of this mandatory interval vitiates proceedings even if the accused pleads guilty – Court found that trial commenced before expiry of mandatory time period – Held: Proceedings and punishment imposed by GCM were vitiated due to non-compliance with Rule 34 [Paras 13, 22, 25]

Statutory Interpretation – Mandatory vs. Directory Provisions – Use of “shall not be less than” and negative phrasing in Rule 34 indicates a clear legislative intent to make the provision mandatory – Court relied on settled principles and authorities including Crawford’s Statutory Construction and prior Supreme Court rulings – Held: Negative and prohibitory language typically reflects mandatory legislative intent unless context indicates otherwise [Paras 13–22]

Procedural Fairness – Summary Court Martial – Right to Prepare Defence – Supreme Court emphasized that even in disciplinary proceedings, procedural safeguards like minimum time to prepare are vital – Fair opportunity for defence is compromised if accused is arraigned prematurely – Held: Rule 34 protects substantive rights and must be strictly complied with [Paras 22–23]

Plea of Guilty – No Waiver of Mandatory Rule – Respondent’s plea of guilty to charges does not cure the defect of non-compliance with Rule 34 – Court held that mandatory procedural safeguards cannot be waived by plea or conduct when consequences are serious, such as imprisonment and dismissal from service [Para 25]

State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma Distinguished – Ratio that violation of procedural rules must be tested for prejudice held inapplicable – Rule 34 held to be of substantive and mandatory character – Prejudice presumed in case of breach of such provisions [Paras 23–24]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Findings and punishment of General Court Martial quashed – High Court’s order upheld – No costs awarded [Para 26]

Criminal Law – Common Object – Section 149 IPC – Unlawful Assembly – Murder – Land Dispute – Appellants armed with sticks and axes assaulted members of the complainant’s family in connection with a long-standing land dispute – Sukh Lal chased and fatally beaten by multiple assailants – Prosecution proved that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to cause death and bodily harm – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 upheld – Individual overt acts not essential when participation in assembly is proved [Paras 17, 45-49]

Criminal Law – FIR – Delay in Lodging – FIR prepared on the night of the incident but submitted next morning – Explained delay due to late-night incident, presence of injured family members, and death of a relative – Minor delay held not fatal to prosecution – FIR found reliable as corroborated by injured witnesses and medical evidence [Paras 10, 30-35]

Criminal Law – Medical Evidence – Timing of Injuries – Discrepancies in estimated age of injuries explained by doctor due to poor lighting and illness at time of initial examination – Re-examination by Medical Board confirmed timing consistent with prosecution case – Medical opinion held credible and corroborative of eyewitness testimony [Paras 41-43]

Criminal Procedure – Witness Testimony – Injured Eyewitnesses – High probative value – Presence at scene not disputed – Injuries sustained corroborated by medical evidence – Held: No motive to falsely implicate – Evidence found natural, consistent, and credible [Paras 24-29, 34-35]

Criminal Law – Section 149 IPC – Applicability – No requirement of overt act by each member – Once common object is proved and participation established, liability is attracted – Appellants armed and moved together, chased and assaulted victims in group – Held: Common object to commit murder and cause injuries clearly established [Paras 44-49]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and other related offences upheld – Sentence of life imprisonment confirmed – Applications for bail also dismissed [Paras 49-50]

Land Acquisition – Determination of Market Value – Comparable Sale Instances – Deduction for Development Charges – Land acquired for Housing Board Colony at Shoghi, Shimla – Notification under Section 4 dated 06.11.1990 – Land Acquisition Collector awarded Rs. 32,073/- to Rs. 7,785/- per Bigha depending on classification – District Judge enhanced market value to Rs. 2 lakh per Bigha relying on Ext. PW2/A and PW2/B (two sale deeds) – High Court reduced compensation to Rs. 90,000/- per Bigha after relying on exemplars RW3/A, RW4/A and RX, finding them more relevant and deducting 40% towards development charges – Held: Comparable sales method is the most reliable mode for determining market value – High Court rightly preferred sale deeds proximate in time and situation (1988–89) – No infirmity in its reliance on RX as certified copy admissible under Section 51A – Deduction for development justified but should be 30% instead of 40% [Paras 9–21].

Evidence – Sale Deeds – Admissibility of Certified Copies – Section 51A, Land Acquisition Act – Certified copy of registered sale deed admissible as evidence of transaction recorded therein – No requirement for vendor/vendee examination if genuineness not disputed – High Court justified in relying upon such documents [Para 8].

Principles of Valuation – Comparable Sales Method – Conditions – Comparable sales must be genuine, proximate in time, of similar land, in vicinity, and of comparable size – Court to adjust for positive and negative factors – Some guesswork permissible but must lead to fair compensation both to landowner and acquiring body [Paras 10–13].

Deduction for Development – Housing Colony Acquisition – Deduction towards development charges not automatic – Where land situated in semi-developed area near Shimla, deduction of 30% held reasonable instead of 40% applied by High Court [Paras 18–21].

Appellate Interference – Scope – Supreme Court will interfere with High Court’s valuation only if wrong principles applied or relevant factors ignored – In absence of such infirmity, valuation ordinarily not disturbed [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Market value fixed at Rs. 1,05,000/- per Bigha – Statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 28 to be granted – No order as to costs [Paras 21–23].

Civil Procedure – Trademark and Copyright Suits – Expeditious Disposal – Petition against Delhi High Court order restraining the appellants from using the words ‘HARA QILLA’ and device ‘QILLA’ as trademark on rice packaging – Supreme Court observed that in intellectual property matters, litigation often remains confined to interlocutory injunctions for years while the main suit remains undecided – Held: All courts should strictly comply with proviso to Order XVII Rule 1(2) CPC mandating day-to-day hearing once trial begins – In trademark, copyright and patent matters, trial courts must dispose of suits preferably within four months from filing – High Courts requested to ensure compliance [Paras 3–5].

Practice and Procedure – Order XVII Rule 1(2) CPC – Court reiterated that once trial has commenced, adjournments should not be granted except for exceptional reasons recorded in writing – Adherence to clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso is mandatory – Delay in trial defeats the object of justice in commercial and IP matters [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Special Leave Petition disposed of – No interference with High Court’s interim injunction – Trial Court directed to decide the main suit within three months from the date of production of this order [Paras 6–7].