Criminal Law – Murder/Attempt to Murder – Appeals Partly Allowed – Incident of 31.07.1977 over “Khajiha” land; deceased Pratap Singh suffered a single sharp-edged head blow (kanta) allegedly by Raja Ram; appellant Dashrath fired twice but missed; other injuries to both sides – Trial Court convicted Raja Ram under Section 302 IPC and Dashrath under Section 302/34; High Court upheld 302 for Raja Ram, altered Dashrath to Section 307 – Held: Prosecution case established as to assault and Dashrath’s firearm attempt; independent neighbour (PW-3) and dying declaration support prosecution; non-explanation of accused injuries not per se fatal – However, causation for death not proved beyond reasonable doubt: long time-gap (38 days), surgery, no post-mortem, no post-operative record – Raja Ram’s 302 conviction altered to Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt with dangerous weapon), RI 6 years + ₹1,000 fine; set-off under Section 428 CrPC – Dashrath’s conviction under Section 307 sustained; appeal dismissed [Paras 2–3, 14–16, 18–22, 26–31].

Non-Explanation of Injuries on Accused – Principle – Prosecution not invariably obliged to explain injuries on accused; effect depends on seriousness, timing, and overall evidence – Where independent/cogent evidence and dying declaration establish prosecution version and defence does not compete in probability, mere non-explanation is not fatal (Bhaba Nanda Sarma; Takhaji Hiraji) – Applied here to reject plea that silence in FIR/investigation vitiates case [Paras 16–21].

Medical Evidence & Causation – Clause “Thirdly” (Section 300) – Though skull/brain injury by sharp weapon was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death (PWs 6 & 8), prosecution failed to prove that it did cause death: no post-mortem; victim survived 38 days; no post-operative course on record – Benefit of doubt on causation; conviction reduced from Section 302 to Section 326 IPC [Paras 27–30].

Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Dashrath fired two shots at deceased at close quarters; both missed; concurrent findings upheld – Conviction under Section 307 and other allied offences maintained [Paras 3, 14, 26, 31].

Decision: Criminal Appeal No. 910/2001 (Raja Ram) partly allowed – Conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 326 IPC; RI 6 years + ₹1,000 fine; in default 4 months; Section 428 set-off – Criminal Appeal No. 909/2001 (Dashrath Singh) dismissed; Section 307 conviction and sentence sustained [Para 31].

Criminal Law - Dowry Death – “Soon Before Her Death” – Section 304B IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Evidence must show cruelty/harassment for dowry soon before death with a proximate and live link to the death – Record disclosed no dowry-related cruelty for about 15 months prior to death; proximity test not satisfied – Held: Conviction under Section 304B unsustainable [Paras 7–11].

Mother-in-law’s Liability – General Allegations Insufficient – Acquittal – No specific overt act or role proved against appellant-mother-in-law; mere presence when money was paid cannot ground conviction – Held: Acquittal justified; suspicion cannot replace proof [Para 6, 15].

Lesser Offence – Conversion to Section 498A – Sustained – Early-post-marriage incidents of cruelty and harassment for scooter demand proved through PW-6; ingredients of Section 498A made out – Conviction altered to Section 498A; sentence limited to period undergone with fine of ₹500 [Paras 12–14].

Precedents – Proximity Test Reiterated – “Soon before” is elastic but requires perceptible nexus between cruelty for dowry and death – Followed Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab and Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi [Paras 8–11].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Balwant Singh: Section 304B conviction set aside; convicted under Section 498A and sentenced to period already undergone with ₹500 fine; in default, 1 month SI; release on payment – Nishan Kaur: Appeal allowed; acquitted of Section 304B; bail bonds discharged [Paras 13–15].

Criminal Law - Mercy Jurisdiction – Article 72 – Grounds for Judicial Review – Extremely Narrow – Petition Dismissed – Challenge to the President’s rejection of pardon in a death penalty case – Court reiterates that judicial review lies only for no consideration, consideration on wholly irrelevant grounds, irrationality, discrimination, or mala fides; presumption that high constitutional authority acts properly and cautiously – No material to rebut presumption or show non-application of mind – Held: Rejection of mercy petition valid; writ dismissed [Paras 8–11, 13–15].

Death Penalty Case Background – “Rarest of Rare” Affirmed Earlier – The conviction for rape, theft, and murder and capital sentence had been affirmed up to the Supreme Court in Dhananjoy Chatterjee; no mitigating circumstances found; severity and societal impact emphasised – Mercy stage not a forum to re-argue merits or sentence [Paras 3–6, 13].

Scope of Article 32 in Mercy Matters – Not an Appeal or Review on Merits – Court’s role confined to reviewing decision-making process under Article 72; not to reassess evidence or proportionality of sentence – Six-week consideration by President not indicative of arbitrariness [Paras 12–14].

