Railway Accident – Untoward Incident – Compensation – Death of passenger due to robbery and fall from train – Tribunal awarded maximum compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act but denied interest except on default after 45 days – Supreme Court held that right to compensation accrues from date of incident, and in absence of specific statutory bar, interest can be awarded from date of application – Tribunal and High Court erred in denying interest except for default clause – Held: Claimants entitled to interest @6% p.a. from date of application till award and 9% p.a. thereafter till payment [Paras 7, 23–25]

Interest – Discretion of Court – No express provision for interest in Railway Acts – Power to grant interest traced to Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978 and Section 34 CPC – Court has inherent power to award interest as compensation for denial of money due – Interest not merely discretionary where deprivation of funds for long duration is involved – Held: Tribunal’s failure to grant interest was unjustified and contrary to established law [Paras 13–19]

Statutory Interpretation – Award of Interest – Payment of interest on money decrees is well-recognised judicial practice even in absence of statutory provision – Based on equitable principle that the person denied use of money deserves compensation – Held: Interest must be awarded unless barred or excluded by contract or statute [Paras 14–17]

Arbitration Law – Applicability of Interest Principles – Court relied on four-stage principle of interest in money decrees: pre-suit, pendente lite, post-award till decree, post-decree till realization – Though cases cited related to arbitration, principle held applicable to compensation claims – Held: Interest is not barred where claim is delayed due to no fault of the claimant [Paras 20–22]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Tribunal and High Court orders modified – Appellants entitled to interest @6% p.a. from date of application till date of award, and 9% p.a. thereafter till realization – Respondents to pay Rs. 25,000 as costs [Paras 25–26]

Criminal Law – Death Penalty – Rarest of Rare – Commutation – Bachan Singh Doctrine Reaffirmed – Appellant convicted of kidnapping and dismembering a friend’s body after murder for ransom – Sessions and High Courts imposed death penalty considering brutality and role of mastermind – Supreme Court holds that mitigating factors such as youth, no past criminal record, and potential for reform were overlooked – Reiterates: Death penalty must only be imposed when life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed – Held: Not a rarest of rare case – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment [Paras 153–180].

Criminal Procedure – Approver’s Testimony – Validity of Pardon – Section 307 CrPC – Objection raised against the pardon granted to co-accused Kumar Gaurav (PW-1) – Court holds that Sessions Court’s power to grant pardon under Section 307 CrPC is independent and not subject to compliance with procedural provisions under Section 306(4) CrPC – Order of pardon held legal – Evidence of approver admissible and relied upon [Paras 26–43].

Criminal Procedure – Sentencing Process – Section 235(2) and 354(3) CrPC – Requirement of Special Reasons – Court emphasizes need for bifurcated sentencing hearing and recording of special reasons before awarding death penalty – Notes that sentencing courts failed to consider offender-centric mitigating factors and followed inconsistent application of rarest of rare principle – Sentencing discretion must be exercised judiciously and proportionally [Paras 177–179].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 and 21 – Arbitrary Application of Death Penalty – Doctrine of Proportionality – Reaffirms that capital sentencing engages highest standards of fairness and non-arbitrariness – Court warns against judge-centric or mechanical sentencing – Emphasizes that information regarding socio-economic background, possibility of reform and circumstances of the convict must be considered [Paras 121–151].

Judicial Process – Public Opinion – Irrelevant in Death Sentencing – Public outrage or societal demand cannot form basis for death penalty – Sentencing must be guided by constitutional and legal principles, not emotional or media pressure – Judges are not "oracles of public opinion" [Paras 82–86].

Comparative Jurisprudence – International Developments – Death Penalty – Relies on jurisprudence from UK, Caribbean, South Africa and the US to highlight evolving global standards requiring individualized sentencing and abolition of mandatory death penalties – Cases like Reyes, Fox, Bowe, Makwanyane cited [Paras 53, 140–142].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Death sentence set aside – Appellant sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life – State’s appeal for enhancement of sentence of co-accused rejected [Para 180].

