Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 – Conviction Affirmed – Deceased stabbed four times by A-1 while A-2 and A-3 (appellants) held his hands; trial court and High Court relied on related eyewitnesses (PWs 1–3) and sustained conviction – Held: Concurrent findings call for no interference; appeals dismissed [Paras 1-3, 6, 17-18].

Eyewitness Credibility – Statements under Section 164 CrPC – Caution, not rejection – Recording statements under Section 164 by itself is not a ground to discard testimony; such evidence must be assessed with caution and can be relied upon when otherwise credible – Presence of PWs 1–3 natural and proved; testimony consistent on core incident – Ram Charan and Balak Ram followed; Patna view in Emperor v. Manu Chik dissented [Paras 6-7].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Principles and Application – Section 34 embodies joint liability based on common intention; may be inferred from conduct, concert, manner of arrival, nature and situs of injuries, and post-occurrence conduct; earlier fact-specific precedents not mechanically controlling – Noor Mohammad; Pandurang, Tukia & Bhillia reiterated that each case turns on its own facts [Paras 12-13].

Section 34 IPC – On Facts – Second visit at 11.45 p.m.; appellants called the deceased out, restrained his hands while A-1 delivered multiple chest stabs; no effort to dissuade; left together – Inference irresistible that appellants shared A-1’s intention; prior concert/knowledge established notwithstanding absence of individual weapons or exhortation – Hamlet @ Sasi; Nandu Rastogi applied; Vencil Pushpraj, Ramashish Yadav, Ajay Sharma distinguished on differing factual matrices [Paras 15-16, 11].

Section 164 CrPC – Use in Investigation – Recording under Section 164 undertaken by IO does not imply witnesses are untrustworthy; it is a cautionary factor only; where presence is proved and narrative is consistent with medical and surrounding circumstances, conviction can rest on such testimony [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Conviction of appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and life sentence upheld; High Court’s affirmation of trial court sustained [Para 18].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Section 197 CrPC – Protection to Public Servants – Sanction Mandatory – Acts Related to Discharge of Official Duty – Held: When public servants are accused of committing acts in purported discharge of their official duties, prosecution cannot be initiated without prior sanction under Section 197 – The search, seizure and arrest operations by forest officers had reasonable nexus to their official duties – Sanction under Section 197 was necessary before taking cognizance – Absence of sanction vitiates the complaint – High Court erred in holding otherwise [Paras 1, 4-12, 17-18].

Quashing of Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Section 482 CrPC – Delayed Complaint Filed with Mala Fide Intention – Held: No grievance of ill-treatment was made before the Magistrate at the time of arrest – Medical examination conducted only after 3 days and complaint filed after 13 days – Found to be a retaliatory action against lawful seizure of ivory – Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process – High Court failed to consider vital factual and legal aspects – Proceedings quashed [Paras 4, 5, 20-23].

Scope of Official Duty – Reasonable Connection Test – Excess of Duty vs. Dereliction – Held: Protection under Section 197 applies if act complained of is directly and reasonably connected to official duty – Even if the public servant exceeded his authority, as long as the act was not wholly unrelated to his duty or a mere cloak for misconduct, protection applies – It is the nature and context of the act, not its legality, that determines applicability of Section 197 [Paras 6-12].

Retired Public Servants – Sanction Requirement Still Applies – Interpretation of “is or was” in Section 197 CrPC – Held: Sanction requirement continues to apply post-retirement if the alleged act was committed while in service – The object is to prevent frivolous or vindictive litigation after cessation of service – Amendment to Section 197 intended to prevent evasion of sanction requirement by delaying prosecution [Paras 13, 15-19].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Complaint and Proceedings Quashed – Held: Proceedings initiated against forest officers without prior sanction were unsustainable in law – Complaint was found to be mala fide and retaliatory – Judgment of High Court set aside – Proceedings in ICC No. 45/91 quashed – No opinion expressed on pending cases against the complainant [Paras 20-23].

Criminal Law – TADA Conviction Upheld – Acquittal of Co-accused Maintained – The Court upheld the conviction of Esher Singh under Section 4 of TADA for advocating the Khalistan movement and inciting communal hatred – Confessional statement of deceased co-accused A-5 held inadmissible – Appeals by State and victim’s son against acquittal of other accused for conspiracy and murder were dismissed – Held: No sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or participation in murder by other accused – All three appeals dismissed [Paras 1–3, 23–27, 33–47].

