Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302 and Section 34 of the IPC - Circumstantial Evidence – Section 106 Evidence Act – Conviction Sustained – The appellant was convicted for abducting and murdering two young men during Punjab militancy – Eyewitnesses (parents) saw the appellant abduct the sons with AK-47 rifles – Bodies found next morning nearby – Appellant failed to explain what happened after abduction – Held: Court justified in drawing presumption under Section 106 that abductors were also murderers – No explanation offered by appellant, and conviction upheld [Paras 5–8, 14–16, 20–22].

Presumption – Section 114 Evidence Act – Special Knowledge – Murder Inference Justified – Based on chain of events and unexplained disappearance, court held that the abductors bore responsibility for the murders – Legal presumption drawn where special knowledge lies with accused – Section 34 IPC invoked to attribute common intention among abductors [Paras 16–21].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Burden of Proof – Traditional Rule Not Absolute – Though burden lies on prosecution, presumption principles permit inference where facts point to accused’s guilt and accused withholds explanation – Doctrine not a deviation from burden rule, but necessary evolution to ensure justice in heinous crimes like abduction followed by murder [Paras 18–20].

Appeal Outcome – Conviction and Sentence Confirmed – Court found no merit in defence’s plea regarding alternate residence of eyewitnesses or note claiming responsibility by another group – Appeal dismissed, sentence of life imprisonment upheld [Paras 10–13, 23–24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC confirmed – Legal presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act upheld in the absence of explanation by accused [Para 24].

Service Law - Jurisprudence – Civil Post under Article 311 – Kurk Amins Appointed on Commission Basis – Held Government Servants – The appellants challenged High Court orders treating commission-based Kurk Amins, appointed for recovery of cooperative dues, as Government servants – High Court relied on control, supervision, appointment authority, and parity in duties with salaried Kurk Amins to conclude existence of master-servant relationship – Held: Kurk Amins on commission basis held civil posts; findings of fact based on established tests not rebutted by the State – No infirmity found in High Court’s decision [Paras 2–17].

Master-Servant Relationship – Indicators – Commission Basis Not Decisive – Kurk Amins Functioned Under State Control – High Court correctly held that remuneration mode (commission vs. salary) does not negate civil post status where other ingredients like control, appointment, duties and public function exist – Both salaried and commission Kurk Amins performed identical statutory functions under same authority [Paras 10–14].

Pleadings and Evidence – Absence of Counter-Affidavit – Scheme Produced in Court Rejected – Appellants failed to file counter-affidavits or the cooperative recovery scheme before High Court or Supreme Court – Supreme Court declined to consider the scheme produced during oral arguments – Findings of fact by High Court stand unrebutted [Para 15].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – High Court decisions upheld – Kurk Amins on commission basis held to be civil post holders entitled to parity with salaried counterparts – No order as to costs [Paras 16–17].

Premature Release – Life Convicts – 20 Years Completed with Remission – Rejection by State Unjustified – Petitioners, convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and having served over 18 years (actual) and 24 years (with remission), sought premature release – State Review Board rejected their plea citing adverse police report and potential for regrouping – Held: Review Board failed to consider relevant factors including conduct in jail, socio-economic conditions, and purpose of further incarceration – Rejection quashed [Paras 1–3, 12–16].

Right to Consideration – No Automatic Release – Explanation to Section 61 of West Bengal Correctional Services Act – Reiterated that life sentence means imprisonment for entire life unless remitted by government – Explanation to Section 61 merely provides calculation method, does not confer right to automatic release after 20 years – Government must pass positive order for release – Petitioners entitled only to consideration, not release as of right [Paras 4, 6–8].

Judicial Review – Scope – Article 161 and Rule 591 – Government's Power Must Be Exercised Judiciously – The State’s power to remit sentence under Article 161 is discretionary but must follow fair procedure – Review Board must consider factors such as age, jail conduct, risk to society, and socio-economic condition of convict’s family – Arbitrary denial violates constitutional safeguards [Paras 10–11, 14–15].

Grounds Cited – Irrelevant and Unsubstantiated – Review Board Faulted – Board’s reliance on vague apprehensions of society and witness reactions to deny release was held legally unsustainable – Past incident of a co-accused dying in encounter years later had no direct link to petitioner’s case – Grounds were held to be non-germane to purpose of review [Paras 13, 15–16].