Service Law – Deputation – Absorption – Advance Increment – Deputationists from State Government absorbed into FCI challenged denial of one advance increment granted to similarly placed Central Government employees – High Court allowed the claim – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s view – Held: Once absorbed, both Central and State deputationists were governed by the same FCI Staff Regulations, particularly Regulation 81 – Discrimination between two sets of similarly placed employees is impermissible under Article 14 [Paras 4-6, 15-18, 24-28]

Constitutional Law – Equality Before Law – Article 14 – Unjustified differentiation between similarly situated employees – Central and State deputationists absorbed into FCI had same duties, qualifications, and status post-absorption – Denial of increment to only one class violates Article 14 – No valid classification shown [Paras 16, 18, 24-28]

Administrative Law – Discretionary Powers – Regulation 81 confers discretion on FCI to grant increment to employees with two years' prior service – Held: Once discretion is exercised in favour of one group, denial to another similarly placed group is arbitrary – Court may issue mandamus where statutory discretion is exercised unequally [Paras 6-8, 23-25]

Civil Procedure – Constructive Res Judicata – Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – Bar not applicable – Earlier writ did not raise this issue as absorption grade was not confirmed – Fresh cause arose post-absorption – Representations were pending – Hence writ not barred [Paras 19-22]

Delay and Laches – Held: No delay – Writ filed in 1997 after Supreme Court clarified absorption grade in 1996 – Respondents acted promptly – Claim not barred by laches [Paras 20, 22]

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Inapplicable – Issue not about job similarity but unequal application of Regulation 81 – Court held that right to increment arose from statutory regulation, not abstract equality doctrine – Case did not involve qualitative work comparison [Paras 28-29]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Respondents entitled to one advance increment under Regulation 81 of FCI Staff Regulations – No costs.

Land Acquisition – Determination of Market Value – Comparable Awards – Lands acquired in villages Chilla Saroda Bangar and Chilla Saroda Khader for Delhi development scheme – High Court relied on Ratan Lal and fixed compensation at ₹3,45,000 per bigha based on proximity to NOIDA – Held: High Court erred in ignoring binding precedents in Karan Singh v. Union of India and Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma – Compensation must be consistent for similarly situated villages acquired under same notification – Minimum rate of ₹76.55 per sq. yd. as fixed in Karan Singh and Bali Ram Sharma applied with 10% enhancement considering proximity to Delhi and partial development [Paras 22–25].

Comparable Lands – Basis for Valuation – Though Chilla Saroda villages were nearer Delhi, High Court wrongly applied NOIDA rates – Court held that valuation must reflect conditions on the Delhi side and comparable awards in adjoining villages, not separate township developments – Sale deeds and NOIDA lease deeds executed after notification were irrelevant for determining market value [Paras 9–15, 23–24].

Legal Principle – Uniformity of Compensation – When several villages are acquired under same notification for common purpose, compensation must be determined applying uniform and realistic standards considering proximity, potentiality and development – However, lands with better access and civic amenities may merit slight enhancement [Paras 18–20, 25].

Procedural Law – Abatement of Appeal – Appeal in C.A. No. 4204 of 2006 held to have abated due to failure to bring legal heirs of respondent on record despite directions [Para 28].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed (except C.A. No. 4204 of 2006 which stands dismissed as abated) – Market value fixed at ₹76.55 per sq. yd. with 10% enhancement for Chilla Saroda Bangar and Khader – Corresponding statutory benefits to follow – For 1979 notification, 10% deduction applied; for 1987 notification, 10% annual increase directed – No order as to costs [Paras 25–29].

Terrorism – TADA – Confessional Statements – Admissibility – Confessions recorded under Section 15 TADA Act by competent officers held admissible when procedural safeguards substantially complied with – Certificates under Rule 15(3)(b) mandatory but defect curable where recording officers testified to full compliance and voluntariness – Confessions of A-27 and A-28 validly recorded with certificates appended – Other confessions corroborated facts and cured technical defects by credible oral evidence of officers – Confessional statements are substantive evidence and admissible against co-accused under post-1993 amendment to Section 15(1) TADA – Law explained in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, State (CBI) v. Nalini, and Bharatbhai @ Jimi Premchandbhai v. State of Gujarat [Paras 25–27, 33–36].

Criminal Law – Evidence – Dying Declaration – Dying declaration of one of the victims (Badshah Khan) recorded by PW-6 naming A-1 and another accused corroborates confessional statements though incomplete – No inconsistency affecting prosecution case – Held reliable [Para 37].

Arms and Ammunition – Recovery and Supply – Evidence of arms dealers (PWs 55 and 58) and recovery panchnamas corroborate procurement of illegal weapons by A-28 and their use in commission of crime – Supports confessions and prosecution case [Paras 42–43, 47].

