Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal Ordered – Prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence of accused hiring taxi, staying at hotel, recovery of ornaments, and letter allegedly written by accused – Hotel waiter, the sole direct witness, not examined – Register entries not legally proved – Recovery of common ornaments not connected to deceased – Letter contained no confession and not proved through handwriting expert – Circumstances insufficient to sustain conviction – Trial Court and High Court erred in convicting – Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence of appellant – Co-accused also extended same benefit despite not appealing – Both acquitted [Paras 5-10, 17-18].

Circumstantial Evidence – Proof Required – Each circumstance must be proved by substantive evidence and form complete chain connecting accused with crime – Withholding key witness (hotel waiter) fatal – Hearsay testimony of hotel owner inadmissible – Register entry unproved – No substantive evidence of presence in hotel – Chain incomplete [Paras 6-7].

Recovery Evidence – Gold chain and ring – Articles of common use, not identified by family members of deceased – No test identification parade held – Identification by shopkeeper unreliable – Recovery held insufficient to prove guilt [Para 9].

Confession – Letter to Mother – No admission of guilt contained – Prosecution failed to prove handwriting/signature through expert – Cannot be relied upon as confession or admission [Para 8].

Supreme Court’s Powers – Article 136 and 142 – Court can extend benefit of acquittal to non-appealing co-accused where circumstances show conviction of any accused unsustainable – Powers exercisable suo motu to prevent miscarriage of justice – Failure to extend benefit would violate Article 21 by perpetuating illegal detention – Extended benefit to co-accused Balwinder Singh though he did not appeal [Paras 11-17].

Decision – Conviction and sentence of appellant Pawan Kumar and co-accused Balwinder Singh set aside – Both acquitted of charge under Section 302/34 IPC – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case [Para 18].

Service Law – Suspension – Rule 10(2) CCS (CCA) Rules – Deemed Suspension – Validity – Employee detained beyond 48 hours deemed suspended by operation of law – Delhi High Court held such deemed suspension ends on release from detention – Held: Unsustainable – Rule 10(5)(a) & 10(5)(c) make clear that suspension, whether made or deemed, continues until modified or revoked by competent authority – Suspension does not lapse automatically on release from custody – High Court’s view contrary to plain language of statute [Paras 14-18, 27].

Interpretation of Statutes – Deeming Provision – Legal fiction under Rule 10(2) has full efficacy as an actual order – Courts cannot read into provision limitations not expressed – Words “until further orders” absent in Rule 10(2) immaterial in view of Rule 10(5)(a) – Casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretation – Statutory construction must rely on text, not presumed intention [Paras 15-26].

Suspension – Long Duration – Validity – Prolonged suspension not per se invalid – Continuance justified if plausible reasons exist – Court cannot annul merely on ground of duration [Para 30].

Comparative Provisions – Rule 10(3) & 10(4) CCS (CCA) Rules operate in different contexts (appellate/review or court orders) – Cannot be imported into Rule 10(2) – Nelson Motis case distinguished [Paras 29].

Decision – Orders of Delhi High Court quashing suspension set aside – Appeals allowed – Fresh suspension orders, if challenged, to be adjudicated separately on merits [Paras 32-33].

Criminal Law - Murder – Ocular Testimony vs. Medical Evidence – Appeals Dismissed – Sessions Judge acquitted accused of strangulating deceased; High Court reversed and convicted under Section 302/34 IPC – Supreme Court upheld conviction – Eyewitness testimony of police constables on patrol duty fully corroborated by medical and documentary evidence – No inconsistency between ocular version and post-mortem findings – Absence of proved motive immaterial where direct evidence is trustworthy – Appeals dismissed, life imprisonment confirmed [Paras 2-21].

Ocular Testimony – Greater Weight – Reliable eyewitness account corroborated by prompt FIR and medical evidence cannot be discarded on hypothetical conflict with medical opinion – Ligature mark dimensions depend on type of cloth and manner of strangulation – No inconsistency between eyewitness version and medical findings [Paras 12-17].

Motive – Proof Not Essential – Failure of prosecution to prove motive not fatal where direct evidence establishes guilt – Motive often difficult to prove and may remain undiscoverable – Conviction sustainable on reliable ocular and medical evidence even without proof of motive [Para 18].

First Information Report – Prompt Lodging – FIR lodged within two hours of occurrence, promptly sent to Magistrate – Documentary evidence corroborates prosecution version and rules out false implication [Para 11].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope – High Court justified in reversing perverse acquittal where trial court ignored reliable eyewitness and medical evidence – Supreme Court upheld conviction, directing accused to surrender to undergo life sentence [Paras 18, 21].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302/34 IPC upheld – Accused directed to surrender immediately [Para 21].

Taxation Law - Excise Classification – Banphool Oil – Classification Dispute – Ayurvedic Medicament Confirmed – The issue was whether Banphool Oil should be classified as “perfumed hair oil” under Tariff Item 3305.10 or as an “Ayurvedic Medicament” under Tariff Item 3003.30 – Tribunal’s majority classified the product as Ayurvedic – Supreme Court upheld the view – Held: Product contained ingredients from Ayurvedic texts, was manufactured under a drug license, and used in treatment of various ailments – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1–2, 12–14].

