Court Fees – Refund of Court Fees – Section 16, Court Fees Act, 1870 – Not Entitled – The petitioner sought a refund of court fees paid at various stages of litigation, arguing that the case was decided based on a settlement – The High Court rejected the plea, holding that refund is permissible only when the matter is referred to arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation – Held: As the settlement was reached privately and not through any recognized dispute resolution mechanism, the petitioner is not entitled to a refund – Special Leave Petition dismissed [Paras 6, 7, 8].

Decision: The Supreme Court held that refund of court fees is permissible only when the case is settled through arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement, Lok Adalat, or mediation – As the settlement in the present case was out-of-court and not through any recognized dispute resolution mechanism, the petitioner is not entitled to a refund – Special Leave Petition dismissed [Para 9].

Referred Cases:

• State of Punjab vs. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660

• High Court of Judicature at Madras vs. M.C. Subramaniam & Ors., (2021) 2 SCC 243

• Delhi Transco Ltd. vs. GMR Ambala Chandigarh Expressways Pvt. Ltd., (2022) SCC OnLine Del 3787

Criminal Law – Murder – Rape – Circumstantial Evidence – Death Sentence – Admissibility of Electronic Evidence - Conviction and Death Sentence – Appeal Against High Court Judgment – Appellant convicted for offences under Sections 302, 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 read with 397, and 201 IPC – Sentenced to death for murder (Section 302 IPC) and various terms of rigorous imprisonment for other offences – Conviction and sentence upheld by Bombay High Court – Appeal before Supreme Court challenging the conviction and sentence primarily on circumstantial evidence and procedural lapses in electronic evidence [Paras 1-3].

Prosecution Case – Victim’s Last Seen Circumstances – Discovery of Dead Body – Victim (EA), a 23-year-old woman, last contacted her father (PW-26) while traveling to Mumbai by train on 04.01.2014 – After arrival in Mumbai, she went missing – Decomposed and partly burnt body discovered near Express Highway on 16.01.2014 – Identified by father based on a ring on her finger – FIR registered under Sections 302 and 201 IPC – Post-mortem confirmed death due to head injury, smothering, and genital injuries, suggesting sexual assault [Paras 2-6].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – CCTV Footage – Prosecution relied on CCTV footage from Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT) Railway Station showing Appellant loitering on platform at 4:50 AM on 05.01.2014 – Alleged that Appellant was last seen leaving with the victim – Witnesses (PW-26, PW-27) identified Appellant and victim separately in the footage – Defense challenged authenticity of CCTV footage due to lack of Section 65-B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act – Supreme Court held that electronic evidence without certification is inadmissible – CCTV footage excluded from consideration [Paras 16, 24-51].

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Section 65-B Compliance – CCTV footage relied upon by prosecution was not supported by a valid Section 65-B(4) certificate – Supreme Court reaffirmed that a certificate under Section 65-B is mandatory for admissibility of electronic records – Rejected prosecution's attempt to rely on footage without certification – Following precedents in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, Supreme Court excluded CCTV footage from evidence – Held: The entire case hinged on CCTV footage, and without it, circumstantial evidence was incomplete [Paras 35-50].

Circumstantial Evidence – Burden of Proof – Requirement of a Complete Chain of Evidence – Acquittal – Prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances leading only to the guilt of the accused while ruling out any other hypothesis – The circumstances must be fully established and not based on conjecture or suspicion – Held: The prosecution failed to satisfy this standard, and the accused is acquitted [Paras 121-123].

Last Seen Theory – Unreliable Witnesses – Delay in Recording Statements – Witnesses PW-20 and PW-21, who allegedly last saw the deceased with the accused, had their statements recorded more than two months after the incident – Delay was unexplained, and testimonies contained contradictions – Held: The last seen theory is unreliable and does not conclusively establish the appellant’s guilt [Paras 70-76].

Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Media Exposure of Accused – Unreliable Identification – Identification parade conducted on 25.03.2014 lacked credibility as the accused’s photograph was widely circulated in newspapers and media from 04.03.2014 – Witnesses had prior exposure, rendering the TIP unreliable – Held: Identification parade evidence cannot be relied upon to sustain conviction [Paras 72-74, 110].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Weak Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Alleged confession to PW-9 was uncorroborated and contradicted by other evidence – PW-9 had prior conflicts with the accused and was taken into police custody earlier – No material particulars supported his claim – Held: Extra-judicial confession is inadmissible and unreliable [Paras 108-110].

Recovery of Material Objects – Lack of Proper Corroboration – Failure to Establish Ownership – Trolley bag allegedly recovered from Nashik and items found in appellant’s sister’s house were not conclusively linked to the appellant – Witnesses were coerced, and recoveries were from open places accessible to others – Held: Mere recovery of objects does not establish guilt in the absence of conclusive proof [Paras 113-120].

