Service Law – Disciplinary Punishment – By-Laws 17 & 18 – Misplacement of File – Dismissal Substituted with Lesser Penalty – Appellant, a Senior Assistant with 20 years’ unblemished service, dismissed for misplacement of one file without allegation of motive or collateral gain – Court upheld misconduct finding but held dismissal shockingly disproportionate – Modified punishment to withholding of one increment with stoppage at efficiency bar; no back wages for suspension, only subsistence allowance – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 3-8].

Scope of Judicial Review – Punishment – Courts ordinarily do not interfere with penalty imposed by disciplinary authorities – Exception: where punishment is grossly disproportionate and shocks conscience – Relief may be moulded by remand or direct substitution to avoid prolonged litigation – Applied precedents: Ranjit Thakur; Bhagat Ram; U.P. SRTC v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra [Paras 5-6].

Proportionality in Punishment – Factors Considered – Appellant’s long, unblemished service – Allegation limited to negligent misplacement, not deliberate or motivated act – Disciplinary authority erred in assuming sensitivity of file without basis in charge-sheet – Maximum penalty of dismissal unwarranted when By-Laws provided lesser punishments [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Misconduct finding upheld – Dismissal set aside – Modified punishment of withholding one increment with stoppage at efficiency bar imposed – No back wages; subsistence allowance payable up to dismissal date [Paras 7-9].

Writ Petition – Alleged Coercion in Withdrawal – Restoration Allowed – Judgement in Favour of Justice – The appellant, a member of a Scheduled Caste, challenged the validity of mining lease rules and entitlement of private parties – During pendency, writ petition was withdrawn allegedly under coercion, followed by a restoration plea supported by a detailed affidavit – High Court declined to recall the withdrawal order – Held: Supreme Court found appellant’s allegations to bear credibility and ruled that High Court should have taken a liberal view – Orders refusing restoration set aside – Writ petition restored for hearing on merits [Paras 1–5].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Access to Justice – High Court's Duty in Dealing with Allegations of Coercion – Held: Where a litigant alleges duress and provides detailed grounds, especially when belonging to a marginalized group, courts must exercise constitutional discretion under Article 226 liberally to prevent miscarriage of justice – Liberal approach warranted in view of grave allegations and potential abuse of process [Paras 3–4].

Minor Minerals – Challenge to Validity of Rules – Rule 52A and 55A of U.P. Minor Minerals Rules – Matter Remanded – The appellant’s original writ petition included a challenge to Rule 52A and 55A and entitlement of private parties to mining leases – Supreme Court restored petition without deciding merits of the rules or claims – Plea regarding cancellation of leases raised by private respondents was left open for adjudication by the High Court [Paras 1, 6].

Final Decision – Orders of Withdrawal and Rejection Set Aside – Writ Petition Restored – Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s orders dated 8.2.2002 and 5.4.2002 – Directed that the writ petition be restored for fresh hearing on merits – Pleas of lease cancellation and maintainability left open to be decided by the High Court [Paras 5–7].

Tenancy Law - Rent Control – Review Petition – Sections 13 and 13(2)(i) of Punjab and Haryana Rent Acts – Scope of Rent Controller’s duty – Review dismissed – The review petitioner contended that earlier decisions (Rubber House and Rajinder Kumar Joshi) were not noticed in Rakesh Wadhawan and that the law therein was incorrectly laid down – Held: Though not cited earlier, both decisions did not interpret the provisions correctly – The interpretation in Rakesh Wadhawan that Rent Controller must provisionally assess arrears, interest, and costs on first hearing is correct and applies equally to Haryana Act – Review petition dismissed [Paras 2, 5, 6, 9, 10].

Punjab Act and Haryana Act – Comparison of Provisions – No substantial difference – Argument that language of two statutes warranted different interpretations rejected – Minor linguistic differences do not alter legislative intent – The crux of the issue remains the same under both statutes [Para 4].

Statutory Interpretation – Duty of Rent Controller – Expression “to be calculated by the Controller” – Held to apply to arrears of rent, interest, and costs – Such calculation must be provisional, based on summary inquiry, subject to final determination – This interpretation alone makes provision workable and fair to both landlord and tenant [Paras 5–6].

