Religious Trust Dispute – Change of Trustees – Jurisdiction of Charity Commissioner – Civil Court Jurisdiction Barred – Judgments Set Aside – The appeal arose from the High Court’s decision upholding approval of a change notice appointing new trustees to the Church of Brethren General Board (India) Trust without proper inquiry – The Supreme Court held that the High Court misinterpreted its earlier ruling in Church of North India case and erred in concluding that issues of trust succession were already adjudicated – Held: All such questions, including merger, succession, and trustee appointments, must be decided by the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trusts Act – High Court and District Judge’s decisions set aside – Charity Commissioner directed to hear all parties and decide all pending issues including earlier change notices [Paras 4, 7, 10, 15, 17-20].

Public Trusts – Change in Trustees – Section 22 of Bombay Public Trusts Act – Mandatory Inquiry Ignored – Approval Set Aside – The Assistant Charity Commissioner approved change notice appointing new trustees without conducting statutory inquiry – Held: Approval granted in breach of procedural requirements – Joint Charity Commissioner was right to remand matter – High Court’s reversal of remand was erroneous [Paras 4, 12].

Succession of Trusts – Interpretation of Clause 9 of Scheme – Determination by Statutory Authority Required – Issue of whether Church of North India was successor to First District Church of Brethren – Held: Clause 9 of the Scheme governs appointment process – Validity of proposed appointments, merger or succession claims must be examined by Charity Commissioner – Civil courts lack jurisdiction to decide such questions [Paras 5-6, 13-15].

Precedent – Church of North India Case – Misapplication by High Court – The High Court wrongly interpreted Supreme Court’s decision in Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai – Held: That case excluded civil court jurisdiction and affirmed the role of Charity Commissioner in trust succession matters – It did not determine that First District Church of Brethren continued to exist – High Court’s findings contradicted its own acknowledgment that dispute was sub judice [Paras 7, 10, 14-15].

Administrative Continuity – Interim Measures – Appointment of Administrator – To ensure effective trust management during pendency of adjudication, Supreme Court directed Charity Commissioner to consider appointing Administrator or Receiver – Meanwhile, Respondent No.1 to continue as trustee [Para 19].

Final Relief – Direction to Decide All Pending Disputes – Orders of High Court and District Judge Set Aside – Supreme Court directed the Charity Commissioner to adjudicate all pending change notices, including those from 1985 to 1991, after giving notice to all concerned parties – Matter to be disposed of preferably within four months [Paras 17-18, 20].

Religious Trust Dispute – Change of Trustees – Jurisdiction of Charity Commissioner – Civil Court Jurisdiction Barred – Judgments Set Aside – The appeal arose from the High Court’s decision upholding approval of a change notice appointing new trustees to the Church of Brethren General Board (India) Trust without proper inquiry – The Supreme Court held that the High Court misinterpreted its earlier ruling in Church of North India case and erred in concluding that issues of trust succession were already adjudicated – Held: All such questions, including merger, succession, and trustee appointments, must be decided by the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trusts Act – High Court and District Judge’s decisions set aside – Charity Commissioner directed to hear all parties and decide all pending issues including earlier change notices [Paras 4, 7, 10, 15, 17-20].

Public Trusts – Change in Trustees – Section 22 of Bombay Public Trusts Act – Mandatory Inquiry Ignored – Approval Set Aside – The Assistant Charity Commissioner approved change notice appointing new trustees without conducting statutory inquiry – Held: Approval granted in breach of procedural requirements – Joint Charity Commissioner was right to remand matter – High Court’s reversal of remand was erroneous [Paras 4, 12].

Succession of Trusts – Interpretation of Clause 9 of Scheme – Determination by Statutory Authority Required – Issue of whether Church of North India was successor to First District Church of Brethren – Held: Clause 9 of the Scheme governs appointment process – Validity of proposed appointments, merger or succession claims must be examined by Charity Commissioner – Civil courts lack jurisdiction to decide such questions [Paras 5-6, 13-15].

Precedent – Church of North India Case – Misapplication by High Court – The High Court wrongly interpreted Supreme Court’s decision in Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai – Held: That case excluded civil court jurisdiction and affirmed the role of Charity Commissioner in trust succession matters – It did not determine that First District Church of Brethren continued to exist – High Court’s findings contradicted its own acknowledgment that dispute was sub judice [Paras 7, 10, 14-15].

Administrative Continuity – Interim Measures – Appointment of Administrator – To ensure effective trust management during pendency of adjudication, Supreme Court directed Charity Commissioner to consider appointing Administrator or Receiver – Meanwhile, Respondent No.1 to continue as trustee [Para 19].

