Criminal Law – Murder Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Conviction Affirmed – The appellant challenged the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court convicting him for murder on several grounds including contradictions in medical and ocular evidence, delay in FIR, defective investigation, non-examination of witnesses, and denial of alibi – The Supreme Court found that the eyewitness testimonies were reliable and corroborated by medical evidence – Held: No perversity or exceptional circumstance warranting interference with conviction – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 6, 19].

Medical vs. Ocular Evidence – Ocular Version Prevails – Discrepancy in Digestion Timing Not Fatal – The appellant relied on medical jurisprudence texts to argue that the deceased could not have died at the stated time – Held: General textbook references and hypothetical assumptions cannot displace reliable eyewitness testimony – Ocular evidence found credible and not inconsistent with medical opinion [Paras 10–11].

Defective Investigation – Non-sending of Firearm for Forensics – No Ground for Acquittal – Though the firearm used was not sent for ballistic testing, the Court held that defective or negligent investigation cannot override substantive evidence – The credibility of eyewitnesses and corroborating medical report sustained the conviction despite investigative lapses [Paras 12–14].

Delay in FIR – Reasonably Explained – The FIR was lodged about 3.5 hours after the incident – Held: Delay justified due to unavailability of transport – No material brought to doubt the authenticity of FIR or suggest mala fide – Not a ground for acquittal [Para 15].

Plea of Alibi – Not Supported by Evidence – The appellant claimed he was in jail for identification on the day of occurrence – Held: No documentary proof or credible evidence presented to establish his absence at the crime scene – Alibi rightly rejected by both courts below [Para 17].

Non-Examination of Other Eyewitnesses – Not Prejudicial – The appellant contended that many villagers were present but not examined – Held: Investigating officer provided explanation for non-examination – When direct eyewitnesses are found credible, failure to examine other witnesses not fatal to prosecution case [Para 16].

Delayed Delivery of High Court Judgment – No Prejudice Shown – Appellant argued that long delay in pronouncement of High Court judgment prejudiced him – Held: Delay in itself not a ground for reversal in absence of any proven prejudice – Argument without merit [Paras 5, 18].

Appellate Interference – Scope Limited – The Supreme Court reiterated that it does not reappraise evidence unless findings are perverse or lead to miscarriage of justice – Held: Findings of guilt based on credible evidence – No exceptional circumstance to justify interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 19].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Multiple Murders – Family Dispute Over Property – Reversal of Conviction by High Court – Upheld – Allegation that respondents killed five relatives including mother, grandmother, sister and niece over inheritance issue – Trial court convicted three respondents and sentenced them to death based on testimony of two eye-witnesses – High Court acquitted them doubting their presence at the scene – Held: High Court’s view was reasonable and supported by record – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–3, 10–13, 21–22].

Appellate Review – Scope of Interference in Acquittal – Principles Reiterated – Held: In appeal against acquittal, unless the view taken by the High Court is perverse or unreasonable, the Supreme Court will not interfere – High Court's conclusion that prosecution case was concocted after deliberation was not implausible – Judgment sustained [Para 11].

Evidence – Reliability of Eye-Witnesses – PW-4 and PW-5 Treated as Chance Witnesses – Presence at Scene Not Proved – Inconsistent with Site Plans – Held: Alleged eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the crime from roof, but no staircase or cots were shown in police sketch – Their testimony contradicted each other and prior statements – Their presence doubtful – High Court right in discarding their evidence [Paras 13–15].

First Information Report – Delay and Fabrication – FIR Filed After Deliberation – Excessive Detail Indicating Concoction – Held: FIR contained detailed family history and inheritance issues unlikely known to informant – Delay in reaching police station unexplained – High Court correctly found FIR not spontaneous – Prepared after relatives assembled in morning [Paras 17–18].

Non-Examination of Material Witness – Jeon Singh Not Examined – Held: Key witness who was present in house was not examined nor his statement recorded – Prosecution failed to present best possible evidence – Supports inference of fabrication – Failure to explain presence of multiple relatives at crime scene early morning further weakens case [Para 18].

Recovery of Weapons – No Independent Witness – No Forensic Corroboration – Held: Alleged recovery of weapons at instance of accused not supported by any independent witness – Serological report inconclusive – No evidentiary value – High Court justified in disbelieving recovery [Para 20].

Motive – Land Dispute – Found Inadequate – Held: Mere change of will by grandfather not sufficient provocation for mass murder of close relatives – High Court rightly found motive insufficient to sustain conviction in absence of credible evidence [Para 20].

Final Decision – Acquittal Upheld – Held: High Court conducted thorough analysis of evidence – Doubts about presence of eyewitnesses and circumstances surrounding FIR and investigation justified – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21–22].