Precedents – Maru Ram and Satpal Applied – High prerogative power under Article 72 presumed properly exercised; limited interference where decision is mala fide, based on extraneous considerations, or without application of mind – No such infirmity shown here [Paras 8–11].

Decision – Writ petition under Article 32 dismissed – No ground made out to interfere with the President’s order rejecting pardon [Para 15].

Service Law – Promotion – Disability – Section 47(2) Disabilities Act – Respondent, a Railway employee, qualified in written test for promotion but declared medically unfit due to visual disability and denied appearance in viva voce – CAT directed reconsideration relying on Section 47 – High Court affirmed – Supreme Court held: Section 47(2) prohibits denial of promotion merely on ground of disability – Proviso permitting exemption of establishments requires formal notification by Government – In absence of such notification, Railways cannot deny promotion on disability grounds – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3–5, 9–11, 18].

Proviso to Statute – Interpretation – Function – A proviso cannot be read to nullify main enactment – It only carves out limited exceptions within scope of the provision – Proviso to Section 47(2) empowers Government to exempt establishments only through notification with conditions – Mere administrative intent not sufficient – Followed principles from Shah Bhojraj Kuverji, Calcutta Tramways, A.N. Sehgal, Tribhovandas Tamboli, Kerala State Housing Board v. Ramapriya Hotels [Paras 11–17].

Disabilities Act – Object and Purpose – Enacted to implement international proclamation ensuring full participation and equality of disabled persons – Ensures non-discrimination in employment, integration into mainstream, and removal of barriers – Section 47 embodies protective mandate – Must be liberally construed in favour of disabled employees [Paras 8–9].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Orders of CAT and High Court upheld – Respondent entitled to be considered for promotion; denial on sole ground of visual disability unsustainable – No order as to costs [Paras 18].

Criminal Law - Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Section 113B Evidence Act – Conviction Affirmed – Deceased married about 2½ years before death – harassment and demand for dowry (including TV) proved – she left matrimonial home, returned after panchayat settlement two months prior to death – death by burns on 13.10.1988 not under normal circumstances – Held: Ingredients of Section 304B satisfied – cruelty/harassment for dowry “soon before death” established – presumption under Section 113B properly invoked – husband’s conviction under Section 304B IPC and Section 201 IPC upheld [Paras 1–7, 12].

Section 201 IPC – Disappearance of Evidence – Clandestine Cremation – Mere participation in cremation is not per se Section 201 – however, facts showed secret disposal without informing police or father (PW-2); no hospital admission though claimed; paternal uncle (A2) resided nearby and participated – Held: Knowledge that an offence had been committed can be inferred – A2 liable under Section 201 IPC – conviction sustained [Paras 8–10, 12].

Dowry Death – Proximity (“Soon Before”) – Nexus between cruelty and death – Evidence of prior demand/harassment, forced separation, reconciliation, and death within two months – No alternative cause suggested – Presumption under Section 113B attracted – burden not rebutted [Paras 5–7].

Criminal Trial – Section 313 CrPC – Accused’s explanation – Husband’s version (took victim to doctor/hospital) inconsistent with defence evidence and surrounding circumstances – Failure to inform police/father and immediate cremation strengthen inference of guilt under Sections 304B/201 [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal disposed – Convictions affirmed – A1 (husband) under Sections 304B IPC (RI 10 years) and 201 IPC (RI 2 years) maintained – A2 (paternal uncle) under Section 201 IPC (RI 2 years) maintained – A2 to surrender to bail to undergo remaining sentence [Paras 11–12].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant challenged his conviction for murder, asserting he had no active role in the incident and that the evidence of related witnesses was unreliable – The Supreme Court upheld concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, holding that the evidence of eyewitnesses was cogent, credible, and established common intention to commit murder – Appeal found to be without merit and dismissed [Paras 1–3, 7, 15–16, 23].

Common Intention – Application of Section 34 IPC – Justified by Circumstantial and Direct Evidence – Section 34, though not creating a substantive offence, imposes joint liability when a criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention – Held: Appellant’s conduct, presence at the scene, and threats to witnesses showed clear participation in furtherance of common intention – Section rightly applied [Paras 10–15].

Joint Liability – No Need for Overt Act – Section 34 IPC – Even if the appellant did not personally inflict injury, his participation and threats enabled commission of offence – Held: Liability arises if act was done in furtherance of common intention – Overt act not mandatory [Para 13].

Related Witnesses – Evidence Not Unreliable Solely Due to Relationship – The prosecution witnesses were relatives of the deceased – Held: Relationship alone is no ground to discredit testimony – Courts must assess truthfulness based on intrinsic merit and consistency – Natural witnesses cannot be discarded merely for being related [Paras 17–21].

