Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302 of the IPC - Conviction Based on Ocular and Medical Evidence – Multiple Murders Committed Due to Suspicion of Infidelity – Conviction Upheld - The appellant was convicted of murdering five family members, including three minor children, his wife, and sister-in-law, with a chopper based on clear eyewitness testimonies, voluntary confession, and medical evidence – Courts below correctly found the accused guilty of premeditated, barbaric murder without any sudden provocation – Supreme Court upheld the conviction as there was no perversity or misreading of evidence [Paras 1-10].

Death Sentence – Application of ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine – Consideration of Reformative Possibility – Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment – Though the crime was heinous, the Court found mitigating circumstances in the accused’s background – Reports revealed absence of prior criminal antecedents, good conduct in jail, participation in literacy programmes, psychological struggles, and potential for reformation – Applying the principle of giving benefit of doubt in sentencing, death penalty was substituted with life imprisonment without remission till the natural end of life [Paras 11-17].

Sentencing Guidelines – Compliance with Manoj v. State of M.P. – Requirement for Comprehensive Background Analysis – The Court emphasized adherence to sentencing principles laid down in Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353, requiring socio-psychological, medical, and behavioural assessments before awarding capital punishment – Held: High Court inadequately appreciated these reports while confirming the death sentence, warranting interference on the sentencing aspect [Paras 11-17].

Final Decision – Conviction Upheld, Death Sentence Commuted – Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission till natural death while affirming the conviction under Section 302 IPC for multiple murders [Paras 17].

Service Law - Family Pension – Death in Harness of Substitute Railway Employee – Completion of One Year’s Service – Pension Entitlement Recognized – Appeal Allowed – The Appellant, widow of a substitute railway employee who died after 9 years and 8 months of service, was denied family pension by Railway Authorities citing non-regularisation and less than 10 years of service – Supreme Court held that under Rule 75(2)(a) read with Rule 18(3) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, family pension is payable to the family of a temporary railway servant who dies after completing one year of continuous service – Observed that the deceased had obtained temporary status and was eligible for family pension on par with temporary employees – Held: Denial of family pension unsustainable, appeal allowed [Paras 1-12].

Qualifying Service for Family Pension – 10-Year Minimum Tenure Not Applicable for Temporary Status – Clarification Issued – Supreme Court clarified that the 10-year qualifying service rule is applicable for superannuation pension, but in the case of death in harness after one year of service, family pension cannot be denied to dependents – Held: Disqualification based on the three-month shortfall from ten years violates the beneficial scheme of pension rules, purpose being to protect the deceased’s dependents [Paras 10-11].

Relief under Article 142 – Award of Ex-Gratia Compensation – Supreme Court invoked powers under Article 142 to award additional ex-gratia amount of ₹5,00,000 to the appellant in view of prolonged litigation and hardship faced by the widow after death of breadwinner – Directed payment of arrears of pension along with regular monthly pension within four months [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of Tribunal and High Court Set Aside – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside decisions of Central Administrative Tribunal and Patna High Court, directed immediate disbursal of pension benefits to the appellant along with ₹5 lakh ex-gratia compensation [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law - Sections 302, 376AB, 377, 201 of the of the IPC - Rape and Murder of Minor – Last Seen, Recovery of Dead Body, and DNA Evidence – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted for the brutal rape, unnatural sexual assault, and murder of a 10-year-old girl – Conviction based on last seen evidence by child witnesses, recovery of deceased’s body from appellant’s hut, and DNA report conclusively matching the appellant’s semen with biological samples – Supreme Court held that concurrent findings by Trial Court and High Court were based on reliable ocular, medical, and scientific evidence, and upheld conviction under Sections 302, 376AB, 377 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act [Paras 1-13].

Death Sentence – Sentencing without Proper Mitigation Inquiry Impermissible – Death Penalty Commuted – Though crime was heinous, the Supreme Court held that courts below failed to appreciate mitigating circumstances – Reports under directions of Supreme Court highlighted absence of prior criminal record, good behaviour in jail, socio-economic backwardness, and potential for reformation – Court applied principles from Bachan Singh and Manoj cases, holding that sentencing must not focus solely on crime’s brutality – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment without remission till natural death [Paras 14-22].

Sentencing Guidelines – Adherence to Principles in Manoj Judgment – Comprehensive Inquiry Mandatory – Supreme Court reiterated sentencing procedure laid down in Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353, mandating socio-economic, psychological, and behavioural analysis before awarding capital punishment – Courts below failed to conduct a meaningful analysis of such factors, warranting interference in sentence [Paras 15-21].

Decision – Conviction Affirmed, Death Sentence Commuted – Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by commuting death sentence to life imprisonment without remission till the remainder of natural life, while confirming conviction on all counts [Paras 22-23].

