Criminal Appeal – Rape and Murder – Allegations of rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl – Appellant lured the victim to his house to watch TV – Victim went missing, and her dead body was later found in the appellant's room – Co-accused also involved – High Court convicted the appellant  – Appeal against the judgment of the High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence – Submission that the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence – Failure to conduct a medical examination of the accused under Section 53A of CrPC – Alleged confession of a co-accused made in the presence of police officers – Inadequate 313 examination of the accused – Flaws in the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court – Mitigating circumstances – Court's analysis of the submissions and arguments. [Para 13-17]

Investigation Lapses – Serious lapses in the investigation – Failure to obtain a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report – Failure to conduct a medical examination of the accused – Lapses in the examination of physical evidence – Examination of accused by a registered medical practitioner under Section 53 of the CrPC – Failure to obtain DNA profiling evidence – Adverse inference – Importance of DNA evidence in cases of rape.

High Court's Approach – High Court proceeded on the assumption that the appellant alone committed the crime – Neglected the presence of a co-accused – Lack of consideration for the entire evidentiary landscape.

High Court's failure to consider the presence of a co-accused and the lapses in the investigation cast doubt on the conviction – Serious flaws in the investigation and failure to procure crucial evidence require reconsideration of the appellant's guilt – Appeal allowed, and the matter remitted for a fresh trial. [Para 18-29]

Criminal Procedure - statement under Section 313 CrPC recorded - Appellant's response to incriminating circumstances - Additional circumstances relied upon by the Trial Court - Appellant not confronted with these circumstances during examination - Investigation records reveal important contradictions - Failure of defense counsel, public prosecutor, and presiding officer to address these contradictions - Interpretation of Section 162 of the CrPC and Section 145 of the Evidence Act regarding the use of police statements for contradiction - Duty of the Court to ensure proper examination of witnesses regarding contradictory statements - Importance of reviewing police papers to verify witness consistency - Necessity for a fair and just procedure in criminal trials. [Para 30-48]

Criminal Procedure – Role of the High Court in confirmation cases involving the death penalty – Duty to examine the reference comprehensively – Obligation to consider various aspects including the nature of the crime, the convict's intent, the impact on the victim and society, the conduct of the convict, and past history – Importance of ensuring that the decision instills confidence and serves as a deterrent – High Court's responsibility under Sections 366, 367, 368, 370, and 392 of the CrPC – Need for an independent examination and not relying solely on concessions made by counsel – Duty to act in a manner that upholds the principles of justice and fairness. [Para 57-63]

Concept of Fair Trial – deeply rooted in history, enshrined in the Constitution, and embodied in criminal trial statutes - A fair trial is essential for justice to prevail, ensuring that no innocent person is punished and the guilty are held accountable. India follows the accusatorial or adversarial system of common law, where the accused is presumed innocent, and both the prosecution and defense present their cases - Impartiality and fairness of all parties involved, including the judge, defense counsel, and public prosecutor, are fundamental for a fair trial. [Para 64-69]

Role of the Judge – A judge's role in ensuring a fair trial is crucial - must actively participate in proceedings, taking an interest in uncovering the truth and maintaining impartiality - They are not mere spectators or recording machines but play an active role in questioning witnesses, seeking relevant information, and upholding the pursuit of truth and justice - concept of the independence of the judiciary is vital to ensure judges' ability to objectively evaluate and apply the law without external influence. [Para 70-72]

Decision – sets aside the High Court's decision and remits the case for reconsideration - justice is not merely about courtroom proceedings but about the outcome that ensures truth and fairness. It also urges the High Court to expedite the case, considering the appellant's long incarceration, and suggests appointing legal representation for the appellant if necessary. The judgment's essence is captured in the quote, "Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in the courtroom; Justice is what comes out of a courtroom." [Para 73-79]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 307 IPC – Appeal arises from the High Court’s judgment confirming the Trial Court’s conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder – Issue limited to the quantum of sentence. [Para 1-3, 10]

Prosecution Case – Attack on Complainant – Appellant, along with other co-accused, allegedly attacked the complainant, causing injuries – FIR registered under Section 307 IPC – Investigation led to chargesheet against the appellant and co-accused. [Para 4-5]