Final Relief – Direction to Decide All Pending Disputes – Orders of High Court and District Judge Set Aside – Supreme Court directed the Charity Commissioner to adjudicate all pending change notices, including those from 1985 to 1991, after giving notice to all concerned parties – Matter to be disposed of preferably within four months [Paras 17-18, 20].

Criminal Law – Murder - Dying Declaration – Sole Basis of Conviction – Section 32 of the Evidence Act – Conviction Upheld – Deceased suffered 90% burns and made two consistent dying declarations to a Magistrate and a police officer – Both declarations made in presence of doctor and translated from Telugu to Tamil – Held: Declarations were voluntary, medically certified, and trustworthy – Sole basis of conviction permissible when statements are reliable and free from tutoring – Conviction under Sections 302 and 449 IPC upheld [Paras 3, 6–8, 12–13].

Procedure – Recording of Dying Declaration – Use of Translation – Validity Not Affected – Magistrate did not know Telugu and relied on doctor’s translation – Held: No illegality where translation was done faithfully, read back to the deceased, and acknowledged by her – No evidence of prompting, fabrication, or misunderstanding – Minor discrepancy in name splitting (Ravi, Kumar) explained and immaterial to outcome [Paras 7–10].

Contradictory Entry – Accident Register vs. Dying Declaration – No Effect – Defence plea of suicide based on overwritten entry in Accident Register rejected – Doctor (PW-9) clarified that initial entry was made without full knowledge and corrected later – Dying declarations corroborated by eyewitness and medical evidence – Entry in register insufficient to override dying declaration and conviction [Para 11].

Corroboration – Not Mandatory – But Present – Rule of prudence – Though not required, the dying declarations were corroborated by eyewitness PW-2 who saw accused fleeing and victim in flames – Accused’s motive and prior advances also deposed to – Strengthens prosecution case [Paras 3, 9].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed concurrent findings of Sessions Court and High Court – Dying declarations held credible and sufficient for conviction – No reason to interfere with life sentence under Section 302 IPC and 10-year sentence under Section 449 IPC [Paras 13].

Compulsory Registration of Marriage – Public Interest and Legal Certainty – Marriage Registration Made Mandatory – Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the issue while hearing a transfer petition – Held: Registration of marriages is essential for legal proof, curbing child marriages, ensuring rights of women, and preventing denial of marriage – Directed all States and Union Territories to frame or amend rules within three months making registration of marriages compulsory irrespective of religion – Directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution in the absence of uniform national legislation [Paras 1–3, 17–18].

Vital Statistics – Scope of Entry 30 of List III – Marriage Registration Included – Court held that ‘vital statistics’ under Entry 30 of the Concurrent List includes registration of marriages – This allows both the State and Central Governments to legislate on the subject – Harmonisation with personal laws permitted provided registration does not interfere with customs and rites [Para 4–5].

Women's Rights – Impact of Non-Registration – Non-registration Disproportionately Affects Women – Non-registration denies women the ability to claim maintenance, residence, inheritance, and matrimonial rights – Also hinders prevention of illegal bigamy and child marriages – National Commission for Women supported compulsory registration as a gender justice measure [Paras 13, 15–16].

Personal Laws – Registration Does Not Affect Validity – Evidentiary Value of Registration Recognised – Court clarified that registration does not determine the validity of marriage per se – However, it serves as important evidence for determining matrimonial status, legitimacy of children, age at marriage, and other civil consequences – It creates a rebuttable presumption of marriage [Paras 15–16].

Final Directions – Mandatory Implementation by States – Supreme Court directed all States/UTs to amend or frame Rules under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act or equivalent laws – Directed public notification, consultation, and appointment of registration officers – Further directed Central Government to place any proposed uniform marriage registration legislation before the Court for scrutiny – Registry directed to serve copy of judgment to the Solicitor General [Paras 17–19].

Civil Law - Caste Status - Scheduled Tribe Status – Offspring of Tribal Mother & Non-Tribal Father – Constitutional Scheme (Arts. 341, 342, 15(4), 16(4)) – ST Certificate Quashed – Appellant born to ST mother (Oraon) and forward-class father (Kayastha) claimed ST status based on a certificate and alleged community acceptance – Held: ST status is not acquired by mere parentage from a tribal mother where the father is non-tribal and the child is brought up in forward-class environment; condition precedent is suffering the cumulative social, educational and economic disabilities of the tribe; “transplantation” into ST by marriage/adoption without disabilities would be a fraud on the Constitution – Appeal dismissed with costs; ST certificate dated 07.08.1992 quashed [Paras 1-3, 6, 8, 11-13, 14-15].

Executive Circulars – Not “Law” under Article 13 – MHA Circular dated 04.03.1975 cannot override constitutional and judicial requirements for ST recognition – Facts here do not meet even the circular’s own conditions (no proven community acceptance) [Para 4].