Interpretation of Excise Tariff – Onus on Department – Common Parlance Test – Department Failed to Discharge Burden – Held: Revenue bears the burden of proving classification – Mere over-the-counter sale or non-prescription availability does not negate Ayurvedic nature – No evidence produced by Department to show product was understood as cosmetic or hair oil in common parlance – Label indicated dosage and medicinal use – Classification as Ayurvedic Medicament affirmed [Para 12].

Role of Drug Controller's Opinion – Board Circular Binding – Department Bound by Its Own Circular – Held: Board’s Circular dated 05/12/1991 required reference to Drug Controller in case of doubt – Opinion of Drug Controller confirmed that Banphool Oil is an Ayurvedic preparation – Revenue failed to escalate for further clarification as per Circular – Tribunal rightly relied on the Drug Controller’s view [Paras 8, 13].

Percentage of Medicinal Ingredients – Low Proportion Not Determinative – Fillers Do Not Alter Medicinal Character – Held: Medicaments often have active ingredients in small quantities mixed with carriers or fillers – Example of Vicks Vaporub cited – Court held that low percentage of ayurvedic ingredients does not defeat classification if therapeutic use is established [Para 12].

Precedents – B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals, Amrutanjan Ltd., Selsun Cases Applied – Functional Use Over Marketing Terminology – Held: Earlier judgments clarified that classification depends on intended therapeutic use, not product labels or prior descriptions – Even if ingredients overlap with cosmetics, medicinal use and consumer understanding determine classification – Banphool Oil satisfied test of medicament as per settled law [Paras 10–11].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Classification as Ayurvedic Medicament Confirmed – Supreme Court found no infirmity in Tribunal’s majority judgment – Appeals by Department dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Murder – IPC Sections 302, 307, 109 – Appeal Allowed – Conviction set aside – Appellant convicted for firing fatal shot at deceased, while co-accused acquitted by High Court – Ballistic expert’s report directly contradicted eye-witness version on weapons used – High Court disbelieved oral evidence for acquitted accused but accepted same against appellant – Held: Inconsistent appreciation of same evidence unsustainable – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant – Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 7-8].

Evidence – Eye-witness testimony vs. Expert report – Where ballistic expert’s opinion contradicts oral version on weapon used, and prosecution fails to reconcile contradiction, reliance solely on partisan witnesses unsafe – Non-examination of independent witnesses further weakens prosecution – In such cases, eye-witness testimony alone cannot sustain conviction [Para 7].

Consistency of Judicial Reasoning – High Court erred in applying different standards – Oral evidence used to acquit co-accused cannot be selectively relied on to convict appellant – Reasoning must be uniform in assessing reliability of prosecution version [Para 7].

Benefit of Doubt – Contradictions in oral evidence, interested nature of witnesses, and failure to clarify ballistic inconsistencies – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence quashed [Para 8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant set aside – If in custody, appellant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Para 8].

Per Incuriam – Coordinate Bench Discipline – Article 141 – Appeal Allowed and Matter Remanded –Patna High Court Full Bench declared Section 15 ultra vires and curtailed the bar/abatement under Sections 4(b), 4(c), 37 by terming the earlier Full Bench in Ramkrit Singh as per incuriam – Held: Decision is per incuriam only if rendered in ignorance of a binding statute or precedent; mere non-consideration of an aspect or perceived incorrectness is not a ground – A coordinate Bench must follow or refer to a larger Bench; it cannot bypass by labelling per incuriam – Impugned judgment set aside; case remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration in light of this ruling [Paras 1, 3-6, 8-13, 14].

Doctrine of Per Incuriam – Tests and Limits – Per incuriam applies where there is omission to notice a binding precedent of the same/superior court or a relevant statutory provision – Not attracted merely because a possible argument/aspect was not considered – Reliance placed on Halsbury, Young v. Bristol Aeroplane; approved in Synthetics & Chemicals; Fuerst Day Lawson; B. Satyanarayana Rao [Paras 5-9].

Judicial Discipline – Coordinate Benches – If a Bench disagrees with a coordinate Bench, proper course is reference to a larger Bench; conflicting views cannot co-exist – Followed Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho; Pradip Chandra Parija – High Court misapplied per incuriam and ought to have referred [Paras 11-12].

Consolidation Act – Sections 3, 4(b),(c), 15, 37 – Validity/Effect – High Court’s dilution of abatement/bar and striking down of Section 15 set aside not on merits but for misapplication of per incuriam; issues to be reconsidered by High Court on remand [Paras 1-3, 13-14].

Decision – Supreme Court allowed appeal – Set aside Patna High Court Full Bench judgment – Remanded to High Court to decide afresh in accordance with law – Costs easy [Para 14].