Criminal Law - Dowry Harassment – Conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Evidence Found Unreliable – Acquittal Ordered – Appellants were convicted of abetting suicide and subjecting deceased to cruelty over dowry and property demands – Prosecution relied primarily on testimonies of mother, brother and relatives of the deceased – Held: Evidence was either inadmissible, hearsay, or contradicted by contemporaneous letters – No legally admissible or credible evidence of cruelty or harassment found – Conviction set aside [Paras 10–23].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility under Section 32 of the Evidence Act – Letters by Deceased – No Evidence of Cruelty – Held: Letter dated 20.05.1986 written by deceased prior to suicide did not indicate any dowry demand or harassment – Expressed displeasure with in-laws but contained no material to suggest abetment or cruelty – Other letters written before death showed cordial family relations – Letters inconsistent with prosecution version – No evidentiary value to support charge under Section 306 IPC [Paras 11–12].

Appellate Review – High Court as First Court of Appeal – Duty to Reappreciate Evidence – Failure to Apply Judicial Mind – Held: High Court merely reproduced trial court’s judgment without independent analysis or application of mind – Serious error for not exercising jurisdiction properly – Findings of High Court unsustainable in law and disregarded by Supreme Court [Paras 6, 24].

Inadmissible Evidence – Witness Testimonies Based on Hearsay – No Personal Knowledge – Held: Evidence of PWs 7, 8, 13, and 14 was based on assumptions or statements made by deceased’s father – None had direct knowledge of alleged demands – Omission to mention key facts in prior statements further weakened credibility – Trial court erred in relying on inadmissible and improved testimony [Paras 15–19].

False Inference – Non-Attendance at Funeral – No Presumption of Guilt – Held: Accused did not attend last rites as FIR had accused them of murder – Cannot draw adverse inference of guilt from their absence – Allegation of guilty conscience rejected as unreasonable and irrelevant in facts of case [Para 22].

Contradictions in Prosecution Case – Timeline of Dowry Demands Unreliable – Letters Contradict Testimony – Held: Alleged harassment after birth of second child disproved by letters showing deceased was living with husband and in-laws – No proof that demands for TV, scooter, fridge or share in property were ever made – Serious contradictions in timing and substance of allegations [Paras 17–21].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Held: Prosecution failed to establish case under Sections 306 and 498A IPC beyond reasonable doubt – Trial court and High Court erred in appreciation of evidence – Appellants acquitted – If in custody, to be released forthwith; if on bail, bonds discharged [Para 25].

Contempt of Court – Section 10 and 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act – Cognizance of Contempt of Subordinate Courts – Suo Motu Jurisdiction of High Court – Upheld – Police officers attacked Additional District Judge in court – Held: High Court has jurisdiction under Section 10 read with Section 15(2) to take suo motu action in case of criminal contempt of subordinate courts – Proviso to Section 10 does not bar such jurisdiction merely because the act may also be punishable under IPC – Contempt of court and IPC offences can coexist – Constitution Bench decisions followed – No merit in challenge to jurisdiction [Paras 19-27, 28-29].

Criminal Contempt – Definition and Scope – Section 2(c) Contempt of Courts Act – Assault on Judicial Officer – Held: Pre-planned assault on Judge by police personnel within court premises amounts to criminal contempt – Such act interferes with administration of justice, scandalizes the court, and lowers its authority – Attack was not only on individual Judge but on justice system – Judiciary must be protected from organised violence and intimidation – High Court rightly proceeded against identified contemnors [Paras 24-27, 31-33].

Procedural Fairness – Summary Proceedings – No Violation of Natural Justice – Held: In contempt proceedings, strict application of CrPC and Evidence Act is not mandatory – Summary procedure permissible if fair opportunity is provided – In present case, contemnors were served notices, provided all material, permitted to file replies and affidavits, and heard – Cross-examination was not demanded at trial stage and cannot be claimed later – High Court followed fair procedure – No violation of natural justice found [Paras 30-36].

Evidentiary Standard – Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Summary Contempt Trials – Upheld – Held: Though criminal contempt requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, evidence by affidavits and official reports from Judges and police authorities sufficed – Conviction based on corroborated material from multiple independent sources – Only nine out of twenty-six contemnors convicted – Plea of alibi found unreliable – Standard of proof satisfied in summary process [Paras 31-36].

Judicial Independence – Protection of Courts and Judges – Held: Assault on presiding judge within court complex by law enforcement personnel reflects deep institutional failure – Courts have no execution arm and must rely on State machinery – If police turns perpetrator, rule of law is in jeopardy – Strong deterrent needed – No sympathy or leniency warranted – Judiciary must function fearlessly and with dignity [Paras 27, 33, 41-43].