Criminal Conspiracy – Gang Rivalry and Mass Murder – Evidence established that appellants, part of Abdul Latif’s gang, conspired and executed attack on rival gang led by Hansraj Trivedi, resulting in nine deaths – Confessions, eyewitnesses, medical evidence, recovery of arms, and identification parades collectively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7–23, 38–49].

Procedure – Rule 15(5) Compliance – Transmission of confessions to Magistrate – Delay or route of transmission through Investigating Officer not fatal where sealed and forwarded to court – Substantial compliance held sufficient [Para 47].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment – Appropriateness – Heinous gang-related terrorist act resulting in nine murders – Sentence of life imprisonment for A-1 not to be reduced – Trial court justified in directing that imprisonment shall not be less than 20 years – Liberal approach in such crimes deprecated [Para 50].

Decision – Convictions under Sections 302/149 IPC, Sections 25, 27 Arms Act, and Section 5 TADA Act confirmed – Sentences upheld – Appeals dismissed [Para 51].

Criminal Procedure – Section 319 CrPC – Power to summon additional accused – Nature and scope – Held: Power is extraordinary and discretionary – To be exercised sparingly and only when compelling reasons exist – The evidence relied upon must be such that, if unrebutted, it would reasonably lead to conviction – Mere statement of witness or FIR reiteration insufficient to summon new accused [Paras 12, 17–18].

Interpretation of “Evidence” under Section 319 – Word “evidence” includes material adduced in Court during inquiry or trial, not merely police investigation material – However, Court must be satisfied that such evidence convincingly discloses participation of person sought to be added – Test of strong suspicion or prima facie case not enough; higher standard required [Paras 13, 18].

Judicial Discretion – Exercise under Section 319 CrPC – Court must record cogent reasons showing satisfaction that (i) evidence is credible, (ii) addition is necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice – Summoning cannot rest on ipse dixit of witness or prosecution request – Reaffirmed from Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, AIR 1983 SC 67 [Paras 12, 17].

Stage of Exercise – Court can invoke Section 319 only upon fresh evidence appearing in trial, not based on materials collected during investigation or final report accepted by Magistrate – Distinguished Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and explained Lal Suraj v. State of Jharkhand [Paras 16–17].

Guiding Test – Court must ask whether evidence, if unrebutted, would likely result in conviction of the person to be added – Unless this higher standard is met, addition of accused unwarranted [Para 18].

Decision: Orders of summoning appellants under Section 319 CrPC set aside – Matter remitted to Sessions Judge for reconsideration in light of principles laid down – Appeals allowed [Paras 19–20].

Environmental Law – Aravalli Hills – Illegal Mining – Complete Ban – Despite multiple orders since 2002 prohibiting unregulated mining in the Aravalli hill range, mining continued in blatant disregard of statutory provisions – Mining conducted without environmental clearance, mining plan or rehabilitation efforts – Resulted in irreversible environmental degradation and destruction of groundwater table – Held: Court imposes complete ban on all mining of major minerals in the 448 sq. km. Aravalli range in Haryana (Faridabad, Gurgaon, Mewat) until comprehensive Reclamation Plan is prepared and certified by authorities [Paras 1–21].

Sustainable Development – Precautionary Principle – Inter-generational Equity – Court finds that principle of sustainable development has been breached due to extensive illegal mining – Despite latitude given to lessees in earlier orders, there was no compliance with statutory safeguards – Held: Balancing principle has failed – Time to invoke banning aspect of sustainable development – Environment and ecology treated as national assets governed by inter-generational equity [Paras 19–21].

Mining Law – Non-compliance with Statutory Requirements – Mining conducted without obtaining mandatory clearances under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and EIA Notification of 1994 under Environment (Protection) Act – Environmental Management Plans and Rehabilitation Plans not submitted or implemented – Rule 22(5), Rule 27(1)(s)(i) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and Rule 34 of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 violated – Court holds that breach of these mandatory obligations justifies suspension of mining [Paras 9–11, 19–21].

Environmental Impact – Devastation in Aravalli Range – Satellite images and field reports show massive ecological destruction, formation of deep pits, destruction of groundwater table, absence of afforestation – Mining undertaken even below water table without clearance – Court observes that such environmental loss is irreversible and undermines regional sustainability, especially in desert-prone areas like Aravalli [Paras 4–7].