Community Acceptance & Environment – Court Marriage outside village; residence and upbringing in non-tribal milieu – Casual visits to maternal village do not establish tribal environment or acceptance; concept of “tribe” entails common descent, territory, culture, and social organization [Paras 5-7].

Reservation Philosophy – Prevention of Dilution/Usurpation – Benefits under Arts. 15(4), 16(4), 16(4A) target historically disadvantaged groups; allowing forward-class entrants via marriage/parentage without disabilities undermines Articles 14, 21 and the goals of Articles 39, 46 [Paras 8, 11-13].

Fraudulent Caste Certificates – Strong Disapproval – Admissions/appointments obtained on fake/invalid caste certificates deprive genuine ST candidates; authorities must rigorously verify disability criteria; routine issuance is dereliction of constitutional duty [Paras 9-10, 13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – ST certificate dated 07.08.1992 set aside; appeal dismissed with costs [Paras 14-15].

Injunction – Interim Mandatory Relief – Jurisdictional Error – Orders Set Aside – The plaintiff, claiming tenancy under an unregistered document, sought restoration of possession via interim mandatory injunction – Trial court initially declined ex parte injunction, but District Court later granted interim relief without proper findings – Supreme Court held that findings on possession and dispossession were jurisdictionally necessary for grant of such extraordinary relief – Held: Interim mandatory injunction passed without proper basis or evidence – Orders of District Court and High Court set aside – Trial court directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously [Paras 1, 4-5, 9-11, 15].

Possession – Requirement for Mandatory Injunction – Prima Facie Case Not Made Out – The plaintiff alleged he was dispossessed after order for status quo – However, no clear evidence was led, and trial court failed to examine oral evidence or possession on date of order – Held: Absence of findings on possession and dispossession makes mandatory injunction unsustainable – No jurisdiction to grant interim relief without such findings [Paras 6, 9-10, 13].

Evidence and Procedure – Status Quo Order – Ambiguity – Interim Relief Misapplied – The appellate court directed parties to maintain status quo without defining nature of status – Supreme Court held such ambiguous directions are inappropriate, especially at ex parte stage – Held: Appellate court exceeded scope of appeal, which was limited to denial of ex parte injunction – Findings on possession were prerequisite before considering restoration by interim mandatory injunction [Paras 4, 7].

Constitution – Article 227 – High Court’s Jurisdiction – Failure to Exercise Proper Scrutiny – Supreme Court held that High Court under Article 227 failed to examine whether District Court had rendered jurisdictionally valid findings before granting relief – Held: High Court erred in not correcting jurisdictional defect despite being empowered to do so [Paras 11-12].

Tenancy and Title – Unregistered Lease Document – Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act – Genuineness in Doubt – The alleged lease agreement was unregistered and executed on letterhead of a different legal entity – Supreme Court held that validity of tenancy and authenticity of document required trial – Held: Prima facie, lease not proved – Claim of possession not established [Para 6].

Final Relief – Orders Set Aside – Suit to Proceed – Possession to be Restored to Defendants – Directions Issued – Supreme Court allowed the appeal – Directed restitution of possession to defendants – Defendants restrained from creating third-party interests – Trial court directed to dispose of the suit and pending injunction application expeditiously and uninfluenced by interim observations [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – Acquittal Reversed – Section 149 IPC Applied – Convictions Affirmed – In a group assault by a 27-member unlawful assembly, the Trial Court acquitted all on tenuous grounds (enmity, lack of “independent” witnesses, minor discrepancies). The High Court, after granting limited leave u/s 378(3) CrPC against five named assailants, convicted four (Kallu, Shafi, Madaniya, Bhuria) for offences under Sections 326/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC—Held: High Court rightly interfered; injured eyewitness testimony inspired confidence; minor inconsistencies immaterial; Section 149 attracted though only four ultimately convicted since participation of ≥5 assailants was firmly proved—Appeal dismissed [Paras 4-6, 8-16, 17-19, 20].

Appeals against Acquittal – Appellate Interference – Test – Power to reappreciate evidence exists but should not be routine—interference justified where Trial Court view is perverse/unreasonable or ignores material evidence—High Court gave cogent reasons; reversal sustained [Paras 7-8, 14-16].

Evidence – Injured Eyewitnesses – Minor Discrepancies – Not Fatal – PWs 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 (injured) consistently implicated appellants; PW-3 corroborated assembly and weapons—minor variations on exact spot/sequence or who landed which blow do not erode core—Masalti principle applied where precise allocation of roles in mob crimes is impracticable [Paras 9-13, 14-15].