Earlier Case Law – Rubber House and Rajinder Kumar Joshi – Not correctly decided – Rubber House wrongly held that Controller had no duty to calculate arrears – Rajinder Kumar Joshi suggested limited solution based on hardship to tenants but left uncertainty – Both approaches unsatisfactory – Correct interpretation reaffirmed from Rakesh Wadhawan [Paras 6–8].

Final Decision – Review petition held to be without merit – Dismissed [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Murder - Circumstantial Evidence – Standards for Conviction – Guilt Not Established – The prosecution case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence, including alleged extra-judicial confession, bloodstained clothes, and conduct of the accused – The High Court found gaps in the chain of circumstances and held that they did not conclusively point to the accused's guilt – Held: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to sustain conviction; the evidence failed to meet this standard – Acquittal upheld [Paras 1-3, 7-17].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Credibility of Witnesses – Confession Disbelieved – The Trial Court relied on confessions made to PW-3 and PW-4 – The High Court rejected this on grounds that PW-4 was hostile to the accused and PW-3 had a questionable background – Held: The Supreme Court held that extra-judicial confession must be voluntary, made to a trustworthy person, and credible – No such standard was met – Confession rightly disbelieved [Paras 2, 18-20].

Forensic Evidence – Bloodstains and Weapon Recovery – Evidence Inconclusive – Blood was found on the clothes of the accused, but no effort was made to determine the blood group – The recovered pistol did not match the bullets found at the crime scene – Held: Without scientific correlation to the deceased, the forensic evidence lacked probative value – No link established between the accused and the crime [Para 21].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Limited Scope of Interference – Acquittal Confirmed – The State argued that the High Court misappreciated evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that appellate interference is warranted only if the acquittal is manifestly illegal or perverse – Held: The High Court's findings were plausible and based on settled legal principles – No ground for interference [Paras 7, 16-17].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the High Court’s reasoning or conclusions – Held: The appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan were dismissed and the acquittal of the accused was confirmed [Para 21].

Criminal Law - Murder – Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Eyewitness Evidence Reliable – Conviction Upheld – Appellant was convicted for strangulating a 19-year-old boy named Magan—Prosecution case rested on the eyewitness account of PW-1 Gauri (sister of the deceased) and PW-2 Jagla—Both testified seeing Lal Singh strangulate the deceased with a rope inside the appellant’s house—Held: Testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 consistent and trustworthy—Minor omissions in FIR or police statements immaterial—Presence of dead body inside appellant’s house corroborated prosecution version [Paras 2–6].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death as Asphyxia – Suicide Theory Rejected – Medical Opinion Not Inconsistent – Defence relied on post-mortem doctor’s cross-examination to suggest suicide—However, post-mortem clearly recorded death due to asphyxia—Absence of nail marks on neck not conclusive to negate strangulation—Held: Doctor’s cautious statements during cross-examination insufficient to create doubt—Suicide theory found speculative and unsupported by evidence [Para 7].

Appeal Against Conviction – Scope of High Court’s Reasoning – Not a Ground for Remand – Supreme Court Satisfied on Merits – It was argued that High Court’s reasoning was too brief and matter required remand—Court noted that although the High Court’s reasoning could have been more detailed, it did not ignore material evidence—Distinguished case of Rama v. State of Rajasthan—Held: No miscarriage of justice occurred; sufficient reasons recorded—Request for remand rejected [Para 8].

Value of Immediate Eyewitness Statement – Early Disclosure Strengthens Credibility – Eyewitness Account Corroborated – PW-2 Jagla’s statement made immediately after the incident was consistent with FIR and medical evidence—Court referred to Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh regarding reliability of prompt statements—Held: Timely account by eyewitness enhances reliability of prosecution’s case [Para 9].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Life Sentence Affirmed – Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC—Found no merit in appeal—Held: Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt—Appeal dismissed [Para 10].

Criminal Law - Sentencing – Death Penalty – Scope for Commutation – Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC – Sentence Commuted - Appellant was part of an unlawful assembly that caused death of 21 persons – Though courts below treated case as rarest of rare, Supreme Court re-evaluated aggravating and mitigating factors – Held: Provocation from prior murders of accused’s relatives, absence of leadership role, absence of overt act, and prolonged incarceration were sufficient to commute sentence to life imprisonment [Paras 3–9].