Service Law – Reversion After 35 Years – Validity of Appointment and Promotion – Reversion Set Aside – The appellant was appointed as Stenographer in 1988 after undergoing shorthand training at ITI and was promoted through the judicial hierarchy to Deputy Registrar – The High Court allowed a writ petition filed in 2018 challenging his eligibility and directed his reversion – Held: Appellant’s shorthand certificate from ITI met qualification requirements – Approval by Chief Justice at the time of appointment carried curative authority – Appellant served without blemish for decades – Reversion after 35 years is harsh, unreasonable, and unsustainable [Paras 2, 3, 7, 8, 11-14].

Discretion of Chief Justice – Rule 6 of 1937 Rules – Waiver of Qualifications – Appointment Valid – The Chief Justice had the authority to relax qualifications under Rule 6 of the 1937 Rules – The appellant was appointed only after due recommendation and approval by the Chief Justice – Held: Any procedural deficiency in formal certification stood waived by exercise of this discretion – Appointment legally sound [Paras 7-8].

Delay and Laches – Belated Challenge to Appointment – Writ Filed After Three Decades – Unsustainable – Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition in 2018 challenging the appellant’s 1988 appointment after receiving his own promotion – Held: Such belated challenge is inequitable and lacks merit – No evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on the appellant’s part – Service benefits earned over three decades should not be undone [Paras 1.5, 13-14].

Relief to Respondent – Promotion from Retrospective Date – Upheld – The appellant did not oppose the High Court’s direction promoting respondent no.1 as Assistant Registrar with effect from August 2016 – Held: No interference warranted with that part of the High Court’s order – Respondent's seniority to be reckoned above the appellant accordingly [Paras 6, 15].

Final Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Reversion Set Aside – Promotion of Respondent Maintained – Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the direction reverting the appellant – However, it maintained the retrospective promotion of respondent no.1 with effect from 11/14.08.2016 – No order as to costs [Para 15].

Criminal Procedure – Service of Notice under Section 35 BNSS – Electronic Mode Not Permissible – Application Dismissed – The State of Haryana sought modification of the Supreme Court’s earlier order to allow electronic service of notices under Section 35 BNSS – Held: Legislative intent is explicit in excluding investigation-related notices from electronic mode under Section 530 BNSS – Non-compliance with such notices may result in arrest, impacting liberty – Electronic service not legally sustainable [Paras 3, 17, 26-27, 43].

Electronic Communication – BNSS Provisions – Scope Delineated – Legislative Intent Respected – Court held that BNSS expressly permits electronic communication for limited procedures like service of summons with Court seal, communication to witnesses, production of documents, and filing of police reports – Investigative notices affecting liberty require stricter compliance and personal service [Paras 15, 20, 40-42].

Right to Liberty – Article 21 – Protection in Investigative Stage – Court interpreted Section 35(3)-(6) of BNSS as substantively protecting individual liberty – As arrest can follow non-compliance with notice, mode of service must be stringent – Personal service mandated to safeguard constitutional rights [Paras 24-26, 29].

Judicial vs Executive Acts – Summons vs Investigative Notice – Procedural Distinction – Summons issued by Court under Sections 63/71 BNSS differ from notice under Section 35 issued by Investigating Agency – Judicial summons can use electronic communication under strict format – Executive notices impacting liberty cannot [Paras 31-39].

Decision – No Modification of Previous Order – Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling requiring Standing Orders directing personal service of notice under Section 35 BNSS – Application by State of Haryana dismissed – Prior judgment upheld [Para 44].

Civil Law - General Power of Attorney (GPA) – Validity of Registration – Sections 32, 33, 34, and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Appeal Allowed for Reconsideration - The appellants challenged the validity of the General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.1990 and the sale deeds executed by the attorney-holder on behalf of the original owners – The Supreme Court examined whether a power-of-attorney holder becomes an “executant” under Section 32(a), thereby bypassing the authentication requirements of Section 33 – Held: The power-of-attorney holder signs documents on behalf of the principal and remains an agent, not an executant under Section 32(a) – Therefore, the statutory requirements of authentication under Sections 32(c), 33, 34, and 35 are mandatory for valid registration [Paras 1-17].

Interpretation of Executant – Distinction between Agent and Executant – Clarification Made - The Court disapproved the interpretation laid down in Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar, (2009) 14 SCC 782, which held that a power-of-attorney holder executing a document becomes the “executant” under Section 32(a) – Held: Such an interpretation is erroneous as it overlooks statutory safeguards requiring verification of the agent’s authority and identity – Such power-of-attorney holders continue to fall under Section 32(c), necessitating adherence to authentication procedures [Paras 12-18].

Reference to Larger Bench – Conflict in Precedent – Matter Referred - Noting a direct conflict with previous binding precedent and its significant implications on property registration practices, the Court referred the matter to a larger bench to conclusively settle the legal position concerning the status of power-of-attorney holders under the Registration Act [Para 18-19].