Non-examination of Independent Witnesses – No Adverse Inference – The Court held that non-examination of village witnesses does not weaken the prosecution case where eyewitnesses were natural, consistent and present at the scene – Prosecution not bound to produce every possible witness – No ground for interference [Para 22].

Final Decision – Conviction Affirmed – The Supreme Court found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of guilt under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – The eyewitnesses’ account was found credible and the application of Section 34 justified – Held: Appeal devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed [Para 23].

Service Law – Judicial Services Examination – Re-evaluation of Answer Book – No Right in Absence of Rule – Appellant failed in written exam of Bihar Judicial Services, 1999 – Secured 35 marks in General Science – Sought re-evaluation alleging he deserved higher marks – Commission permitted scrutiny but found no mistake – Single Judge directed re-evaluation by two teachers of Patna Science College who awarded 63 marks – Division Bench set aside order – Held: In absence of statutory provision permitting re-evaluation, no candidate has right to seek it – Direction of Single Judge unsustainable [Paras 3, 4, 7, 10, 11]

Examinations – Scrutiny vs. Re-evaluation – Distinction – Rules permitted only scrutiny for checking totaling and omission, not re-evaluation – Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction in ordering fresh assessment – Reaffirmed principle laid down in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, AIR 1984 SC 1543 [Paras 4, 7]

Practical Difficulties – Floodgate of Litigation – Allowing re-evaluation without rules would invite numerous petitions, delay final results and affect filling of vacancies – Competitive examinations require certainty and uniformity – Re-evaluation, if permitted, may even lead to disputes if marks are reduced – Larger public interest requires prohibition of such directions [Paras 8, 9]

Evaluation Process – Uniformity Essential – Commission followed centralized evaluation with model answers prepared by Head Examiner – Re-evaluation by private teachers without model answers and without disclosure of their identity unreliable – Marks awarded therein cannot be treated as sacrosanct [Para 9]

Decision – Division Bench of High Court justified in setting aside Single Judge’s order – Appeal dismissed – No costs [Paras 10, 11]

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Reduction by High Court set aside – Facts & Decision – Accused fired several shots at informant in field; trial court convicted under Section 326 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, imposing RI 5 years (326) and RI 1 year (Arms) – High Court upheld conviction but cut sentence to period undergone (~63 days) and enhanced fine to ₹25,000 – Held: Undue leniency undermines public confidence; sentences must reflect proportionality, deterrence, and protection of society – Custodial sentence restored to a meaningful term; fixed at 18 months considering enhanced fine; ₹10,000 from fine to be paid to victim; accused to surrender forthwith – Appeals allowed [Paras 2–4, 5–10, 11].

Sentencing Principles – Proportionality and Deterrence – Law must protect society and stamp out criminal proclivity – Courts should avoid “undue sympathy” that results in inadequate sentences – Sentences must fit the crime, with discretion guided by culpability and social interests – Applied to reject nominal custody for firearm assault causing grievous hurt [Paras 5–8].

Appellate Interference with Sentence – When Warranted – High Court gave no cogent reason for drastic reduction (age, village peace cited) – Such generalized factors cannot eclipse gravity of offence and nature of injuries – SC intervenes to calibrate sentence to 18 months’ RI, taking into account already enhanced fine and peculiar facts [Paras 3–4, 9–10].

Conviction Maintained – Offences under Section 326 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act sustained – Sentencing recalibrated; surrender directed; part of fine directed as compensation to victim [Paras 2, 9–10].

Civil Law - Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Judgment Without Substantial Question – Set Aside – Suit for specific performance decreed by trial court; first appellate court reversed; High Court in second appeal restored trial decree but did so without formulating any substantial question of law – Held: Non-compliance with Section 100(3)-(5) CPC vitiates the judgment; High Court must identify and formulate substantial question(s) of law and hear the appeal on those – Impugned judgment set aside; matter remitted to High Court for disposal per Section 100 CPC [Paras 2, 6–9, 12].

Section 100 CPC – Mandatory Steps – Memorandum must “precisely state” substantial question(s) (sub-sec. 3) – If satisfied, High Court “shall formulate” such question(s) (sub-sec. 4) – Appeal “shall be heard” on the question(s) so formulated; respondent can argue no such question arises; Court may, for recorded reasons, hear other substantial question(s) (proviso to sub-sec. 5) – Failure to follow is jurisdictional error [Paras 6–7, 9–11].

Precedents – Consistent View – High Court cannot reverse first appellate court without formulating substantial question(s) of law (Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal) – Jurisdiction under Section 100 confined to substantial questions of law; no interference with pure findings of fact; formulated questions must be noticed and answered (Roop Singh v. Ram Singh) – Position reiterated in Kanhaiyalal v. Anupkumar [Paras 9–11].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Second appeal remitted to High Court to consider whether substantial question(s) of law arise under Section 100 CPC and, if so, decide accordingly – No order as to costs [Paras 12].