Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Interference by Appellate Court – Appellant along with four co-accused charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder – Trial Court acquitted all accused holding prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – State appealed – High Court maintained acquittal of four accused but reversed acquittal of appellant and convicted him under Section 302 IPC – Held: High Court not justified in interfering – Trial Court’s approach proper and findings not perverse – In appeal against acquittal, interference permissible only when findings are manifestly illegal or perverse – FIR lodged against unknown persons as eye-witnesses did not disclose names of accused despite meeting informant before lodging report – Serious infirmity in prosecution case – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 2–3].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Reappreciation of evidence by High Court cannot justify reversal of well-reasoned acquittal unless findings of Trial Court are wholly unreasonable or perverse – Acquittal restored [Paras 3–4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment convicting appellant under Section 302 IPC set aside – Trial Court’s acquittal restored – Appellant discharged from bail bonds [Paras 4–5].

Juvenile Justice – Claim of Juvenility – Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act – Appellant convicted under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Plea raised for the first time before the Supreme Court that the appellant was below 18 years of age on the date of offence (28.08.2002) – Held: In view of the proviso to Section 7A(1), claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case – Court competent to entertain the plea and determine the question of age [Paras 4, 7].

Evidence – Age Determination – Inquiry under Section 7A – Report from school showing date of birth as 15.12.1987 – Incident dated 28.08.2002 – Appellant about 15 years old at that time – Report found genuine and unchallenged by State – Held: Appellant was juvenile within meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act [Paras 8-10].

Sentence – Effect of Finding Juvenility – Section 15(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice Act – Maximum period of confinement in special home limited to three years – Appellant having already undergone imprisonment beyond that period – Conviction sustained but sentence quashed – Appellant directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 10-12].

Precedents – Application – Followed Pawan v. State of Uttaranchal and Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar – Affirmed principle that plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage and that upon establishing juvenility, sentence must be set aside though conviction may stand [Paras 7, 11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Sentence set aside – Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Procedure – Warrant Case on Complaint – Framing of Charge – Applicability of Section 245(2) and 246(1) CrPC – Appellant, Director of Indian School of Mines, prosecuted for conspiracy to use forged document in judicial proceedings – Trial Court dismissed discharge application under Section 245(2) and framed charge without recording evidence – Held: In complaint cases, Magistrate must record evidence under Section 244 before framing charge under Section 246(1) – Charge framed without evidence is premature and violates right of accused to seek discharge [Paras 13–27]

Criminal Procedure – Discharge in Warrant Cases – Section 245(2) CrPC – Application for discharge prior to recording of prosecution evidence is maintainable – Magistrate has discretion to discharge accused at any earlier stage if charge appears groundless – However, if discharge is rejected, Magistrate must follow procedure under Section 244 and record evidence before framing charge [Paras 15–19]

Criminal Procedure – Framing of Charge – Section 246(1) CrPC – Phrase “or at any previous stage” – Interpreted to mean any point after some prosecution evidence is recorded under Section 244 – Charge cannot be framed solely on complaint without any supporting evidence – Interpretation upheld to prevent denial of cross-examination and ensure fairness in trial [Paras 22–26]

Judicial Process – Abuse of Process – Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC – Initiated against appellant based on alleged use of forged document in counter affidavit – Appellant denied knowledge of forged letter – Cognizance taken on court complaint – No direct evidence against appellant prior to charge framing – Magistrate and High Court erred in not considering right to discharge and not following proper trial procedure [Paras 2–12]

Relief – Order framing charge quashed – Matter remanded to Trial Court – Prosecution directed to lead evidence under Section 244(1) – Trial Court to decide afresh whether charge is to be framed after considering such evidence [Para 29]

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Order framing charge quashed – Trial Court directed to record evidence under Section 244(1) CrPC and thereafter decide afresh whether charge should be framed under Section 246(1).

Service Law – Lien – Retention of Lien in Parent Department – Respondent appointed temporarily as Homeopathic Doctor in 1980 under ESI Scheme while retaining lien in Economics & Statistics Department – Continued in said post till retirement in 1994 without confirmation – Held: Lien cannot be terminated unless permanent appointment made in new post – Respondent entitled to service benefits, promotions and pension from parent department [Paras 11-16]

Rajasthan Service Rules – Rule 18 – Interpretation – Rule 18 prohibits termination of lien if it would leave employee without a lien on a permanent post – Lien terminates only upon acquiring a lien in another permanent post – Held: No material to show respondent was permanently appointed in new post – Lien continued in original cadre [Paras 11-12]

Service Law – Deputation and Substantive Appointment – Deputation to another department does not affect lien in parent department unless permanent appointment is made – Temporary service for long duration does not amount to substantive appointment – Respondent never acquired lien in ESI post – Parent department continued to recognise his position and rights [Paras 13-15]

