Specific Relief – Readiness and Willingness – Attorney Holder’s Testimony – Plaintiff (NRI) neither signed the agreement of sale nor the plaint and did not enter the witness box – Suit was filed and prosecuted by subsequent attorney holder who lacked personal knowledge of the transaction – Held: In absence of testimony by plaintiff or original attorney holder, readiness and willingness not proved – Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act not satisfied – Suit barred [Paras 9–16].

Civil Procedure – Evidence by Attorney – Attorney holder can only depose to matters within his personal knowledge – Plaintiff’s readiness and willingness being a matter of personal conduct, only plaintiff or original attorney could have proved it – Plaintiff’s failure to depose gave rise to presumption against his case [Paras 10–13].

Contract Law – Breach and Specific Performance – Liquidated Damages Clause – Agreement provided for refund and forfeiture of earnest money in case of breach – No bar to specific performance expressly stated – Held: Clause did not exclude specific performance, but plaintiff still required to prove entitlement – Readiness and willingness not proved, hence no relief [Paras 17–19].

Contract Law – Time for Performance – Conduct of Parties – Though time was not of the essence, defendant’s readiness on 7.6.1979 contrasted with plaintiff’s failure to arrange funds, buy stamp paper, or show preparedness to conclude sale – Held: Plaintiff not ready or willing even during extended period – Breach attributable to plaintiff [Paras 20–22].

Specific Relief – Burden on Plaintiff – Even if defendant failed to furnish clearances, plaintiff still had to prove his own readiness and willingness – Breach by defendant does not excuse non-compliance with Section 16(c) – Plaintiff not entitled to specific performance or refund [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments of trial court, first appellate court, and High Court set aside – Suit for specific performance dismissed – Forfeiture of earnest money upheld [Para 26].

Land Acquisition – Exemption Notification – Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 – Validity upheld – Exemption of land under Sectors 81, 88, and 89 from operation of Section 14 and Chapters VIII, X, and XII of the 1995 Act under Section 178(2) – Held: Notification justified as SAS Nagar (Mohali) expansion was planned prior to the 1995 Act – Government’s satisfaction regarding “expediency” and “public interest” based on rapid urban growth and need to prevent haphazard development not mala fide – Exercise of power under Section 178(2) is within statutory bounds – Court will not interfere with subjective satisfaction of Government absent extraneous considerations [Paras 20–34].

Land Acquisition – Compliance with Planning Act – Non-applicability of Sanjeet Singh precedent – Acquisition for extension of existing township distinguished from acquisition for creation of new town – Declaration under Section 56(5) of 1995 Act validly issued declaring SAS Nagar a Local Planning Area – Absence of challenge to exemption and planning notifications before High Court bars later attack – Once exemption valid, acquisition cannot be struck down for non-compliance with 1995 Act – Sanjeet Singh case inapplicable [Paras 35–40].

Constitution of India – Article 300A – Eminent Domain – Right to Property and Rehabilitation – Compulsory acquisition under valid law with payment of fair compensation satisfies constitutional mandate – Neither Article 21 nor Article 300A mandates rehabilitation as a condition precedent – Rehabilitation measures are matters of policy, not right – State’s 2008 Land Pooling Scheme prospective only – Retrospective application would cause administrative confusion – Bondu Ramaswamy case discussed – Scheme cannot be extended to completed acquisitions [Paras 41–45].

Compensation – Reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act – Though appellants had not sought reference within limitation, Supreme Court directed that if applications are made within six weeks, Collector to refer matter to Civil Court for determination of enhanced compensation – Fair concession by State noted [Para 47].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Exemption and acquisition upheld – Appellants permitted to seek reference for higher compensation under Section 18 within six weeks – No costs.