TADA – Section 4 – Disruptive Activities – Conviction Based on Witness Testimony – Held: Accused Esher Singh’s speeches and activities advocating Khalistan and inciting communal violence constituted “disruptive activity” under Section 4 – Evidence of PWs 16, 21, 24, and 32 was credible and sufficient – Mere ideological expression crossed threshold into unlawful advocacy of secession – Sentence of 5 years’ RI and fine upheld [Paras 23–27].

Confessional Statement – Section 15 of TADA – Inadmissibility Against Co-accused – A-5 Died Before Trial – Held: Confessional statement by A-5 was inadmissible against other accused as he was not “charged and tried” in the same case – Meaning of “charged” under CrPC and its relevance under TADA discussed – Section 30 of Evidence Act also not applicable – Kalpnath Rai overruled in Nalini clarified but facts did not satisfy conditions – Confession excluded [Paras 18–22].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120B IPC – No Cogent Evidence – Acquittal Proper – Appeals for conviction under Section 120B IPC rejected – Held: Mere association, animosity, or ideological differences with deceased do not constitute conspiracy – No direct or circumstantial evidence of meeting of minds or agreement to murder – Trial Court correctly found absence of essential elements of conspiracy [Paras 33–47].

Appeal by Private Party – Article 136 Constitution – Maintainable – Appeal Filed by Victim’s Son Competent – Held: Article 136 confers plenary appellate power on the Supreme Court – No bar on private individuals seeking special leave – Appeal by Balbir Singh, son of deceased, was maintainable – However, merits of the appeal failed to warrant interference with acquittal [Paras 28–32].

Decision – All Appeals Dismissed – Esher Singh’s conviction under Section 4 of TADA confirmed – Acquittals of co-accused from murder and conspiracy charges upheld – Confession of deceased co-accused excluded – No miscarriage of justice shown – Sentence found proportionate and legally justified [Para 47].

Public Interest Litigation – Abuse of process – Articles 32 & 217 of the Constitution – Petition questioning consideration/appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Judge dismissed with costs – Court held that the petition lacked bona fides, was based on newspaper reports and third-party representations without personal knowledge – Such misuse of PIL is to be discouraged and deserves rejection at threshold [Paras 1, 3-5, 12-17, 21-22].

Locus Standi in PIL – Requirement of bona fides and sufficient interest – Only a person acting bona fide and with genuine concern for public interest has standing – Busy bodies, publicity seekers or interlopers cannot maintain PILs – Courts must scrutinise credentials, correctness of information, and seriousness of allegations before entertaining PILs [Paras 5, 8-11, 15, 18-20].

Evidence – Reliance on newspaper reports – Newspaper cuttings and unverified representations do not constitute evidence – Petitioner lacked personal knowledge of allegations and failed to disclose source of information – Held: Petition based on hearsay and inadmissible material cannot be entertained [Para 4].

Judicial Appointments – Article 217 – Scope of Judicial Review – Appointment of Judges involves consultation with constitutional authorities and collegium – Judicial review limited to want of consultation or lack of eligibility – Allegations of bias or merits excluded – Second Judges’ case and Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 reiterated – Strangers cannot interfere with appointment process through PIL [Para 22].

Service Matters – PIL – Non-maintainability – Despite decision in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra holding that service-related PILs are not maintainable, frivolous petitions continue to be filed – High Courts must dismiss such petitions with costs [Para 17].

Judicial Time and Public Interest – Courts must prevent misuse of PILs by frivolous litigants – Busy bodies and publicity seekers waste valuable court time meant for genuine litigants – Courts should impose exemplary costs and filter out frivolous petitions to protect sanctity of judicial process [Paras 12, 15-17].

Costs – Exemplary Costs – Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable to Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within six weeks – Recovery through Punjab and Haryana High Court if default occurs [Para 22].