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances – Guiding Principles – Reference to Bachan Singh Case – Applied - The Court reiterated the settled law from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, identifying that mere number of victims is not the sole criterion for awarding death penalty – Manner of crime, provocation, and potential for reform must be weighed – In this case, aggravating circumstances outweighed by mitigating ones [Paras 5–8].

Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Common Object Doctrine – Extent of Liability – Held: Though appellant was convicted under Section 149 IPC, he was not the leader nor did he exhort others to commit murder or arson – Specific role of appellant not sufficiently proven – Death sentence disproportionate [Paras 3, 8].

Final Decision – Death Sentence Commuted – Life Imprisonment Awarded – The sentence of death awarded by the High Court and trial court was substituted with imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC – Other concurrent sentences upheld [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Murder - Multiple Homicide – Sentencing & Procedure – IPC 302/149; CrPC 235(2), 309(2), 354(3) – Conviction affirmed; death sentence confirmed – Mass killing of 15 persons by appellants (total 17 that night) proved by injured/ocular witnesses – No adjournment after conviction was mandated solely for hearing on sentence in view of third proviso to s.309(2); no request for adjournment made – On sentence, aggravating circumstances overwhelmingly outweigh mitigating factors; “rarest of rare” satisfied – Co-accused’s previously dismissed SLP not reopened; separate appeal (No. 393/2002) dismissed and stay vacated – Appeals dismissed [Paras 6-11, 12-14, 15-19, 28-30].

Re-hearing of Disposed SLPs – Harbans Singh Considered – No general rule to reopen a finally disposed SLP merely because another appeal in the same incident is pending later – Present co-accused were tried separately; SLP of Piara & Sarabjit Singh (disposed 28.02.1997) not to be heard afresh; their appeal (renumbered 393/2002) dismissed; stay vacated [Paras 3-5].

Proof of Participation – Eye/Injured Witnesses – Presence and identification of appellants established by PW-6, PW-7 (injured), PW-8 (injured), PW-9 (groom), and PW-15 for the second incident – Minor discrepancies (timing in FIR dispatch; PW-6’s memory lapse) not fatal – Homicide by firearms proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 6-11].

CrPC Section 235(2) Hearing – No Vitiation – Adjournment after conviction not obligatory solely to enable accused to show cause against sentence in view of third proviso to s.309(2) (Act 45 of 1978) – No request for adjournment shown – Sentencing not vitiated [Paras 12-14].

Death Penalty – “Rarest of Rare” – CrPC 354(3) – Following Bachan Singh; Machhi Singh – Court must weigh crime and criminal; special reasons needed – Here: planned, prolonged firing on a marriage gathering; 13 killed at first site (including a 7-year-old and multiple teenagers) plus 2 more shortly after; brutality shocked community conscience; mitigating factors (youth; absence of prior record; possible influence of father) insufficient to offset gravity – Life imprisonment inadequate; death confirmed [Paras 15-19, 28-30].

Sentencing Guidance – Precedents – Survey of commutation cases (Allauddin Mian; Janki Dass; Sheikh Ishaque; A. Deivendran; Kumudi Lal; Om Prakash; Mohd. Chaman; Lehna) distinguished on facts; closest analogue is Machhi Singh (multi-killings in one night) where death was affirmed [Paras 20-28].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Criminal Appeal No. 392/2002 dismissed; conviction under IPC 302/149 etc. affirmed; death sentence confirmed – Criminal Appeal No. 393/2002 dismissed; earlier stay of execution vacated [Para 30].

Criminal Law  – Murder – Evidence Appreciation – IPC 302/34, 201 – Conviction Affirmed; Appeals Dismissed – Eye-witness account of related witnesses (PWs 9 & 10) found cogent and credible; absence of independent witnesses in faction-ridden village not fatal; “falsus in uno” inapplicable—court separates grain from chaff; minor omissions/discrepancies do not erode core case; non-explanation of trivial injuries on accused not decisive where prosecution evidence is clear – High Court rightly convicted appellants while distinguishing acquitted co-accused [Paras 4-13, 14-23, 25-27, 28].

Interested/Related Witnesses – Credibility – Relationship does not per se taint testimony – Court must scrutinize but not reject mechanically – Close relations less likely to shield real culprits – Applied: Dalip Singh; Vadivelu Thevar; Masalti; Jagir Singh – Evidence of PWs 9 & 10 accepted as cogent [Paras 14-19].