Decision:

Writ Petitions allowed – Rejection orders quashed – Matter remanded to the State Government for fresh consideration in accordance with law within three months – Rule made absolute [Para 16–17].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Confession under Section 164 CrPC – Partial Acquittal – The appellants were charged for the brutal murder of a serving army personnel by his wife and her accomplices – The trial court convicted A1 (wife) and A2, acquitting A3 and A4 – The High Court confirmed A1 and A2’s conviction and reversed the acquittal of A3 and A4 – On appeal, the Supreme Court found A1’s conviction unsustainable due to inadmissibility of a judicial confession under Section 164 CrPC – A1 acquitted – Convictions of A2 and A3 upheld based on circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen, travel records, and recovery of incriminating material – A4 did not file appeal – Held: Strong circumstantial chain established guilt of A2 and A3 – Procedural defect in confession fatal to A1’s conviction – Appeals disposed accordingly [Paras 1–41].

Judicial Confession – Section 164 CrPC – Mandatory Signing Requirement – Confession Excluded – Confession made by A4 to Magistrate was not signed and not recorded strictly in accordance with Section 164 – Held: Signature is mandatory; failure to comply renders the confession inadmissible – Such procedural defects cannot be cured under Section 463 CrPC – A1's conviction, which was primarily based on this confession, was therefore set aside [Paras 17–25].

Benefit of Doubt – Conviction Based on Inadmissible Evidence – A1 Acquitted – Wife (A1) was convicted largely due to her presence at the crime scene and a co-accused’s confession – As the confession was inadmissible and no other direct evidence was led, held: Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof – A1 acquitted on benefit of doubt [Paras 15–16, 26].

Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction of A2 and A3 Sustained – Motive, Travel, Last Seen, Recovery – The prosecution proved motive (illicit relationship), pre-meditated travel plan, last seen evidence, and recovery of bloodstained clothes and stolen jewellery – Human blood matching the deceased’s blood group was found on accused's clothes – Held: Circumstances formed a complete and unbroken chain proving guilt of A2 and A3 beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 27–40].

Evidentiary Value – Disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Recovery of Incriminating Articles – Voluntary statements by A2, A3, and A4 led to recovery of bloodstained clothes, knife, jewellery, and articles linked to the crime – Held: Recoveries admissible and corroborative – Strengthened the circumstantial case [Paras 37–38].

Final Decision – Appeal of A1 Allowed – A2 and A3 Appeals Dismissed – A1 released on benefit of doubt due to inadmissibility of confession – Convictions of A2 and A3 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC affirmed – Life imprisonment sustained – A4 did not file appeal [Para 41].

Criminal Law – Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – The appeals arose from a brutal multiple murder of a family of six, including infants – A1 and A2 were sentenced to death and A3 acquitted by the High Court – Supreme Court upheld convictions of A1 and A2, while affirming acquittal of A3 – Held: To invoke Section 34 IPC, there must be participation in furtherance of common intention – Mere presence at scene without any act connected to offence is insufficient – The Court clarified that act need not be overt but must be purposeful – Death penalty for A1 and A2 upheld in view of barbarity of crime [Paras 1–34, 57].

Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Essential Elements – Court held that two essential elements are necessary: (1) a criminal act done by several persons; and (2) the act done in furtherance of common intention of all – Mere mental sharing of intention without participation in any form is not sufficient – Each accused must do some act, overt or covert, with nexus to the offence – Physical presence alone is not enough unless it facilitates the crime [Paras 14–24].

Participation – Nature of Acts – Covert or Passive Acts Also Covered – The act required under Section 34 IPC may be overt, covert, active, or passive (e.g., guarding, exhorting, aiding) – Even omission to prevent the crime may constitute an act in certain cases – However, passive presence or familial relation without facilitative action does not satisfy the requirement – Act must be in furtherance of shared intention [Paras 21–24].

Presence Without Participation – Not Sufficient – The Court held that mere presence at or near the scene of offence is not enough to convict under Section 34 – Unless accused contributes to the criminal act by act or omission, conviction cannot be sustained – A3 was found merely standing outside the house with no proven role or exhortation – Hence, acquittal rightly upheld [Paras 30–32].