Common Object – Section 149 IPC – Conviction of Fewer than Five – Still Permissible – Where evidence shows unlawful assembly of five or more, subsequent acquittal of some (or grant of leave only as to some) does not negate Section 149 for those proved guilty—Distinction between doubt about identity of some participants and doubt about total number of participants reiterated—Mohan Singh; Ram Bilas Singh; Dharam Pal followed [Paras 17-19].

Section 378(3) CrPC – Limited Leave – Effect – Grant of leave against selected accused (those specifically attributed overt acts) does not undermine finding that the unlawful assembly comprised more than five persons; vicarious liability under Section 149 may rest on that proved fact matrix [Paras 4, 19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s conviction and sentences (RI two years with fine under S.326/149; RI one year with fine under S.324/149; RI six months with fine under S.323/149; concurrent; set-off) upheld [Paras 5-6, 20].

Criminal Law - Sanction for Prosecution – Scope of Section 197 CrPC – Police Officer Acting in Discharge of Official Duties – Cognizance Quashed – Magistrate took cognizance against a police officer for alleged unlawful search without warrant – High Court held sanction under Section 197 CrPC not required – Held: Act of search was reasonably connected to discharge of official duty – Absence of search warrant alone cannot override statutory protection – High Court erred in not considering full factual matrix – Cognizance set aside [Paras 1-2, 18].

Protection to Public Servants – Nature and Purpose of Section 197 CrPC – Statutory Protection Upheld – Section 197 intends to protect public servants from vexatious criminal prosecution for acts done in official capacity – If act has reasonable connection to official duty, sanction is mandatory – Excess of duty does not forfeit protection if act is within scope of employment – Doctrine clarified through various precedents – Narrow interpretation would defeat legislative intent [Paras 4-10].

Interpretation – Acts in Discharge or Purported Discharge of Official Duty – Broad and Purposive Interpretation Required – The act need not be strictly lawful if done under colour of office – Absence of warrant not sufficient to negate official nature of the act – Key test is whether act is linked to official function or duty – Court must not allow complaint to proceed if protection under Section 197 applies [Paras 5-9].

Retired Officers – Sanction Requirement Applies Post Retirement – Expanded Scope of Section 197 – Amendment to Section 197 covers both serving and retired public servants – Protection under Section 197 extends even if accused has retired at the time of cognizance – Consistent with Law Commission recommendation and public interest in preventing misuse of process [Paras 11-17].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s finding that sanction under Section 197 was not required found incorrect – Order of Magistrate taking cognizance quashed – Clarified that findings limited to applicability of Section 197 – Other allegations, if any, to be considered at appropriate stage [Para 18].

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code - Rape by Father – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Conviction Restored – Accused charged with raping his minor daughter at night after bolting the room – Trial Court convicted based on testimony of prosecutrix and supporting evidence – High Court acquitted relying on absence of medical corroboration and spermatozoa – Held: High Court committed grave error in law and fact – Sole testimony of prosecutrix sufficient if found credible – Acquittal reversed [Paras 1–6, 11, 16].

Credibility of Prosecutrix – No Motive for False Implication – Reiterated that a minor girl would not falsely implicate her father in a rape case, bringing shame to herself and her family – Allegation that complaint was fabricated due to strained relationship between parents rejected – Held: Testimony of prosecutrix, supported by sister and mother, inspires confidence and is unimpeached in cross-examination [Paras 6, 12–13].

Medical Evidence – Not a Prerequisite for Conviction – Doctors found abrasions and bloodstains on prosecutrix’s clothes and signs of recent intercourse – Absence of spermatozoa or hymen rupture not fatal – Courts must consider overall testimony and circumstantial medical support – Minor discrepancies immaterial [Paras 8–9, 14].

Corroboration – Not Mandatory in Rape Cases – Conviction can be based solely on credible statement of prosecutrix – Corroboration is a rule of prudence, not law – Particularly when survivor is a minor and testifies consistently and truthfully – Courts cautioned not to overlook broader probabilities and social context [Paras 5, 13–15].

Quantum of Sentence – Rarest of Rare – Life Imprisonment Justified – Held: Offence committed by father against his own daughter is gravest violation of trust – More heinous than murder – Grave psychological trauma and social stigma suffered by victim – Trial Court’s sentence of 5 years modified and enhanced to life imprisonment – Fine enhanced from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 25,000 payable to prosecutrix [Paras 17–19].

Decision – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Conviction and Sentence Enhanced – Supreme Court allowed the appeal – Restored Trial Court’s conviction under Section 376 IPC – Enhanced sentence from 5 years to life imprisonment – Fine increased to ₹25,000 to be paid to victim – Respondent on bail directed to be taken into custody immediately – Compliance to be reported within one month [Paras 16–19].