Evidence – Corroboration of Complainant’s Statement – Testimonies of eye-witnesses and medical reports corroborate the complainant’s statement – Trial Court convicted the appellant based on the evidence. [Para 6-9]

Sentencing Principles – Aggravating and Mitigating Factors – Court emphasizes the need to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors while sentencing – References to previous judgments on the philosophy and objectives behind sentencing. [Para 11-17]

Mitigating Circumstances – No Criminal Antecedents and Old Enmity – Appellant had no prior criminal record and the incident occurred due to old enmity related to land – Co-accused acquitted. [Para 21-22]

Decision – Sentence Reduction – Sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment reduced to 3 years, with a fine of Rs. 50,000 to be paid as compensation to the complainant – Appeal partly allowed. [Para 23-24]

Cooperative Societies – U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 – Challenge to the High Court’s order allowing writ petitions against the cancellation of a sale deed – Society’s failure to provide evidence for allegations – Appeals dismissed. [Para 1, 10, 17]

Bye-Laws – Eligibility for Allotment – Clause 5(1) and 3(10) of the society’s bye-laws – Requirement that a member or their family should not own any building or plot in the area of operation – Society failed to prove violation. [Para 12-14]

Arbitration – Award declaring sale deed null and void – Lack of evidence to support society’s allegations – High Court set aside the award and appellate order. [Para 6-9, 15-16]

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Society failed to furnish evidence before the arbitrator to substantiate its allegations – High Court’s finding in favor of the respondents. [Para 14-16]

Ownership – Definition of ‘Family’ under Bye-Laws – Husband, wife, and dependent minor children – No evidence to prove that Krishna Pal Singh or his successors owned any other property in the area of operation. [Para 3, 13, 16]

Decision – Appeals lack merit due to society’s failure to substantiate allegations – High Court’s judgment upheld – Appeals dismissed with no orders as to costs. [Para 17]

Civil Appeal – Recruitment to Ministerial Group “C” Posts – Appellants aggrieved by denial of promotion despite seniority – Case revolves around the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group “C” Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001. [Para 1-3]

Promotion Criteria – Rule 5 of the said Rules – Specifies that 20% of vacancies shall be filled by promotion from Group “D” employees, with 15% from those who have passed High School and 5% from those who have passed Intermediate examinations. [Para 2, 4]

High Court’s Decision – Dismissal of writ petition – High Court held that Rule 5 only prescribes the source of recruitment, and those who obtained higher marks were promoted. [Para 3]

Supreme Court’s Observation – Lack of promotions since 2015 – Despite vacancies, no promotions conducted in line with Rule 5 of the said Rules, affecting appellants and others similarly situated. [Para 6-8]

Article 142 – Special Direction – Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 142 to direct promotion of four candidates immediately below those promoted in 2014, specifying that this shall not be treated as a precedent. [Para 9-11]

Time Frame – State of Uttar Pradesh directed to take necessary action within two months. [Para 10]

Writ Petition – Petitioner seeks the setting aside of the termination order that removed him from the strength of the respondent-BSF after a post-recruitment medical diagnosis of bone tuberculosis (TB). [Para 1]

Medical Examination – Conflict between the petitioner’s fitness assessment by PGI, Chandigarh, and the respondent’s medical board, with the latter declaring the petitioner unfit for basic training. [Para 2-4]

Recruitment Eligibility – Respondents concede that the petitioner did not suffer from the diagnosed ailment at the time of recruitment, but contracted it after joining service. [Para 6]

Legal Precedents – Petitioner relies on various Supreme Court judgments to argue against the unfairness of being terminated for a condition contracted after joining service. [Para 3, 7]

Unfair Treatment – Court finds it unjust to terminate an employee who met all the recruitment criteria but contracted a disease after joining service. [Para 7]

Direction – Court orders the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s employment for a post other than that of Constable and to issue a speaking order after an opportunity for a hearing is provided – The court directs the reconsideration process to be completed within 06 months from the date of judgment.   [Para 8]

Mitakshara Coparcenary – Succession – Examination of the intricate issue of inheritance of Mitakshara coparcenary property – Parties Involved – Kesar Bai's demand for partition – Appellant, Derha Ram, succeeding to her estate – Civil Suit No. 146A of 1991 initiated. [Para 3-4]

Court Findings – Trial Court decreeing 1/3rd share for appellant in agricultural land and house properties – Appeal dismissed by Appellate Court. [Para 4-5]