Weaknesses in Investigation – Delay in Recording Statements – Contradictions in Testimonies – Statements of key witnesses were recorded months after the incident without explanation – Physical descriptions of the accused given by different witnesses were surprisingly identical despite being recollected after a significant time lapse – Held: Prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing solely to the guilt of the accused [Paras 70-73, 103-107].

Failure to Rule Out Other Hypotheses – Standard for Conviction in Circumstantial Evidence Cases – The prosecution did not prove the accused’s exclusive possession of the crime scene – The time gap between the "last seen" evidence and the discovery of the body was significant, making it possible for another person to have committed the crime – Held: In cases based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be conclusively proven, which was not done in this case [Paras 75-77, 121-123].

Acquittal – Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Prosecution case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence with multiple gaps in the chain – Key witnesses' testimonies were unreliable, and recoveries did not conclusively establish the accused’s involvement – Held: Conviction and death sentence set aside, and appellant acquitted [Paras 123-124].

Matrimonial Law - Presumption of Legitimacy – Paternity and Legitimacy under Section 112, Indian Evidence Act – Conclusive Proof – DNA Test Not Ordered – The Supreme Court held that a child born within a valid marriage is conclusively presumed to be legitimate unless non-access between spouses is proved – Mere allegations of an extramarital relationship or an additional access do not displace this presumption – A DNA test cannot be ordered unless a prima facie case for non-access is made out – In this case, since the child's mother and her husband cohabited during conception, legitimacy remains conclusive, and paternity is not open for determination [Paras 9-20].

Jurisdiction of Family Court – Determination of Paternity vs. Legitimacy – Original Suit by Civil Court Valid – The Family Court, while determining maintenance, does not have independent jurisdiction to determine paternity where legitimacy is already conclusively presumed – The Civil Court (Munsiff Court) and Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction over the issue of legitimacy – The Family Court erred in reopening maintenance proceedings based on an independent determination of paternity, as it was beyond its jurisdiction [Paras 21-32].

Res Judicata – Finality of Civil Court’s Finding – Reopening of Maintenance Petition Barred – The Supreme Court held that the issue of legitimacy was conclusively decided in favor of the appellant by three courts, including the High Court – Reopening the maintenance petition in 2015 was impermissible as the issue had attained finality – Permitting such a challenge would open floodgates for endless litigation, which is against the doctrine of res judicata [Paras 33-42].

Right to Privacy and Dignity – No DNA Test Without Sufficient Grounds – Balancing Interests – The Supreme Court underscored that compelling an individual to undergo a DNA test without a strong prima facie case violates the right to privacy and dignity – The respondent’s claim of wanting to establish paternity was outweighed by the adverse effects of compelling the appellant to undergo a test, as it could lead to unwarranted social stigma and personal distress [Paras 43-55].

Revival of Maintenance Petition – Self-Imposed Condition by Family Court – Validity – The Family Court had earlier imposed a condition that the maintenance proceedings could only be reopened if an appeal in the civil suit favored the respondent – Since no such relief was granted in appeal, the self-imposed condition stood valid, and the Family Court erred in reviving the petition [Paras 56-65].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court and Family Court Orders Set Aside – The Supreme Court held that the High Court and Family Court orders were erroneous – The Family Court had no jurisdiction to determine paternity independent of legitimacy – The maintenance petition was barred by res judicata – No DNA test could be ordered – The respondent remains presumed as the legitimate child of Mr. Raju Kurian, and the appellant has no obligation to provide maintenance [Paras 66-70].

Criminal Law – Common Intention under Section 34 IPC – Mere Presence Insufficient for Conviction – The Supreme Court held that for applying Section 34 IPC, prosecution must prove prior meeting of minds and a common intention to commit the crime – The High Court erred in convicting the appellants solely on the ground that they were present in the same vehicle as the main accused – No evidence was adduced to show that the appellants had knowledge of, or participated in, the crime [Paras 25-35].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Appellate Review – High Court’s Reversal of Acquittal Set Aside – The Supreme Court reiterated that interference with acquittal is justified only if the trial court's findings are perverse, unreasonable, or based on misreading of evidence – The trial court's view that the appellants had no common intention was a possible and reasonable view – The High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without finding any perversity in the trial court's reasoning [Paras 36-50].

Section 34 IPC – No Prior Planning or Shared Intention – Conviction Not Sustainable – The Supreme Court emphasized that under Section 34 IPC, conviction requires proof that all accused acted in concert with pre-planned intent – The prosecution failed to establish that the appellants had any role beyond accompanying the shooter – Held: Mere presence in the vehicle with the shooter does not establish common intention, and thus conviction was unsustainable [Paras 51-60].