Pending Proceedings – Disciplinary and Criminal – Direction to Expedite – Held: Criminal trials, departmental inquiries and commission proceedings still pending despite lapse of years – Supreme Court directed authorities to conclude all proceedings within six months – Chief Justice of Patna High Court requested to monitor progress – Registrar General to be notified of any delays or obstructions – Appellants on bail directed to surrender and undergo sentence as per High Court judgment [Paras 38, 48-49].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Convictions and Sentences Upheld – Held: Appeals filed by convicted police officers dismissed – No error in High Court’s exercise of contempt jurisdiction – No breach of natural justice – Supreme Court upheld sentence of three months simple imprisonment for K.D. Choudhary and two months for remaining eight contemnors – Appreciated assistance of Amicus Curiae – Direction issued for compliance and communication of final results of all pending proceedings [Paras 40, 48-50].

Criminal Law - Dowry Death – Reversal of Acquittal Set Aside – Entire prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence in alleged murder of wife by husband and mother-in-law – High Court reversed acquittal based on inference that accused throttled the deceased and set her on fire to destroy evidence – Held: Circumstantial chain incomplete – Key links such as escape route, presence of accused, and possibility of outside intervention not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal restored [Paras 1, 10, 28, 32–34].

Appellate Review – Interference with Acquittal – Standard of Proof Reiterated – Presumption of innocence strengthens after acquittal – Reversal requires compelling and cogent reasons – Held: Sessions Judge’s reasoning based on plausible appreciation of evidence – High Court failed to demonstrate perversity in findings – Interference unjustified [Paras 30–31].

Post-Mortem Evidence – Cause of Death Inconclusive – Contradictory Medical Findings – Autopsy stated cause of death as asphyxia due to throttling but burn injuries were recorded as ante-mortem – Presence of blood in respiratory tract and absence of carbon particles created doubt – Held: Medical evidence not free from uncertainty – High Court erred in treating it as conclusive proof of homicide [Paras 10, 27, 33].

Section 313 CrPC – Material Circumstances Not Put to Accused – Violation of Fair Trial – High Court concluded accused escaped through kitchen window post-murder – Held: Theory not presented to accused during Section 313 examination – Denial of opportunity to explain prejudiced defence – Conviction vitiated on procedural ground [Para 28].

Plea of Alibi – Burden on Prosecution Not Shifted – Accused failed to prove alibi conclusively but prosecution did not establish presence at scene either – Held: Failure of defence does not discharge prosecution’s duty to prove guilt beyond doubt – Circumstantial link of presence unproven [Paras 27, 31–32].

Motive – Alleged Dowry Demand of Rs. 2000 – Found Insufficient – Prosecution cited unmet financial demand and refusal to send deceased to attend brother’s marriage as motive – Held: Relationship between couple otherwise cordial – Alleged motive weak and inadequate to sustain conviction for murder [Paras 5, 19, 24].

Final Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal Restored – Held: Circumstantial evidence fell short of required standard – Serious procedural lapse under Section 313 CrPC – Prosecution failed to eliminate reasonable doubt – Appeal allowed, appellants discharged from bail bonds [Paras 33–34].

Criminal Law - Conviction without specific charge – Sections 222 & 464 CrPC – Conflict resolved – Accused charged under Section 302 IPC; High Court found 302 not made out but declined to convict under Section 306 for want of charge relying on Sangaraboina Sreenu – Held: Section 464 CrPC permits conviction for an uncharged offence if no “failure of justice”; test is whether the accused knew the essential ingredients, had facts put under Section 313, and had fair opportunity – Sangaraboina Sreenu not correctly decided; Willie Slaney and Gurbachan Singh applied; Lakhjit Singh approved – Conviction under Section 306 IPC permissible on facts [Paras 12-17].

Dowry cruelty – Section 498A IPC – Proof and effect – Evidence of parents and relative, coupled with deceased’s contemporaneous letter, established persistent taunts/demands for dowry (TV, scooter, cash for flat) and assaults – Held: Cruelty proved; conviction under Section 498A sustained regardless of bank balances maintained for household expenses [Paras 4-6, 9-10].

Dying declaration – Section 32 Evidence Act – Admissibility of letter – Husband admitted handwriting under Section 313 and written statement under Section 233(2) CrPC – Letter narrating sustained dowry-related cruelty and motive to end life admissible as statement relating to cause of death/circumstances of transaction – Forms substantive basis for 498A and 306 findings [Paras 5-6].

Murder charge – Section 302 IPC – Not proved – Circumstances (bolted flat; gas leakage/ignition theory; tenor of letter) inconsistent with homicidal burning by husband – Acquittal under Section 302 affirmed [Para 8].

Dowry death – Section 304B IPC – Inapplicable – Marriage more than seven years prior to incident; trial court rightly acquitted under Section 304B [Para 8].