Scope of Section 34 IPC – No Requirement of Overt Act If Participation Proven – It is not mandatory to prove overt act by each accused – If common intention and participation (physical or otherwise) is established, Section 34 can apply – Aiding or standing guard may suffice – The section is evidentiary in nature and recognizes joint responsibility for a single offence [Paras 36–39].

Vicarious Liability – Role of Sections 32, 33, 35–38 IPC – Court explained interplay between Section 34 and related provisions like Sections 32 and 33 (defining acts and omissions) and Sections 35–38 (group liability) – Liability under Section 34 arises only when the act (as defined) is done in furtherance of common intention – Even if intention is shared, act is necessary to attract criminal responsibility under Section 34 [Paras 15–24, 54].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – A3 Pavitri Devi – The Court found no corroboration for prosecution’s claim that A3 caught the victim’s hair or exhorted co-accused – PWs 1 and 2 did not support PW3’s version implicating her – Held: A3’s mere presence outside the house not enough to infer participation or common intention – Acquittal upheld [Paras 12–13, 30–32, 57].

Death Penalty – Confirmed – Brutality, Number of Victims, Pre-Meditation – The Court held the case falls within the “rarest of rare” category – Six persons, including three children, were killed in a premeditated attack during sleep – Injuries inflicted with extreme brutality – Lesser sentence unjustified – Death penalty confirmed for A1 and A2 [Paras 2–11, 33–34].

Decision – Appeal by A1 and A2 dismissed – Convictions and death sentence upheld – Appeal against acquittal of A3 dismissed – Comprehensive interpretation of Section 34 IPC reaffirmed, emphasizing requirement of participation, not necessarily overt act, to establish common intention [Paras 34, 57].

Right of Complainant – Hearing in Quashing Proceedings – Sections 173(2), 302 CrPC – Denial of Hearing Set Aside – The appellant sought to be heard in a petition filed by the accused for quashing proceedings initiated on his complaint – The High Court refused, holding the complainant has no right post-cognizance – Held: A complainant is not divested of locus after cognizance – High Court erred in denying hearing – Appellant is entitled to participate where quashing of proceedings is sought by accused [Paras 2, 5, 8, 15-16].

Participation of Complainant – Role under CrPC – Sections 301(2), 302 – Recognized but Limited – Though the State prosecutes criminal cases, CrPC permits complainants to take part – In Sessions Courts, pleaders can act under directions of the Public Prosecutor – In Magistrate Courts, permission may be granted to conduct prosecution directly – Such provisions reflect the legislative intent to allow victim participation in appropriate circumstances [Paras 9-12].

Judicial Duty – Hearing Informant on Final Report – Section 173 CrPC – Bhagwant Singh’s Case Applied – Where Magistrates consider final police reports, complainants (informants) may be heard even without formal notice – Held: Denial of hearing when criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed amounts to denial of natural justice – Bhagwant Singh case rightly relied upon – Thakur Ram distinguished [Paras 13-14].

Natural Justice – Quashing Criminal Proceedings – Appellant Entitled to Be Heard – Complaint initiated at appellant's behest and FIR registered – Held: It is unjust to refuse him a hearing in a proceeding that may terminate the case entirely – High Court’s decision was contrary to statutory scheme and judicial precedent – Order set aside – Matter remitted for disposal after hearing the appellant [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s Order Set Aside – Matter Remanded – Held: The High Court erred in refusing the complainant’s right to be heard – Appeal allowed – High Court directed to decide the quashing petition afresh after giving the appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard [Para 16].

Criminal Law - Criminal Conspiracy and Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Murder Trial – Death Sentence Upheld – Acquittal Affirmed – The case involves brutal mass murder by Suresh and Ramji (Appellants), leading to conviction and award of death sentence – The Court examined the scope of Section 34 IPC regarding common intention and clarified that mere presence without active participation or encouragement is not sufficient – The conviction and death sentence of the main accused were upheld – The co-accused Pavitri Devi’s acquittal was affirmed due to absence of any active role or participation in the crime [Paras 1–4, 12–14, 30–34, 57].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Interpretation Explained – Joint Liability – Section 34 requires a pre-arranged plan and participation in action in furtherance of common intention – Mere presence without proof of participation does not suffice – Even passive roles like guarding or aiding can be sufficient if proven to be part of shared intention – Culpability under Section 34 depends on facts and must be inferred from circumstances if not directly evident [Paras 22–24, 36–39, 54].