Precedents on Common Intention – Judicial Approach in Cases of Group Offenses – The Supreme Court referred to its judgments in Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal, Jasdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, and Madhusudan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reaffirming that conviction under Section 34 IPC requires clear evidence of active participation and common intention – The High Court failed to apply this principle correctly [Paras 61-70].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Acquittal Restored – High Court Judgment Set Aside – The Supreme Court quashed the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC – Restored the trial court’s acquittal order – Held that the appellants did not share common intention and their conviction was legally unsustainable [Paras 71-75].

Arbitration Law – Jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Scope of Interference – Division Bench of High Court erroneously interfered with concurrent findings of DRB, Arbitral Tribunal, and Single Judge – Limited scope under Sections 34 and 37 reiterated – Division Bench's interpretation of Clauses 51 and 52 as "unreasonable" held erroneous – Judgment of Division Bench set aside – Arbitral award restored – Held: Courts must exercise restraint to uphold the objectives of the 1996 Act [Paras 25-43].

Variation in Quantity – Clauses 51 and 52 of GCC and COPA – Variation must be instructed to attract Engineer's power to renegotiate rates – Provisions for uninstructed variations clarified – DRB and Arbitral Tribunal found no instructed variation or change in design – Increased geogrid quantity required due to erroneous estimate in BOQ – Contractual provisions for BOQ rates upheld – Division Bench's broader interpretation of "variation" rejected as contrary to contract [Paras 29-34].

Arbitral Tribunal – Findings and Interpretation – Arbitrators' interpretation of contractual clauses upheld as reasonable and plausible – Division Bench erred in overturning technical findings without justification – Courts emphasized not to sit in appeal over arbitral decisions unless findings are perverse or shock judicial conscience [Paras 22-26, 37-41].

Public Policy of India – Scope under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) – Public policy includes fundamental principles of law, justice, and morality – Interference justified only for patent illegality or perverse findings – Division Bench's conclusion of "shocking the conscience" unwarranted in the absence of evidence [Paras 36-42].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Division Bench under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 set aside – Arbitral award restored – No order as to costs [Paras 43].

Service Law – Promotion and Consequential Benefits – Validity of Disciplinary Proceedings – Challenge to Promotion Denial – Retrospective Promotion – Appellant, a bank employee, was denied promotion from MMG/S-II to MMG/S-III in 2001 due to disciplinary proceedings. High Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings, holding the enquiry officer was junior to the appellant, creating a likelihood of bias. Despite this, the appellant’s promotion result, kept in abeyance, was canceled, and no further action was taken to restore his promotional benefits. Held: Cancellation of promotion result directly arose from the now-quashed disciplinary proceedings. Appellant entitled to retrospective promotion with effect from July 28, 2001, with all monetary benefits. Cancellation of promotion is deemed covered under the "consequential benefits" directed by the Single Judge. [Paras 22, 26, 30]

Contempt Petition – Compliance with Court Orders – High Court dismissed the appellant’s contempt petition, holding the payment of Rs. 19,446/- (restoration of reduced pay) sufficient compliance with the Single Judge’s order. Held: Payment of reduced pay is insufficient; respondents failed to comply with the direction to grant all "consequential benefits." Court criticized the hyper-technical approach of the respondents in denying retrospective promotion and failing to interpret consequential benefits in a fair manner. Directed respondents to grant promotion from July 28, 2001, with 6% interest on monetary arrears. [Paras 28, 30, 32]

Promotion Denials for Higher Scales (2016-2018) – Appellant claimed entitlement to promotions beyond MMG/S-III (e.g., Scale-IV) in subsequent promotion exercises. Held: Determination of higher-scale promotions is beyond the scope of this appeal. Appellant at liberty to pursue available legal remedies, with protection against limitation or laches objections. [Paras 31]

Constitutional and Legal Observations – Fair Process in Disciplinary Action – Disciplinary proceedings were quashed due to procedural defects, which were not attributable to the appellant. Respondents failed to initiate a fresh enquiry or obtain liberty from the appellate court. Held: Denying retrospective promotion amounts to penalizing the appellant for the employer’s lapses. Fairness and justice demand rectification of the appellant’s service record to align with his entitlement. [Paras 24, 26, 29]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – High Court’s dismissal of contempt petition set aside. Respondents directed to promote appellant from MMG/S-II to MMG/S-III with effect from July 28, 2001, along with all monetary benefits and interest at 6% per annum. Appellant free to pursue remedies for higher-scale promotions. No costs awarded.
 

Criminal Law – Bail – Offences under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 – Petitioner accused of forcibly converting a mentally challenged minor to Islam – High Court denied bail citing seriousness of allegations – Supreme Court granted bail citing prolonged custody and lack of grave offense like murder or rape – Observed: Discretion in granting bail must be exercised judicially, not whimsically – Trial to proceed expeditiously – Guilt or innocence to be determined independently of bail order [Paras 1-23].

