Criminal Appeal – Bail – Grant of bail to accused in Sections 376(D), 228A, 506, 120B IPC – Appellant challenges bail granted to co-accused – High Court's decision based on parity – Validity of the bail orders questioned – Supreme Court examines the grounds of granting bail and parameters to consider – Proper application of principles for grant of bail emphasized. [Para 1-3, 9-10]

Consideration of Evidence – High Court's approach in not discussing evidence in detail – Concerns raised about influencing trial and prejudicing accused or prosecution – Supreme Court observes inadequacy of reasons in High Court's order – High Court's duty to consider relevant factors while granting bail. [Para 3]

Conditions for Bail – Conditions imposed by High Court while granting bail – Appropriate conditions to prevent interference with trial and witnesses – Variation of certain conditions by Supreme Court – Onus on accused to cooperate and adhere to conditions – Violation of conditions leading to cancellation of bail. [Para 4, 12]

Safety of Petitioner – Concerns raised about safety of petitioner and her family – Onus of ensuring safety placed on Union Territory Administration – Director-General of Police directed to address complaints and take appropriate action – Liberty granted to parties to apply in case of difficulty. [Para 13]

Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Pending applications disposed of – Supreme Court's decision on bail upheld, subject to modified conditions – Observations in judgment not to favor accused or impede trial. [Para 14-15]

Cancellation of Bail – Rape - appellant registered an FIR alleging gang rape, threat, and extortion against the respondents - gang rape of a minor girl, who was also threatened by the accused -appeals arising from the High Court's order granting bail to the first respondent under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. – aggrieved appellant preferred appeals against bail order by special leave. [Para 2, 3, 4, 8]

Principles for Grant of Bail – The Court delves into the principles governing the grant of bail, emphasizing that factors like the nature of accusations, punishment severity, and credibility of the prosecution are key elements to consider. [Para 12-17]

Cancellation of Bail – The Court stresses that cancelling bail necessitates compelling circumstances. It underscores the societal impact and the role of the Superior Court in certain situations. [Para 18]

Analysis of High Court's Decision – The Court scrutinizes the High Court's decision to grant bail, taking into account the background, contentions, and relevant considerations. The Court finds flaws in the High Court's approach. [Para 19-27]

Delay in Filing Complaint – The Court discusses the significance of the delay in filing the complaint and argues that such delay is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case. Factors like threats, societal circumstances, and the victim's age are presented as valid reasons for the delay. [Para 20-21]

Accused's Non-Cooperation and Influence – The Court examines the accused's behavior, highlighting that the first respondent did not initially surrender or cooperate with the investigation. The accused's position as the son of an MLA is noted, raising concerns about his potential influence on the proceedings. [Para 22-23]

Evidence and Witness Intimidation – The Court considers the threat to witnesses and the prosecutrix's claims. Lack of witness cooperation, despite multiple hearing dates, lends credence to the complainant's apprehensions. [Para 24-25]

High Court's Error in Granting Bail – The Court criticizes the High Court's decision to grant bail, citing the omission of crucial facts and established judicial precedents in the decision-making process. The High Court's focus on delay and missing evidence is found inadequate. [Para 26-27]

Bail Order Set Aside – The Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's bail order and directs the accused to surrender within two weeks. The accused are permitted to seek bail after the completion of witness depositions. The jurisdictional court's role is clarified, and its decision should not be influenced by prior observations. The appeals are allowed. [Para 28]

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 – Compensation Claim – Death of Driver During Employment – Appellants, legal heirs of deceased Sumer Singh, challenged High Court's reversal of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's award of ₹3,26,140 with 12% p.a. interest under the 1923 Act. Supreme Court found merit in the appeal, reinstating the Commissioner's award. [Para 1, 14]

Employment – Causal Connection – Death During Duty – Deceased was employed as a driver and died while on a long-distance assignment. Supreme Court found a causal connection between the death and the nature of employment, relying on precedents like Param Pal Singh's case. [Para 9, 10]