Decision – Petition styled as PIL held to be frivolous, motivated and devoid of genuine public interest – Dismissed with exemplary costs [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Murder & Attempt to Murder – Sections 302/149 & 307/149 IPC – Common Object – Convictions Affirmed in Part – Multiple accused tried for triple homicide following a village dispute; trial court convicted; High Court partly acquitted and treated one accused as juvenile; Supreme Court upheld convictions of five appellants and acquitted Raj Pal for parity with similarly situated acquitted co-accused – Held: Section 149 properly invoked against armed members sharing common object; Raj Pal entitled to acquittal for want of distinguishing material [Paras 1-4, 9, 12-13, 20].

Section 149 IPC – Constructive Liability – Foundation, Scope and Two Limbs – Liability turns on common object, not common intention; mere presence insufficient unless actuated by unlawful common object under Section 141; offence may fall under first limb (in prosecution of common object) or second limb (knew likely to be committed) – Positive knowledge required; common object can develop at the spot; distinctions between limbs must be maintained [Paras 13-15].

Unlawful Assembly – Proof of Common Object – No Need of Overt Act by Each Member – Common object inferred from nature of assembly, arms carried, conduct before/during/after occurrence – Specific part by each assailant not mandatory where large assembly acts in concert; presence with knowledge in such assembly suffices for vicarious liability under Section 149 [Paras 16-18].

Precedents Distinguished – Reliance on Roshan and Mariadasan – Not Applicable – Judicial dicta must be read in factual context; conclusions on evidence appreciation vary with circumstances; Padmasundara Rao applied to caution against treating observations as statutory text [Para 19].

Juvenile in Conflict with Law – Section 2(4), U.P. Children Act, 1951 – High Court treated accused Shyamu as juvenile; conviction maintained with benefit under the Act – Approach approved in the backdrop of overall findings [Para 1].

Section 313 CrPC – Defence Version Considered – Pleas of alibi/private defence and counter-version placed in statements under Section 313 and through defence witnesses; rejected upon appreciation of prosecution eye-witness and medical evidence [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Conviction and sentence of Charan Singh, Dev Dutt, Virender, Kunwar Pal and Harkesh under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC affirmed; appeal of Raj Pal allowed and he is to be released unless required in any other case [Para 20].

Criminal Lawl – Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC – Article 136 of the Constitution – Appellants convicted for murder based on eye-witness testimony of PWs 2 and 3 – Plea of faulty investigation and reliance on inimical witnesses raised – Held: Defective investigation does not by itself vitiate trial if prosecution evidence is credible – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-3, 5, 8-9].

Defective Investigation – Effect – Even if investigation is tainted, court must independently assess ocular and medical evidence – Designed or negligent investigation cannot be allowed to defeat justice – Precedents in Karnel Singh, Paras Yadav, Ram Bihari Yadav and Amar Singh applied – Direct credible testimony outweighs omissions in forensic examination [Paras 5-7].

Evidence – Section 27, Evidence Act – Recovery of firearms – Non-examination of weapons by ballistic expert – Discovery statements not incriminating in nature – Ballistic expert report is only opinion and not conclusive – When ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence establishes prosecution version, non-sending of weapons to forensic test does not weaken case [Paras 3, 7-8].

Interested Witnesses – Testimony of related or inimical witnesses – Not to be discarded solely on that ground – Evidence must be scrutinised with care; if found credible and consistent with medical evidence, conviction can be sustained – Test applied by trial court and High Court [Paras 3-4, 9].

Appellate Interference – Article 136 – Both trial court and High Court concurrently held evidence of PWs 2 and 3 to be credible – No perversity or error of law – Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings – Appeal dismissed [Para 9].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and life sentence with fine of Rs. 1,000/- confirmed [Para 9].

Royalty Law - Statutory Obligation vs. Contractual Recovery – Set-Off – Non-Permissibility – Appeal Dismissed – Union of India’s attempt to recover contractual dues (royalty arrears) from statutory payments (stowing assistance) due to the Coal Company – Held impermissible in equity or under CPC – Appeal dismissed – No costs [Paras 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 25]

Coal Mines – Stowing Assistance – Statutory Duty – Under Coal Mines (Conservation and Development) Act, 1974, the Central Government is statutorily obligated to release stowing assistance to coal mines for conservation and safety operations – Assistance includes reimbursement of actual royalty paid for sand used in stowing – Held: Statutory obligations under the Act cannot be withheld or adjusted to recover contractual dues like royalty unless permitted by law [Paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 20]