Land Acquisition – Constitutional Law – Absence of Solatium and Interest – Classification Valid – Defence of India Act Not Arbitrary – Sections 30 and 31 of the Defence of India Act, 1971, which provide for acquisition of requisitioned land and compensation without solatium or interest, challenged under Article 14 – Held: The classification between acquisitions under the Defence of India Act and the Land Acquisition Act is reasonable – The former deals with emergency requisitions, distinct in nature and object – Therefore, the provisions do not violate Article 14 [Paras 1–2, 24–30].

Compensation – Scheme of Defence of India Act – Acquisition of Requisitioned Property – Held: The Act constitutes a self-contained code – The compensation under Section 31 is based on market value as if the land remained in same condition as on date of requisition – Absence of solatium and interest does not render the scheme unconstitutional – Owners already receive compensation for the period of requisition [Paras 15–17, 26–28].

Doctrine of Reasonable Classification – Article 14 – Held: Classification based on nature and purpose of acquisition under different statutes is permissible – Defence of India Act serves special purposes linked to defence and emergency – Distinct from public purpose acquisitions under Land Acquisition Act – Differential treatment in compensation is constitutionally valid [Paras 25, 30].

Precedents – Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla and Dhanwanti Devi – Upheld – Decisions affirming the validity of statutes not granting solatium or interest in certain types of acquisitions reaffirmed – No need to overrule earlier judgments – Case distinguished from Nagpur Improvement Trust case [Paras 17–18, 31–33].

Refund – Equitable Relief – Solatium and Interest Already Paid – Not to be Recovered – Though the High Court judgment granting solatium and interest is reversed, amounts already paid decades ago to respondents not to be recovered – Relief granted considering prolonged delay, pending arbitration, and small amounts involved – Direction not to be treated as precedent [Paras 35–37].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Constitutionality of Defence of India Act, 1971 Upheld – Judgment of High Court declaring the Act violative of Article 14 set aside – However, no recovery of amounts already paid towards solatium and interest [Paras 34, 38].

Criminal Law – Quashing - FIR, Investigation, Search and Seizure – CrPC Sections 154, 156, 157, 165 and PC Act Section 13 – Appeal Allowed – High Court erred in quashing G.D. Entry, FIR, investigation and directing return of seized articles – Held: G.D. Entry disclosed cognizable offence of demand and acceptance of ₹1 lakh bribe; it could be treated as FIR; sufficiency/truthfulness are matters for investigation; investigation directed to continue [Paras 18-27].

FIR – Not an encyclopedia – Sufficiency of particulars – Threshold of “reason to suspect” – Information need not disclose all ingredients or details (bribe-giver, exact quid pro quo) – It is enough if it provides basis to suspect cognizable offence; once such suspicion exists, police must record and investigate [Para 22].

G.D. Entry as FIR – Legality – Where information in G.D. Entry discloses a cognizable offence, it can operate as FIR – Subsequent formal FIR does not vitiate investigation – Determination of which is FIR is a matter for trial if disputed [Paras 17, 20-23, 25].

Investigation Powers – Mention of wrong section – Non-fatal – Citing Section 157 in G.D. Entry or misquoting provision does not invalidate investigation if action traceable to lawful power – Court at trial will frame appropriate charges irrespective of section mentioned [Para 25].

Search and Seizure – Section 165 CrPC – Validity of search/seizure premature to decide at threshold – Whether mandatory recording of grounds complied with to be considered at trial if challenged – High Court erred in quashing search and ordering return [Para 25].

Decision – Supreme Court set aside High Court order – Investigation to proceed in accordance with law – Appeal allowed – No opinion expressed on merits of allegations [Paras 26-27].

Taxation Law - Valuation under Excise Law – Uniform Pricing and Equalized Freight – Section 4 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 – Tribunal’s View Reversed – The appellant, a manufacturer, included equalized freight in sale price and maintained uniform pricing nationwide – Department added freight cost from factory to depot to assessable value based on amended Section 4 – Tribunal upheld inclusion, interpreting amended “place of removal” to include depot – Held: Even post-amendment, value under Section 4 remains the normal price at time and place of removal – If price is uniform and freight is equalized, transportation cost cannot be added – Appeals allowed [Paras 3, 5-8].

Interpretation of Amended Section 4 – No Intention to Override Precedents – Inclusion of Depot in Definition Does Not Alter Law – Appellant contended that amendment did not override earlier Supreme Court rulings – Held: Enlarged definition of “place of removal” was necessary due to inclusion of Section 4(1)(ia) which contemplates different prices at different removal points – However, where price is uniform, previous judgments in Bombay Tyre International and MRF cases continue to apply – No provision in amended Act mandates addition of transport cost in such cases [Paras 6-7].

Consistent Legal Position – Supreme Court Precedents Remain Binding – No Departure from Existing Law – Court reiterated that unless expressly provided by statute, existing judicial interpretation remains good law – Tribunal erred in interpreting amended provisions contrary to established precedent – Amendment does not alter the basis of valuation for uniform pricing cases [Paras 6-8].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Supreme Court held that freight cost from factory to depot cannot be added where equalized freight is included in uniform pricing – Appeals allowed with consequential relief – No order as to costs [Para 8].