Insurance – Liability of Insurance Company – Respondents argued that the death did not arise out of employment and thus was not covered under the insurance policy. Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that an additional premium was paid to cover such eventualities under the 1923 Act. [Para 4, 7]

Decision – Restoration of Commissioner's Award – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and restoring the Commissioner's award of compensation with no order as to costs. [Para 14]

Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Challenge to judgment of the High Court confirming the appellant's conviction and sentence of death - The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 436, and 326-A of the IPC - Prosecution's case based on circumstantial evidence and dying declarations - Appellant's plea of innocence and false implication - Motive for the crime based on family disputes - Courts below held appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt - Appeal dismissed by the High Court - Issues of circumstantial evidence, dying declarations, and credibility of witnesses raised.

Dying Declarations – Assessment of Evidence – Discrepancies between Dying Declarations and Oral Witnesses – Distrust in the veracity of dying declarations due to inconsistencies with oral witness accounts – Examination of circumstances surrounding the incident and statements – Weight given to dying declarations and oral evidence – Caution against blind reliance on dying declarations – Absence of cross-examination in dying declarations – Need for careful consideration in evaluating dying declarations. [Para 37-53]

Admissibility of Dying Declarations – Historical and Literary Basis – Principle of Necessity – Presumption of Truthfulness – Shakespearean Origin – Importance of Dying Person's Veracity – Sanctity of Declarations Made in Extreme Circumstances – Maxims "nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire" and "a man will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth" – Dispensation of Oath and Cross-Examination – Caution against Tutoring or Prompting. [Para 32-35]

Reliability of Dying Declarations – Weight of Evidence – Sole Basis for Conviction – Safeguarding Against Unreliable Declarations – Evaluation Criteria – Fit State of Mind of Deceased – Clarity of Observation and Identification – Voluntariness – Role of Medical Opinion – Prudence of Corroboration – Circumstantial Considerations. [Para 39-49]

Supreme Court articulated an array of factors that should be taken into account while evaluating the weight and credibility of a dying declaration. These factors are elucidated below:

(i) Whether the person making the statement was in expectation of death?

(ii) Whether the dying declaration was made at the earliest opportunity? “Rule of First Opportunity”

(iii) Whether there is any reasonable suspicion to believe the dying declaration was put in the mouth of the dying person?

(iv) Whether the dying declaration was a product of prompting, tutoring or leading at the instance of police or any interested party? 

(v) Whether the statement was not recorded properly?

(vi) Whether the dying declarant had opportunity to clearly observe the incident?

(vii)Whether the dying declaration has been consistent throughout?

(viii) Whether the dying declaration in itself is a manifestation / fiction of the dying person’s imagination of what he thinks transpired?

(ix) Whether the dying declaration was itself voluntary?

(x) In case of multiple dying declarations, whether, the first one inspires truth and consistent with the other dying declaration?

(xi) Whether, as per the injuries, it would have been impossible for the deceased to make a dying declaration?   (Para No. 62)

Acquittal - Safeguards and Precautions in Admitting Dying Declarations – Principles of Reliability and Truthfulness – Distinction between "Proof beyond Reasonable Doubt" and "Suspicion" – Caution against Conviction based solely on Dying Declaration – Duty of Courts to Evaluate Credibility – Necessity of Clear, Cogent, and Unimpeachable Evidence – Benefit of Doubt in Favor of Accused. Appeal Allowed. [Para 65-69]

Tender Conditions - Additional Performance Security - Compliance with Clause 2.22.0 (ix) - Interpretation of a mandatory condition for submission of additional performance security within a specified timeframe - Effect of bank holidays and employee strikes - Appellant's compliance with the condition by submitting security on the third working day - No breach of Clause 2.22.0 (ix) - Acceptance of additional performance security justified. [Para 13-19]

Interpretation of Tender Documents - Employer's Understanding - Deference to employer's interpretation of tender documents - Absence of mala fide or perversity - Tender authority's acceptance of security based on understanding of ground realities and necessities - No arbitrariness or irrationality - Court's role in interpreting tender documents. [Para 25-26]