Set-Off – Legal and Equitable Set-Off – Conditions – Under Order 8 Rule 6 CPC and equitable principles, set-off is permitted where mutual cross-demands are legally recoverable and arise out of the same transaction – Held: Royalty arrears (contractual) and stowing assistance (statutory) do not arise out of the same transaction – Therefore, adjustment or set-off not permissible – Equitable set-off not allowed where it would violate statutory duty or public interest [Paras 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20]

Judicial Review – Writ of Mandamus – High Court’s Power – High Court quashed Central Government’s letters withholding stowing assistance – Held: Justified, as withholding statutory dues to recover unrelated contractual dues is impermissible in law and equity – High Court rightly intervened to prevent breach of statutory obligations [Paras 10, 16, 22]

Royalty Recovery – Central vs. State Government – Division Bench’s finding that only the State of Bihar could recover royalty was set aside – Supreme Court refrained from deciding the issue due to lack of adequate pleadings and necessity for adjudication – Recovery may proceed under available legal methods by appropriate authority [Paras 3, 23, 24]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s quashing of Union’s action upheld – No costs awarded – Liberty granted to recover dues as per law through appropriate means [Para 25]

Criminal Law - Challenge to conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC – Dowry Death – Presumption under Section 113B, Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – Prosecution must prove basic facts that (i) death occurred otherwise than normal, (ii) within seven years of marriage, and (iii) soon before death there was cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand – Courts below erred in shifting burden on accused to prove date of marriage – Held: Prosecution failed to prove that marriage was within seven years, hence presumption under Section 113B not available [Paras 7-17].

Delay and Nature of Complaint – Complaint filed eight days after death was well-drafted, typed and contained ingredients of offences under IPC – Evidences circumstances of deliberation and consultation – Courts below erred in treating it as spontaneous – Credibility of prosecution version doubtful [Para 18].

Reliability of Witnesses – PW-4 (father) gave false evidence regarding non-intimation of death – Sketch prepared for cremation based on PW-4’s directions shows his presence – Relatives’ testimony (PWs 4-7) found inconsistent, exaggerated and unsafe to rely on – Evidence of harassment and dowry demand not trustworthy [Paras 19-21].

Employment of Accused – Appellant employed in Ambala, away from village, visited home occasionally – Reduces possibility of involvement in alleged harassment – Courts below failed to consider this properly [Para 21].

Presumption of Abetment – Section 113A, Evidence Act – Like Section 113B, presumption is permissive and not mandatory – Requires foundational facts before shifting burden – In present case, prosecution failed to establish such foundation [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC set aside – Prosecution failed to discharge initial burden – Appeal allowed – Appellant directed to be released forthwith if in custody [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law – Murder and Abduction – Sections 302/149 and 364/149 IPC – Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Trial Court convicted respondents for abduction and murder of the deceased based on testimonies of PWs 4, 5, 9 and recovery of body from accused’s house – Division Bench of High Court returned split verdict and third Judge concurred in acquittal – In appeal by deceased’s father, Supreme Court held that when two views are reasonably possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail – No compelling reason to upset acquittal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4, 5, 8, 10]

Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles – Appellate court can review evidence but interference only on compelling and substantial reasons – Presumption of innocence strengthened by acquittal – If two views are possible, adopt the one favourable to the accused – Ignoring admissible evidence may warrant re-appreciation, but mere possibility of another view is insufficient [Paras 8, 9]

Evidence – Interested/Friendly Witness – Merely being friendly with deceased does not make a witness “interested” – Nevertheless testimonies of PWs 4, 5, 9 found unreliable on facts – Doubts regarding their presence, inconsistent source of light and weapon identification, and non-disclosure to police officers who arrived early – Their conduct held unnatural [Paras 7, 8, 9]

FIR – Delay and Conduct – Delay between alleged occurrence and FIR coupled with absence of immediate disclosure to police officers at the spot treated as a suspicious circumstance – Story of presence of “Havildar” found unsubstantiated – Cumulative effect supports acquittal as a possible view [Paras 6, 7, 9]

Precedents – Reaffirmation of Standards – Followed principles in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra; Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat; Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar; State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh; State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh; Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal – Appellate interference only when the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable or vital evidence unjustifiably discarded [Para 8]

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – No interference warranted as the view taken by the High Court was a reasonably possible view on the evidence [Para 10]