Pension and Promotion – Protection of Service Rights – Respondent entitled to claim promotions and pensionary benefits from parent department based on uninterrupted lien – High Court rightly granted reliefs – State barred from denying benefits after accepting respondent’s option and continued recognition [Paras 15-16]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Respondent held entitled to service benefits, promotions, and pension from parent department – No order as to costs [Para 17]

NDPS Act – Search and Seizure – Compliance with Mandatory Provisions – Violation of Sections 42(2) and 50(4) – Police officers of Kapurthala conducting raid in Amritsar district without informing local police – Female accused personally searched by male officers – Non-compliance with statutory safeguards renders search illegal and recovery unreliable – Held: Conviction unsustainable [Paras 10, 16–17].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Discovery Statements – Recovery allegedly based on disclosure by co-accused Gurlal Singh – Statement not recorded in writing and discovery not proved – Held: Discovery inadmissible against respondents – Absence of independent corroboration fatal to prosecution [Paras 13, 15].

Criminal Law – Conscious Possession – Mere presence of accused ladies in house where contraband found beneath bed does not establish conscious possession – Prosecution failed to prove knowledge or control – Failure to record statements of accused or show their involvement – Acquittal justified [Paras 14–15].

Criminal Procedure – Independent Witnesses – None examined though available – No explanation by prosecution – Doubt on fairness of investigation – Contradictory evidence on presence of lady constable (ASI Rajinder Kaur) – Prosecution case doubtful [Paras 15–16].

Constitution of India – Article 136 – Scope of Interference with Acquittal – When two views are reasonably possible, Supreme Court should not interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse or manifestly illegal – Applied Rangaiah v. State of Karnataka – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12, 18–19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – No interference warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution [Para 19].

Labour Law – Gratuity – Service Compensation – Constitutionality – Sections 47(3) & 47(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 challenged as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 19(1)(g) – Provisions allowed payment of service compensation (15 days’ wages per year of service) to employees with only one year’s service or less, including those who resigned or voluntarily ceased work after 60 years – Held: “Service compensation” under Section 47(3) is in substance gratuity – Reducing qualifying service to one year destroys the principle that gratuity is a reward for long and meritorious service – Such provision unreasonable and arbitrary [Paras 13–16].

Constitutional Law – Equality – Discrimination between similarly situated employees – Factory employees under the Factories Act eligible for gratuity only after 5 years’ continuous service, whereas clerical/administrative employees under the Shops Act could claim after one year – Held: Such differential treatment between employees similarly situated in nature of employment is discriminatory and violates Article 14 [Paras 14–15].

Legislative Competence – Repugnancy under Article 254(2) – State Act and Central Payment of Gratuity Act occupy the same field – Mere Presidential assent to the State Act not sufficient to save it when conflict with Central law not brought to the President’s notice – Article 254(2) cannot validate provisions directly inconsistent with the Central Act [Paras 22–23].

Labour Welfare – Reasonableness of Restriction – Section 47(4), providing for payment of wages from termination till actual payment of service compensation, per se unreasonable and capable of abuse – Cosmetic change from earlier unconstitutional Section 40(3) of 1966 Act does not cure defect – Provision invalid [Paras 17, 23].

Interpretation of Labour Statutes – Concept of Gratuity – Gratuity is a statutory reward for long and continuous service – Court must “lift the veil” to determine true nature of legislation – Misnaming “gratuity” as “service compensation” cannot disguise its substance [Paras 13–16, citing Peerless General Finance].

Doctrine of Occupied Field – Both the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 operate in same field – Hence State provisions struck down as repugnant [Para 23].

Held: Sections 47(3) and 47(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 declared unconstitutional, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment affirmed [Para 24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Deviation from Contractual Clause – Clause 64 of the railway contract provided for a three-member Arbitral Tribunal consisting of serving Gazetted Railway officers – Respondent sought arbitration in 1999 but arbitration proceedings were repeatedly stalled due to resignations and non-cooperation from Railways – High Court appointed retired Judge of Delhi High Court as sole Arbitrator – Held: In light of delays and non-functioning of contractual tribunal, appointment of independent sole Arbitrator justified – No interference warranted under Article 136 [Paras 3–9, 13].

Section 11 – Judicial Power to Appoint Arbitrators – Court held that while contractual procedure should generally be followed, Chief Justice or designate under Section 11 has discretion to appoint alternative arbitrator when party-nominated tribunal fails due to delay or lack of independence and impartiality – Appointment of retired Judge valid where contractual mechanism became unworkable [Paras 7–9].