Absence of Independent Witnesses – Not Fatal in Faction-Ridden Villages – Natural witnesses are those present/inmates; prosecution need not examine non-occurrence bystanders – Applied: Teja Ram – No adverse inference for not examining other co-villagers [Para 20].

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – “Falsus in Uno” Not a Rule – Court must separate truth from embellishment; acquittal of some co-accused no automatic benefit to others – Principles reiterated: Nisar Ali; Gurcharan Singh; Sohrab; Balaka Singh – Conviction can rest on residue that is reliable [Paras 19, 21-23].

Normal vs Material Discrepancies – Minor inconsistencies (e.g., PW10’s absence in inquest; DDR omission) plausibly explained and not material – Normal memory/observation errors do not corrode credibility – Applied: State of Rajasthan v. Kalki; Krishna Gopal – Core prosecution version stands [Paras 19, 23, 27].

Non-Explanation of Injuries on Accused – Not Invariably Fatal – Duty arises only where defence version competes in probability or injuries are significant – Here injuries were trifling/superficial; prosecution evidence clear and cogent – Applied: Mohar Rai; Lakshmi Singh; Vijayee Singh; Ramlagan Singh; Hare Krishna Singh – No suppression of genesis inferred [Paras 25-26].

Witness Inaction During Assault – Not Ground to Discard Testimony – Unarmed PWs facing assailants with deadly weapons; self-preservation instinct recognized – Their non-intervention does not diminish credibility [Para 24].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – No Automatic Parity – Courts below noted distinguishing features vis-à-vis acquitted accused Rattan and Gurdip; conviction of appellants sustained on reliable part of evidence [Paras 11, 19].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC and 201 IPC with sentences affirmed [Para 28].

Panchayat Election – Disqualification for Having More than Two Children – Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1), Haryana Panchayati Raj Act – Constitutional Validity Upheld – Challenge raised on grounds of arbitrariness, violation of personal liberty under Article 21, and religious freedom under Article 25 – Held: Right to contest elections is not a fundamental right – Disqualification is reasonable, serves public interest in promoting family welfare and population control – Law neither arbitrary nor discriminatory – Not violative of any fundamental right [Paras 5, 20-21, 60-61, 65].

Article 14 – Reasonable Classification – Validity of Population-Based Disqualification – Law provides intelligible differentia between persons with more than two children and those with two or fewer – Disqualification serves objective of promoting national population policy – Held: Legislation is valid and not arbitrary or discriminatory – Legislative choice of number of children not open to judicial review [Paras 7-11, 18-20].

Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty – No Violation – Right to procreate not absolute – Disqualification provision does not restrict the right to have children but imposes a condition on eligibility for elected office – Held: Legislative control over personal choice in the interest of public health, welfare, and sustainable development justified – Provisions constitutionally valid [Paras 26-41].

Article 25 – Freedom of Religion – No Conflict with Muslim Personal Law – Right to religious practice does not extend to claiming immunity from valid social welfare legislation – Having more than two children or practising polygamy not essential tenets of Islam – Held: Personal law does not override public law – Disqualification not violative of Article 25 [Paras 42-49, 59].

Legislative Competence – State Power Under Entries in Lists II and III – Population control and local self-government fall within State’s legislative domain – Held: State of Haryana was competent to enact disqualification – Panchayati Raj Act consistent with Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties [Paras 38-39].

Administrative Directions – Application of Disqualification – Adoption of Third Child Does Not Cure Disqualification – Held: Once disqualification is incurred, giving a child in adoption will not remove it – Law targets birth and living children, not subsequent status change [Para 62].

Gender Discrimination – No Exemption for Women – Disqualification applies equally to men and women – Held: Any legislative exemption may be considered by the legislature, but current provision not unconstitutional for treating both equally [Para 63].

Exceptional Cases – Triplets or Twins – Not Grounds for Invalidating Law – Held: Legislation cannot be tested on hypothetical or rare scenarios – Validity judged on general application and public purpose [Para 64].

Decision – All Writ Petitions and Appeals Dismissed – Provisions Held Intra Vires – Proceedings under Section 177(2) to Resume as per Court Directions – Disqualification for having more than two children upheld as valid and constitutional [Paras 65-67].