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Permanent Disability – Future Loss of Earnings – Appellant, a final-year engineering student, suffered 70% permanent disability due to serious injuries including amputation, vision loss, and brain damage – Held: Tribunal and High Court erred in awarding inadequate compensation without applying multiplier method – Supreme Court assessed future loss of earnings based on public sector salary of Assistant Engineer – Deduction of 30% for residual earning capacity – Multiplier of 18 applied based on age of 25 – Total loss of future income assessed at ₹7,56,000 – Medical expenses of ₹1,50,000 maintained – Total compensation enhanced to ₹9,06,000 [Paras 7, 10, 11].

Motor Accident – Application under Section 166 vs. Section 163A – Applicability of Second Schedule – Contention that compensation should be assessed as per Second Schedule rejected – Held: Claim filed under Section 166, and in such cases, Second Schedule is not binding – Multiplier method applicable – Reference pending before larger Bench in Reshma Kumari not a bar to determining claim based on existing law [Para 12].

Damages – Method of Computation – Supreme Court reiterated settled principle that compensation in personal injury claims must aim to restore victim’s position as close as possible to pre-injury state – Use of appropriate multiplier and multiplicand based on career prospects, age, and earning potential remains the proper method of computation [Paras 7–9].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Compensation enhanced from ₹3,50,000 to ₹9,06,000 – Interest at 9% per annum on enhanced amount from 07/08/2002 till date of actual payment – Appellant also entitled to ₹15,000 as costs of appeal [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Appellant convicted for murdering three family members and injuring three others due to property dispute – Seven eye-witnesses, including injured witnesses, turned hostile at trial after family “panchayat” pardoned the accused – Held: Statements under Section 161 CrPC and FIR consistently named appellant – Medical and forensic evidence corroborated prosecution version – Hostility of witnesses due to compromise cannot erase prior truthful versions – Conviction upheld [Paras 35–42, 48].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Proof – Even when direct witnesses turned hostile, circumstantial evidence comprising prompt FIR, medical corroboration, ballistic evidence, and motive sufficient to prove guilt – Court reiterated five golden principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra governing proof by circumstantial evidence [Paras 14–15, 48].

Hostile Witness – Evidentiary Value – Testimony of a hostile witness is not effaced entirely – It can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution and is consistent with other evidence – Witnesses turning hostile due to extraneous reasons, such as family compromise, cannot benefit accused [Paras 16–22, 42].

Section 313 CrPC – Examination of Accused – Omission to Put All Circumstances – Effect – Failure to put certain incriminating circumstances (motive, abscondance, compromise) to accused under Section 313 CrPC not fatal – Prejudice must be shown – Appellant was questioned regarding recovery of gun, and he gave explanation – Held: Minor omissions curable; no miscarriage of justice occurred [Paras 43–47].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Recovery of Weapon – Recovery of licensed gun at appellant’s instance from arms dealer proved by Investigating Officer – Appellant admitted depositing same gun with dealer – Held: Sufficient compliance with Section 27; admissible evidence [Paras 38, 44].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Standard of Proof – Guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt – Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof – Courts cautioned against conviction based on moral indignation or emotional reaction to gruesome crimes [Paras 11–13].

Abscondance – Not Conclusive of Guilt – Mere absconding after FIR cannot by itself indicate guilt; may be due to fear or panic – However, unexplained absence for several days may be considered along with other circumstances [Paras 32–34, 46].

Panchayat Pardon – Effect – Family’s or Panchayat’s decision to pardon accused in heinous crime has no legal relevance – Crime is against society; private compromise cannot absolve criminal liability [Para 42].

Held: Conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC based on circumstantial and corroborative evidence sustained – Hostility of witnesses due to compromise disregarded – No violation of Section 313 CrPC causing prejudice – Appeal dismissed [Paras 42, 47–48].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC affirmed.