Eyewitness Evidence – Minor Child Survivor – Sole Testimony – Accepted – The prosecution's case was primarily based on the testimony of PW-3, a 7-year-old child survivor, who identified the principal accused Suresh and Ramji – His evidence was corroborated by independent witnesses (PWs 1 and 2) and found to be reliable – No legal bar to basing conviction on child testimony if found credible [Paras 3–4, 10–11].

Acquittal – Co-Accused – No Role in Crime – Upheld – The High Court rightly acquitted Pavitri Devi (A-3) – Her mere presence and familial relation with accused not sufficient – No overt act or participation proved – No reason for Supreme Court to interfere [Paras 12–13, 30–32, 57].

Death Penalty – Brutality and Rarest of Rare Case – Confirmed – Considering the savage nature of the killings, including murder of women and children, the Court held this to be a ‘rarest of rare’ case – Death penalty for principal accused upheld as justified and proportionate to the crime [Paras 33–34].

Decision:

Appeals filed by Suresh and Ramji dismissed – Conviction and death sentence confirmed.

Appeal filed by State against acquittal of Pavitri Devi dismissed – Acquittal confirmed.

Clarification issued on interpretation and scope of Section 34 IPC.

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Public Interest – Order Set Aside – The respondent, an Executive Engineer, was compulsorily retired while under suspension and pending enquiry – The Supreme Court held that the compulsory retirement was not supported by any adverse service record or recommendation of the Review Committee – Held: The order was punitive and intended to bypass departmental enquiry – High Court was justified in quashing the same [Paras 2, 12].

Compulsory Retirement – Legal Principles – Not a Punishment per se – But Subject to Judicial Scrutiny - Reiterated that while compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not attract Article 311, courts can interfere if such order is mala fide, arbitrary, or based on no material – In this case, no adverse entries or findings supported the retirement order [Paras 7–11].

Suspension Pending Enquiry – Premature Retirement Without Completion – Illegal – Respondent was suspended and enquiry not concluded – Government pre-empted the process by invoking Rule 161 to retire the officer prematurely – The Court disapproved such use of power when charges are yet to be substantiated [Paras 2, 12].

Guidelines Summarised – Compulsory Retirement – Enumerated Legal Tests - The judgment consolidates the law on compulsory retirement, affirming principles from past precedents – Orders must be in public interest, based on complete service record, and not used as shortcut to avoid departmental proceedings [Paras 5–11].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Gujarat High Court affirmed – Compulsory retirement order declared invalid – Three months granted for compliance, failing which respondent entitled to 18% interest on delayed pecuniary benefits [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Upheld - Sandeep (A1) and Vikram (A3) were convicted for the murder of Vishal Goel – Prosecution proved chain of circumstances including last seen together, recovery of bloodstained sword and clothing, and matching blood group with victim – Extra-judicial confession discarded as unreliable, but conviction sustained on other cogent evidence [Paras 5, 10–14].

Recovery – Incriminating Material – Bloodstained Clothes and Weapon – Corroboration by Defence Witness - Sword and clothes recovered from Sandeep's house, corroborated even by defence witness DW1 – Recovery of motorcycle and bloodstained clothes from Vikram’s residence – Serology report confirmed blood matched deceased – Such evidence deemed credible despite lapses by investigating officer [Paras 11–12].

Last Seen Theory – Corroborated by Independent Witnesses – Witnesses Reliable - PW11 and PW7 consistently testified about seeing deceased with accused before murder and observing accused returning from canal area with sword – Witnesses had prior acquaintance with both deceased and accused, making identification reliable – No need for test identification parade [Paras 13–14].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Not Sole Basis for Conviction – Statement Vague - Statement allegedly made by Sandeep before PW9 Laxmi Narain found vague and unsupported – Held not sufficient for conviction in isolation – However, not necessary to rely on it due to other strong evidence [Para 10].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – No Adverse Inference – No Recovery or Strong Evidence - Co-accused Mandeep and Arun were acquitted due to absence of recovery and limited evidence of presence – Acquittal does not weaken prosecution case against main accused [Para 14].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction of A1 and A3 Confirmed – Acquittal of A2 and A4 Upheld – No Interference Warranted [Para 15].