Judicial Powers – Article 142 – Ban Justified – Argument that only Central Government can order ban or cancellation of leases rejected – Held: Where the law is breached and authorities have failed to enforce compliance, Supreme Court can act under Article 142 to protect environment – Banning part of sustainable development is within Court’s jurisdiction in extraordinary environmental situations [Paras 19–20].

Pending Applications – Mining of Minor Minerals – Court adjourns the decision on whether 600 hectares out of the 448 sq. km. can be used for extraction of minor minerals post-summer vacation – Applications related to major minerals dismissed – Matter kept open for hearing on minor mineral extraction [Para 22].

Decision: All mining operations of major minerals in the Aravalli Hill Range within Haryana (approx. 448 sq. km. area in Faridabad, Gurgaon and Mewat) are suspended with immediate effect – Ban will remain until a Reclamation Plan is prepared and certified by the State Government, MoEF, and CEC – Minor mineral-related IAs adjourned for post-summer vacation hearing – All other IAs opposing the ban dismissed.

Income Tax – Section 43B – Deduction Disallowed – Bottling Fee – Actual Payment Required – Held that furnishing of bank guarantee does not amount to “actual payment” under Section 43B – Requirement is for actual outflow of funds to the exchequer – Bottling fees are not tax, duty, cess or fee but consideration for exclusive privilege under excise rules – Such payments do not fall within the purview of Section 43B – Deductions rightly disallowed by Assessing Officer – High Court’s contrary view set aside [Paras 1, 13-24]

Taxation – Nature of Bottling Fees – Not Fee or Tax – Bottling fee under Rajasthan Excise Rules is consideration for contractual grant of exclusive privilege in liquor trade – Does not qualify as tax, duty, cess or fee under Section 43B – Held: Exaction is not in exercise of sovereign taxing power but under contractual privilege – Rule of ejusdem generis applied to restrict scope of Section 43B to statutory levies of tax-like nature [Paras 17-23]

Income Tax – Research & Development – Depreciation on Assets – Business Closure – R&D equipment related to fast food unit claimed for depreciation – Matter remitted to Assessing Officer to determine whether assets were also used for ongoing liquor business – If so, depreciation allowable proportionally – Factual adjudication required [Paras 41-43]

Income Tax – Technical Service Charges – Business Expenditure – Allowability – New royalty agreement entered with McDowell for technical services – Revenue argued against allowability due to lack of novation and commercial benefit – Tribunal and High Court found new agreement based on business expediency and actually beneficial in later years – Findings affirmed as based on evidence – No interference warranted [Paras 35, 48]

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedents – Multiple appeals disposed of based on legal findings from companion cases – Legal principles regarding Section 43B and depreciation claims consistently applied across assessment years 1988-89 to 1995-96 – Consistency in tax treatment upheld [Paras 3, 29, 35, 48]

Decision:

Appeals partly allowed and partly remitted –

• Deduction under Section 43B disallowed for unpaid bottling fees secured by bank guarantees

• Depreciation claims on R&D assets remitted to Assessing Officer for factual determination

• Royalty payments under revised agreement held to be valid business expenditure

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Marriage Date Dispute – Appellant convicted under Sections 304B and 498A IPC for causing death of wife by burns – Trial Court held marriage occurred in 1987 and drew presumption of dowry death – Supreme Court held marriage likely occurred in 1983 as per voter list evidence, making Section 304B inapplicable due to lapse of more than seven years – Held: Presumption under Section 113B not attracted and conviction under Section 304B unsustainable [Paras 2, 13, 19–23]

Criminal Law – Cruelty to Wife – Independent Charge under Section 498A IPC – Court upheld conviction under Section 498A for subjecting deceased to cruelty and harassment for dowry – Evidence supported claims of demand for ring and chain and prior burn incident – Held: Conviction under Section 498A justified even though offence under Section 304B not made out [Paras 17, 24]

Evidence Act – Presumptions – Standard of Proof – Voter list showing appellant's spouse’s name in 1988 considered reliable public document – Prosecution failed to establish exact date of marriage or cruelty “soon before death” – Held: No basis to draw statutory presumptions under Sections 113A and 113B – Courts must apply proximity test while determining "soon before death" under Section 304B [Paras 13, 18, 22–23]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 304B IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 498A IPC affirmed – Sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2000 fine maintained [Paras 24–25]