Criminal Law – Framing of Charges – Prima Facie Case – Charges framed against appellant for serious offences arising out of 1984 anti-Sikh riots including murder and conspiracy – Appellant sought discharge claiming statements of key witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-10) were delayed by over 20 years and unreliable – Held: At the stage of framing charges, court need not evaluate evidence meticulously – If there is grave suspicion and sufficient material, charges can be framed – Detailed evaluation must await trial [Paras 7, 16–18].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 227 and Section 228 – Scope of Judicial Scrutiny – Supreme Court reiterated principles governing discharge and framing of charges – Judge may sift and weigh evidence for limited purpose of seeing whether a prima facie case exists – If materials disclose grave suspicion, discharge not warranted – Court not to conduct a mini-trial at this stage [Paras 14–17].

Criminal Investigation – CBI Re-investigation – Validity – Initial closure report filed by Delhi Police in 2005 – Based on Nanavati Commission report and parliamentary assurance, CBI entrusted with re-investigation – FIR re-registered and chargesheet filed in 2010 – Held: CBI investigation valid – No challenge raised to its authority by appellant – Re-investigation led to collection of new material justifying framing of charges [Paras 19–20].

Delay in Prosecution – Right to Speedy Trial – Appellant contended that charges framed after 25 years violate Article 21 – Supreme Court held: While delay is a factor, it is not by itself a ground to quash proceedings – No prejudice shown at this stage – CBI investigation initiated based on Parliament’s response to Commission report – Trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 22–24].

Observations by High Court – Effect on Trial – High Court made strong observations against appellant while upholding charges – Appellant feared bias at trial – Supreme Court clarified: Trial court must independently evaluate evidence – Observations of High Court not binding on merits – Trial judge to decide case uninfluenced by prior comments [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Charges against appellant upheld – Trial to proceed uninfluenced by High Court’s observations – Trial court directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously – Interim protection vacated [Paras 27].

Criminal Law – Mass Murder – Death Sentence – Premeditated and brutal act resulting in five deaths and severe injuries to one survivor – Accused set house ablaze with petrol while victims were having dinner and closed door to prevent escape – Balwant Singh, who managed to flee the burning room, was almost beheaded with sword – Held: Rarest of rare case justifying death penalty [Paras 1-3, 5-6, 35-36]

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility of Injured Witness – Vimla Devi (PW-1), sole survivor with 70% burns, gave consistent and detailed testimony – Her evidence corroborated by material objects and dying declarations – Minor inconsistencies immaterial – Witness found wholly reliable [Paras 11-14]

Dying Declarations – Validity Without Medical Certification – Statements of Prem Singh and Vimla Devi recorded by Magistrate – Absence of medical endorsement not fatal where Magistrate confirmed fitness and voluntariness – Prem Singh’s declaration treated as substantive evidence – Vimla Devi’s as corroborative [Paras 15-19]

Investigation – Deficiencies Not Fatal – Investigation by Patwari was substandard – Failure to record dying declarations of other victims, delay in apprehending accused, and lack of forensic reporting noted – Court held lapses in investigation do not vitiate otherwise strong prosecution case [Paras 24, 25]

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Failure to put crucial incriminating circumstances to accused during examination criticised – Court advised trial courts to exercise greater care – Held: Omission did not cause prejudice in this case [Para 21]

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Rarest of Rare Case – No mitigating circumstances – Multiple murders committed with preparation and extreme cruelty – Use of petrol, sword, and torch proved intent to annihilate entire family – Delay in execution attributed to accused absconding for 12 years – Death sentence upheld [Paras 26-36]

NDPS Act – Possession – Conscious Possession – Sections 18, 35 & 54 – Recovery of 65 kg of opium from the dicky of a car driven by appellant Dharampal Singh with co-accused Major Singh as occupant – Once possession of contraband is established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove lack of conscious possession, being a fact within their special knowledge – Appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 35 and 54 – Vehicle not being a public transport vehicle, both occupants held in conscious possession of contraband [Paras 9–10].