Grant of Bail – Judicial Discretion – Principles emphasized – Courts must balance alleged offense's gravity, custody duration, and presumption of innocence – High Court's refusal to grant bail criticized for lacking judicial courage – Supreme Court reiterated importance of judicial discretion being exercised judiciously and consistently with legal principles [Paras 10-15].

Prolonged Custody – Petitioner in custody for over 11 months – Allegation involved religious conversion of a minor under the Uttar Pradesh Act, 2021 – Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail, considering less severe nature of offense compared to heinous crimes like murder or rape – Ordered petitioner’s release subject to trial court’s terms and conditions [Paras 9, 16-21].

Trial to Proceed – Bail granted should not impede ongoing trial – Prosecution’s case to be decided solely on substantive evidence – Supreme Court emphasized that observations in bail order must not influence trial court proceedings [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Bail granted – Appeal allowed – Petitioner to be released on terms and conditions set by the trial court – Trial to continue without delay [Paras 20-23].

Civil Law – Right to Dignified Burial – Obstruction of Burial – Demarcation of Burial Grounds – Appellant, a Christian, sought to bury his father in a burial ground historically used by his community within their native village of Chhindwada – Villagers objected, citing lack of formal designation for Christian burials and alleged disturbance to public order – High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing burial in a designated Christian graveyard 20-25 km away in Karkapal – Held (Nagarathna, J., majority): Actions of the Gram Panchayat and villagers constituted discrimination under Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution – High Court erred in rejecting the appellant's prayer to bury his father in Chhindwada – Burial on appellant's private land with police protection allowed as a temporary solution [Paras 22.2, 22.10, 22.12, 24]. Dissenting View (Sharma, J.): No absolute right to choose burial location exists under Articles 21 or 25 – Public order concerns necessitate burial at the designated site in Karkapal – Fundamental rights of religious practice must balance with statutory rules and community harmony [Paras 15-19].

Religious Practices – Burial Rights – Article 25 of the Constitution – Freedom to Practice Religion – Appellant claimed oral permission existed for Christian burials in a section of the village graveyard – Respondent-State argued burial grounds were regulated by the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat Rules, which required designated areas for burials – Court noted failure of Gram Panchayat to formally demarcate spaces for minority communities, resulting in social ostracism – Held (Nagarathna, J.): Burial rights are integral to religious freedom but must align with public order and statutory regulations – State directed to demarcate burial grounds for Christians across the State within two months [Paras 22.6, 22.8, 23]. Dissenting View (Sharma, J.): Designated sites for burial ensure systemic management and public health – No need to override statutory limitations under Rule 8 of Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat Rules for private land burials – Appellant directed to use Karkapal site with logistical support [Paras 17, 19].

Judicial Stewardship – Balancing Community Interests – Article 142 of the Constitution – Bench divided on whether burial should take place in Karkapal or appellant's private land – Nagarathna, J., emphasized the appellant’s right to use private agricultural land – Sharma, J., stressed public order concerns, favoring burial at the designated Karkapal site – Final Order (by Consensus): Appellant to bury the deceased at the Christian burial ground in Karkapal with logistical and police support, exercising Article 142 to ensure expeditious resolution and dignity for the deceased [Paras 18-19, 24].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Body to be buried at the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal with logistical support from State authorities – State directed to expedite burial site demarcation for Christians to prevent future disputes.
 

LPG Distributorship – Disqualification Alleged – Appellant challenged allotment of LPG distributorship to the 4th respondent on the ground of offering the same land by two applicants – High Court dismissed the challenge – Guidelines required land ownership or lease on the date of application – Affidavits executed at the time of field verification found permissible – Alternate land offered by the 4th respondent in light of the lessor’s shifting stance was accepted as per guidelines – No infirmity found in allotment process – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3-13].

Land Ownership and Lease – Guidelines Interpretation – Land offered by the 4th respondent found distinct and separate from that of the other applicant despite being owned by the same lessor – Guidelines permitted affidavits of co-owners or joint lessees at the stage of field verification – High Court held that co-owners’ consent was unnecessary as the land was under the sole lease of the 4th respondent – Alternate land offered met specifications under guidelines and did not substantiate any disqualification [Paras 7-11].

Alternate Land – Flexibility in Guidelines – Reliance on judgment in Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley – Alternate land could be offered where the original land became unsuitable – 4th respondent offered alternate land due to disputes with the lessor – Guidelines provided for such flexibility – No prejudice or illegality found in the Corporation's acceptance of the alternate land [Para 12].

Decision: Civil Appeal dismissed – No evidence of disqualification or violation of guidelines – Alternate land acceptance upheld as per revised guidelines – Costs to be borne by respective parties [Paras 13-14].