Public Contracts – Use of Serving Officers as Arbitrators – Court noted that appointment of serving officers as arbitrators creates resistance due to concerns of bias – Recommended that government and PSUs phase out such clauses to promote impartiality and professionalism in arbitration – Emphasis placed on independence and neutrality in modern arbitration practice [Para 11].

Arbitration Costs – Escalation in Fees – Court expressed concern over high cost of arbitration when retired Judges are appointed – Noted that arbitrator’s fees often become excessive, especially when fixed unilaterally – Highlighted need for institutional arbitration or fee regulation – Suggested courts fix arbitrator fees during appointment or that retired Judges declare fee structures in advance – Urged self-regulation to ensure affordability and credibility of arbitration process [Para 10].

Institutional Arbitration – Fee Regulation – Court endorsed institutional arbitration as a method to address cost concerns – Institutions offer transparent and uniform fee structures and administrative control – Suggested courts and arbitrators adopt best practices to prevent cost inflation and preserve arbitration's efficacy [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appointment of retired Judge as sole Arbitrator upheld – Court found no violation in bypassing Clause 64 due to inordinate delays and repeated failures by Railways to constitute arbitral tribunal – High Court’s fee direction (Rs. 10,000 per sitting, max Rs. 1,50,000 plus clerkage, shared equally) accepted.

Criminal Law – Common Object – Murder – Section 149 IPC – Appellants convicted for double murder arising out of long-standing family enmity – Deceased persons were attacked in two successive incidents by a group armed with deadly weapons – Trial court and High Court found all accused shared common object and participated in the crime – Held: Even in absence of specific overt acts by some accused, their presence with weapons and conduct indicated common object to commit murder – Conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC upheld [Paras 4–7, 21–23, 35–36]

Evidence Act – Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility – Eye-witnesses were relatives of deceased – Presence corroborated by medical evidence and FIR – Injured eyewitness (PW-5) found to have genuine injury – Evidence found trustworthy and consistent – Held: Merely being related to the deceased does not disqualify a witness – Their testimonies cannot be discarded in absence of cogent reasons [Paras 21–22, 24–26]

Criminal Procedure – Medical Evidence vs Ocular Evidence – Presence of semi-digested food in stomach of deceased alleged to contradict time of death – Held: Digestive process depends on many factors – Medical evidence not conclusive to reject consistent and credible ocular evidence [Paras 27–28]

Criminal Procedure – Delay in Examination of Witnesses – Delay in recording statements explained by Investigating Officer – No question put in cross-examination regarding delay for some witnesses – Held: Delay in itself not fatal unless linked with false implication or unfair investigation [Paras 30–32]

Criminal Procedure – Inquest Report – Non-Mention of Accused’s Name – Not Fatal – Purpose of inquest under Section 174 CrPC is to ascertain apparent cause of death – Not meant to record detailed circumstances or fix liability [Paras 33]

Criminal Law – Compounding of Offences – Section 320 CrPC – Application for compounding double murder rejected – Alleged settlement between families post-incident not sufficient to override mandatory legal bar on compounding offences under Section 302 IPC – Held: Murder is a crime against society and cannot be settled privately – Interlocutory applications for compromise and impleadment dismissed [Paras 16–18, 37–38]

Criminal Appeal – No Interference Warranted – Findings of fact by trial court and High Court based on consistent and credible evidence – Plea of alibi disbelieved – Appeal dismissed [Paras 39]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences confirmed – Interlocutory applications for impleadment and acceptance of compromise also dismissed as not maintainable.

Criminal Law – Murder – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Applicability – Appellant convicted for murdering deceased Kaluram by inflicting a knife blow on his chest – defence plea that incident occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation and hence case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Held: Exception 4 applies only when death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner, and (d) the fight being mutual – Mere verbal altercation or resistance to illegal search not sufficient – No evidence of mutual provocation or sudden fight – Offender armed and took undue advantage – Exception 4 not attracted [Paras 6–8].

Evidence – Nature of Incident – Prompt FIR – Weapon Recovery – Occurrence took place at 10:15 p.m. – FIR lodged promptly at 2:30 a.m. – Recovery of knife at appellant’s instance, found stained with human blood – corroborated prosecution version – Conviction sustainable [Paras 3, 5, 8].

Murder – Intention and Knowledge – Fatal Injury – Single stab wound penetrated pericardium and lung causing death – fatal blow on vital part of body shows clear intention to cause death or injury sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death – Conviction under Section 302 IPC justified [Paras 7–8].

Doctrine – Sudden Fight and Provocation – Distinction between Exception 1 and Exception 4 clarified – While Exception 1 relates to total loss of self-control due to provocation, Exception 4 applies where both parties share blame in a sudden fight without premeditation – In absence of reciprocal aggression or heat of passion, benefit of Exception 4 cannot be extended [Paras 6–7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment affirmed.