Search and Seizure – Section 50 NDPS Act – Applicability – Held that Section 50 applies only to personal search and not to search of a vehicle – Recovery having been made from the car’s dicky, non-compliance of Section 50 not fatal – Trial Court’s acquittal on this ground rightly reversed by High Court [Para 4].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 313 – Failure to specifically ask about “conscious possession” – Effect – The Court held that the essential circumstances, namely recovery of opium from the car driven and occupied by the appellants, were put to them – Omission did not cause failure of justice – Distinguished from State of Punjab v. Hari Singh (2009) 4 SCC 200, where the question of possession was wholly omitted [Paras 11–14].

Evidence – Independent Witnesses – Section 100 CrPC – Non-examination of independent witnesses not fatal when evidence of police witnesses found credible – Prosecution proved attempt to secure public witnesses, hence conviction not vitiated [Para 16].

Evidence – Defence Witness – Report of DW.6 regarding a different consignment of 111 kg opium held irrelevant – Chemical Examiner’s report confirming seized sample as opium accepted – Defence plea rejected [Para 15].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction under Section 18 NDPS Act and sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,00,000 each upheld [Para 17].

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance by Magistrate – Section 190(1)(b) CrPC – Magistrate competent to take cognizance of offence even if police in final report exonerates accused – Magistrate not bound by conclusions of investigating agency – Magistrate applied independent judicial mind and took cognizance against petitioner – Held: Magistrate acted within jurisdiction in issuing process without fresh inquiry [Paras 15-16]

Cognizance – Difference from Committal and Trial – Section 209 CrPC – Cognizance is of the offence, not the offender – Trial Court rightly dismissed application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC – Once cognizance is taken and charges are framed, remedy lies before trial court, not through SLP – Petition dismissed as infructuous [Paras 7, 17-18]

Criminal Procedure – Section 319 CrPC – Not only recourse for summoning additional accused – Section 190(1)(b) permits Magistrate to act on police report directly – Reference to larger Bench in Dharampal v. State of Haryana regarding conflict between Ranjit Singh and Kishun Singh not relevant to present case – Present facts covered by India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [Paras 13-16]

Investigative Reports – Divergent Reports – Where both CID and local police exonerated petitioner, Magistrate still competent to disagree and take cognizance based on case diary and materials – High Court rightly upheld order refusing discharge [Paras 4-6, 15-16]

NDPS Act – Charas Recovery – Conscious Possession – Conviction Upheld – Accused persons found in a private car with 27.8 kg of Charas concealed in door panels – Both appellants identified and apprehended during routine check based on prior information – Presence in private vehicle, not public transport, raised presumption of conscious possession – No explanation offered by either accused to rebut presumption – Held: Both appellants in conscious possession under Sections 35 and 54 of NDPS Act – Conviction under Section 20 valid [Paras 2, 5, 22, 23]

NDPS Act – Section 50 Compliance – Search of Vehicle – Not Applicable – Appellants argued that they were not informed of their right under Section 50 to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Held: Since recovery was from vehicle and not person of accused, Section 50 not attracted – Personal search was done later at police station and was not part of recovery – Giving option amounts to apprising right under Section 50 – No violation of mandatory provision [Paras 15–19]

NDPS Act – Discrepancy in Sample Weight – Not Sufficient to Discredit Seizure – Appellants contended that sample sent to lab weighed 65.5606 gms while only 50 gms was originally taken – Court held discrepancy immaterial as initial weighing was done on grocery shop scale and lab used precision instruments – No evidence of tampering or manipulation – Noor Aga and Rajesh Jagdamba cases distinguished on facts [Paras 9–14]

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 Statement – Not Equivalent to Defence Evidence – Co-accused claimed in 313 CrPC statement that he had merely taken a lift and was unaware of contraband – Held: 313 statement is not substantive evidence – Accused neither examined themselves nor produced witnesses – In absence of rebuttal, presumption of conscious possession stands – Conviction proper [Paras 20–21]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act upheld – No procedural irregularity or legal infirmity found in the prosecution’s case – Both appellants to remain in custody to serve sentence [Para 23]