Legal Maxim - Lex non cogit ad impossibilia - Principle that the law does not compel the performance of impossible tasks - Application to tender conditions and compliance - Appellant's reasonable efforts to comply with security submission timeframe - Acceptance of security in due compliance with law. [Para 19-20]

Judicial Review of Tender Matters - Standards for interference - Court's caution against interference in tender matters - Consideration of mala fide, arbitrariness, irrationality, and impact on public interest - Guiding principles for judicial review in tender and contractual issues. [Para 33]

Setting aside of the High Court's order - Direction to dismiss Writ Petition challenging the acceptance of appellant's tender and issuance of work order - Appellant's compliance with tender conditions upheld - Appeal allowed. [Para 34]

Criminal Appeal - Quashing of Criminal Complaints - Allegations of dishonored cheques and liability under various sections of NI Act and IPC - Respondent claimed retirement from partnership firm and sought quashing of proceedings - High Court quashed summoning order and complaints - Appeal against High Court's order - Whether the order quashing summoning order and complaints against respondent justified - Appellate Court's findings.

Personal Liability - Liability of partners in a partnership firm for dishonored cheques - Relevance of evidence and timing of retirement announcement - Courts must evaluate evidence presented during the trial - Retirement Deed produced after complaints were filed cannot be conclusive proof for quashing proceedings - Partner's involvement in business affairs must be assessed in context.

Quashing of Proceedings - Exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing proceedings - Courts can quash proceedings if unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence shows lack of involvement in the alleged offense - Evidence regarding partner's connection with issuance of cheques must be thoroughly examined.

Decision - High Court's quashing of summoning order and complaints against respondent set aside - Complaints revived for trial by the concerned court - Appeals allowed.

(Para No. 9, 10, 15 – 20)

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Sections 307 and 332 of IPC – Appellant convicted by Trial Court and High Court – Allegation of demanding ransom and threatening public – Attempted assault on police head constable during arrest – Injuries sustained by complainant simple, but intention and overt act established – Appellant challenged conviction on grounds of proportionality and sympathy – Court emphasized that the injuries’ nature does not absolve from conviction if intention and overt act established – Previous cases pending against appellant considered – Leniency in sentence not warranted – Appeal dismissed, and sentence upheld. [Para 1-11]

Contractual Dispute - Interpretation of contract clauses related to embankment construction with approved material and pond ash - Disagreement over measurement and payment methodology - Majority view of tribunals favoring composite measurement, minority view advocating separate measurements - Analysis of relevant contract stipulations and technical specifications. [Para 2-9]

Role of Arbitrators - Emphasis on the expertise of technical arbitrators in interpreting contracts - Relevance of expert personnel in resolving technical aspects of disputes - Need for courts to respect arbitrators' interpretation of contractual terms, barring patent illegality or perverse decisions. [Para 21-24]

Dissenting Opinions - Significance of dissenting opinions in multi-member tribunal arbitration - Dissenting opinions not automatically treated as awards - Importance of dissenting views in presenting alternate perspectives, but limited scrutiny compared to majority awards. [Para 25-26]

Judicial Review - Courts' restrained approach in interfering with awards containing reasons, particularly in contract interpretation - Arbitrators' authority to construe terms of the contract within their jurisdiction - Circumstances under which courts can review awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. [Para 24]

Appeals allowed, Delhi High Court judgments set aside - Awards subject to challenge upheld and restored - Modification of interest payment directions in the awards - Uniform interest payment at 12% from date of award to date of payment ordered - No costs awarded. [Para 28]

Criminal Procedure – Complaint under Section 200 of CRPC – Allegation of offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC – Summons issued – Objection raised by respondents regarding non-compliance with Section 202(1) of CRPC – High Court quashed the summons and remanded the complaint for compliance with Section 202(1) – Petitioner’s contention of substantial compliance with examination of complainant before issuing summons – Reliance on Vijay Dhanuka case – Mandatory nature of Section 202(1) of CRPC emphasized – Failure of substantial compliance in this case – Impugned order of remand upheld. [Para 2-5]