High Court Decision – Reduction of appellant's share to 1/6th – Special leave appeal filed. [Para 6]

Arguments Rejected – Appellant's claim that properties are not coparcenary properties dismissed – Stand inconsistent with original plaintiff’s pleadings. Legal Framework – Application of Section 6 and Section 8 of the Act of 1956 to determine succession – Provisions and their implications detailed. [Para 8, 9, 10]

Final Determination – Share division consistent with legal provisions and High Court directions – Civil appeal devoid of merit. [Para 13-14]

Reversal of Acquittal – Conviction under Section 302 and 307 IPC: The acquittal of respondent no.2 by the Trial Court and High Court was overturned, leading to his conviction under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC. [Para 1]

Virtual Appearance – Health Conditions: Due to health conditions and an ongoing life sentence in another case, permission was granted for respondent no.2 to appear virtually. [Para 2]

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment and Fines: Given the facts and age of the case, life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 7 years under Section 307 IPC were awarded, along with fines. [Para 4]

Distribution of Fine – Section 357 CrPC: Fine to be used for compensating the victim’s family and the legal heirs of the deceased, as per clause (c) of Section 357 of the CrPC. [Para 6]

Additional Compensation – Section 357-A CrPC: Due to the State’s inadequate prosecution and the victim family’s trauma, additional compensation is mandated. [Para 7]

Compliance and Time Frame: Fine and compensation must be deposited within two months, with a compliance report due in four months. [Para 8-9]

Appeal Disposed: The appeal was disposed of as per the guidelines. [Para 8]

Writ Petition – Eligibility for admission to a Post Graduate medical seat – Petitioner aggrieved by the rejection of candidature – Challenging the change of her status from OCI candidate to Indian national – Relief sought under Article 32 of the Constitution – Judgment addressing the issue of eligibility based on OCI status. [Para 1-18]

Notification – Ministry of Home Affairs Notification dated 04.03.2021 – Withdrawal of eligibility or privileges conferred upon OCI Card holders – Notification altering the rights of OCI Card holders regarding parity with Indian nationals for appearing in All India entrance tests such as NEET. [Para 13-14]

Retroactivity – Analysis of whether the notification had retroactive application – Court concluding that the notification retroactively withdrew the rights which were available – Examination of the fairness and application of mind in implementing the notification. [Para 15-16]

Anushka Rengunthwar Case – Reference to the judgment in Anushka Rengunthwar & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. – Court’s interpretation of the effect of the notification and its retroactive application – Ruling on the notification’s applicability to OCI Card holders born prior to its issuance date. [Para 10-16]

Eligibility Criteria – Examination of the petitioner’s eligibility based on her OCI status – OCI Card holder’s entitlement to participate in NEET examination – Change of petitioner’s status to Indian national after initially being treated as an OCI candidate. [Para 2-8, 17-18]

Unfair Treatment – Petitioner’s contention of unfair and arbitrary treatment by AIIMS – Change of her status affecting her chances of admission in PG Medical Course – Examination of whether the change of status was justified and based on valid reasons. [Para 6-8]

Consideration of Eligibility – Directive to consider the petitioner’s eligibility for remaining counselling rounds for PG Medical seats – Clarification that consideration should include unfilled seats reserved for various categories and special candidates – Inclusion of candidates issued OCI cards prior to 04.03.2021. [Para 17-18]

Special Leave Petition (Criminal) – Delay Condonation and Permission – The Supreme Court granted permission to file a special leave petition without a certified/plain copy of the impugned order and condoned the delay in refiling. [Para 1]

Time to Surrender – Regular Bail – Petitioner granted four weeks to surrender and apply for regular bail, which will be considered in accordance with the law. [Para 2]

Serious Irregularity – Unavailability of Order – Court noted a serious irregularity regarding the non-availability of the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 to the aggrieved party. The issue was attributed to technical glitches and administrative issues at the High Court of Patna. [Para 3-4]

Directive to High Court – Investigation – The Supreme Court directed the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court to investigate the matter and take necessary steps to rectify the issue related to the unavailability of orders. [Para 5-6]

Disposition – Petition Disposed of – All pending applications, including the special leave petition, were disposed of in accordance with the directives issued. [Para 7]