Standard for prejudice – Procedural irregularities in charge – CrPC – Courts must look to substance over technicalities; conviction not vitiated absent prejudice – Broad principles from Willie Slaney and Gurbachan Singh reiterated; Section 464(1) & (2) and Section 465 CrPC applied [Paras 15-17].

Decision and sentence – Appeals disposed – Dalbir Singh’s appeal dismissed; State’s appeal partly allowed – Accused convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to period already undergone; 498A conviction maintained; 302 acquittal stands [Paras 18-19].

Civil Law - Lease Cancellation – Breach of Payment Schedule – Rules 12(3) and 22(3) of Chandigarh Leasehold Rules – Petition Dismissed with Conditional Relief - The petitioner challenged the cancellation of lease of a semi-industrial plot for non-payment of installments as per the auction terms – Despite repeated extensions by the Estate Officer, Appellate and Revisional Authorities, the petitioner defaulted in making full payment – The High Court dismissed the writ petition – Held: Though the petitioner’s conduct did not merit indulgence, the Supreme Court granted a final opportunity to clear outstanding dues within three months, failing which the lease cancellation would stand – SLP disposed of accordingly [Paras 2–8].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Rule 22(3) – Discretion and Relief – The Advisor to the Administrator had exercised discretion to conditionally set aside the cancellation order based on petitioner’s offer to pay – Held: Such discretion was not improperly exercised – However, repeated default by petitioner after obtaining relief showed lack of bona fides – Final opportunity extended on equitable grounds [Paras 3, 7–8].

Contractual Obligation – Failure to Pay Installments – Equitable Relief – Despite taking possession of plot in 1990, the petitioner failed to pay any of the three annual installments – Multiple opportunities and stays were granted but the petitioner defaulted each time – Held: Repeated non-compliance demonstrates abuse of process – Last chance granted to pay full dues within three months, else cancellation to remain final [Paras 5, 7–8].

SARFAESI Act – Constitutional Validity – Sections 13, 15, 17, 34 – Upheld Except Section 17(2) – The Act was challenged as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 – Held: All provisions valid except Section 17(2), which required 75% pre-deposit and was struck down as arbitrary, onerous and violative of Article 14 – The Act otherwise serves public interest by ensuring expeditious recovery of NPAs and strengthening financial stability [Paras 33, 64, 82-84].

Borrower’s Right – Section 13(2) Notice – Duty of Creditor – Before invoking Section 13(4), creditors must serve 60 days’ notice and meaningfully consider borrower’s objections – Reasons for rejection must be communicated – Ensures transparency and fairness in compliance with principles of natural justice [Paras 45-47, 77-78, 80(1)].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Section 34 – Bar with Limited Exceptions – Civil courts barred from matters within DRT’s jurisdiction – Exception: civil courts can be approached in cases of fraud, absurd or untenable claims, or where guarantor’s liability itself is denied – Limited scope akin to English mortgage jurisprudence preserved [Paras 50-53, 80(5)].

Proceedings under Section 17 – Not Appellate but Original Remedy – Proceedings under Section 17 are in lieu of a civil suit and amount to initial adjudication – DRT has ancillary powers to grant interim/stay orders – Pre-deposit under Section 17(2) declared unconstitutional as rendering remedy illusory [Paras 55-64, 80(2)-(4)].

Public Interest vs. Private Rights – Legislative Competence – Despite affecting contractual rights, SARFAESI was enacted in public interest to safeguard banking liquidity and national economy – Public interest prevails over individual hardship – Not unconstitutional merely because harsh to some borrowers [Paras 66-68].

Decision – SARFAESI Act upheld as constitutionally valid except Section 17(2), which was struck down – Borrowers entitled to challenge creditor’s measures before DRT without mandatory pre-deposit – Transfer cases partly allowed to this extent, rest dismissed [Paras 82-84].

Criminal Procedure – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC – Delay in disposal – High Court directed Family Court to expedite proceedings – Petitioner later invoked contempt jurisdiction for non-compliance – High Court summoned Presiding Judge but did not itself grant maintenance – Held: Petitioner has remedy before High Court; appropriate for High Court to exercise Article 227 jurisdiction to secure maintenance in deserving cases [Paras 2, 3, 4].

Constitution – Article 227 – Scope of Superintendence – High Court empowered to issue appropriate directions to subordinate courts and in suitable cases itself grant relief which subordinate court ought to have granted – Jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly but available in cases of hardship and destitution – Reliance placed on Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 [Para 3].

Relief – Supreme Court’s Approach – No leave to appeal necessary against High Court order dated 29.10.2003 – Petitioner not aggrieved since High Court already seized of matter – Petitioner directed to appear before High Court on next hearing and seek interim relief – Supreme Court expressed confidence that High Court will pass appropriate orders if case is genuine [Paras 4, 5].

Decision – Special Leave Petition disposed of – Copy of order to be communicated to High Court forthwith [Paras 5, 6].