Decision – Appeals Listed Before Larger Bench - The Supreme Court directed the Registry to obtain necessary orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice for expeditious listing of these appeals before an appropriate larger bench for authoritative adjudication [Para 19].

Specific Performance – Agricultural Land – Specific Performance Upheld with Additional Payment – Dispute arose from Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.2001 concerning over 9 acres of agricultural land where seller failed to execute sale deed – Plaintiffs claimed readiness and willingness but faced challenge from third party alleging fraud and possession – Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court concurrently decreed specific performance, Supreme Court upheld the decree with modification directing plaintiffs to pay additional ₹25,00,000/- in view of land appreciation while nullifying subsequent sales by seller and third party objectors – Specific performance with possession decreed after balancing equities [Paras 1-21].

Readiness and Willingness – Proof of Financial Standing – Section 22 Specific Relief Act – Readiness of Plaintiffs Affirmed – Supreme Court reiterated readiness to perform need not involve production of sale consideration but can be established through conduct and financial position – Trial and Appellate Courts rightly relied on bank accounts and assets of plaintiffs to hold them ready and willing to perform contract despite lapse of time – Specific performance decree upheld [Paras 6-13].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Subsequent Transfers Declared Void – Section 52 Transfer of Property Act – Sale Deeds During Suit Hit by Lis Pendens – Seller executed two sale deeds during pendency of suit and purchaser sold it further – Supreme Court ruled these transactions invalid being hit by Section 52 and collusive attempt to defeat plaintiffs’ rights – Transfers during pendency of litigation held unenforceable [Paras 9-15, 21].

Possession – Relief Granted Despite Omission in Pleadings – Section 22 Specific Relief Act – Court Empowered to Grant Possession Without Specific Plea – Plaintiffs did not seek possession in original plaint but Court granted possession relying on power under Section 22 – Supreme Court held such relief permissible in interest of justice even without formal amendment in pleadings [Paras 16-17].

Escalation of Land Prices – No Ground to Deny Specific Performance – Appreciation in land value since 2001 cited by seller to resist decree – Supreme Court held that price rise alone is insufficient to deny equitable remedy of specific performance where readiness and willingness established – However, to balance equities, plaintiffs directed to pay ₹25,00,000/- in addition to original consideration to protect fairness [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Supreme Court confirmed specific performance and delivery of possession subject to additional payment – Sale deeds executed by seller and subsequent purchasers declared null and void – Registry directed to inform Sub-Registrar for cancellation of illegal transactions – No costs awarded [Paras 20-21].

Section 13(2), 13(4), 14, 17(4A), 18 and 35 of the of the SARFAESI Act - SARFAESI Proceedings – Tenant’s Rights and Restoration of Possession – Unregistered Lease – Appeal Allowed - The appellant, a secured creditor, took possession of a secured asset under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act following borrower’s default – Respondent claimed tenancy under unregistered lease from 1987 – High Court restored possession to respondent citing tenancy rights under rent laws – Held: High Court erred in entertaining challenge under Article 227 of Constitution despite availability of statutory remedy under Section 18 SARFAESI; tenancy claims must be adjudicated by DRT as per amended Section 17(4A) – Appeal allowed, possession retained by secured creditor pending DRT decision [Paras 11-13, 26].

Tenant Claims – Requirement of Documentary Evidence – Protection Limited for Unregistered Lease – The respondent failed to produce rent receipts, tax records, or electricity bills prior to issuance of demand notice under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act – Reference to tenancy in sale deed or attornment letter insufficient without corroborative evidence – Citing Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India, held unregistered tenancy not protected beyond one year from notice under SARFAESI – Mandatory order restoring possession unjustified – Appeal allowed [Paras 23-25].

High Court Jurisdiction – Alternate Remedy and Misapplication of Pre-Amendment Law – Error Noted – The High Court misapplied the ratio of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd., which was based on pre-2016 SARFAESI Act and did not consider introduction of Section 17(4A) post-amendment – SARFAESI provides complete statutory remedy, writ jurisdiction not to be invoked – Appeal rightly entertained and allowed [Paras 11-13].

Non-Obstante Clause in SARFAESI – Applicability over Rent Control Act – Clarified – Following Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal, Court reiterated non-obstante clause under Section 35 SARFAESI overrides inconsistent tenancy claims unless validly established – Precedents in Vishal N. Kalsaria and V. Dhanapal Chettiar limited to legally protected tenancies and do not protect unregistered undocumented occupation in secured assets recovery proceedings [Paras 17-19, 23].

Conduct of Respondent – Delay in Asserting Rights – No Equitable Relief – Respondent failed to contest symbolic possession despite newspaper notice in 2021, approached DRT only after physical possession in 2023 – Collusive litigation with borrower not ruled out – Absence of proactive assertion of rights bars relief under equitable jurisdiction – Appeal allowed, possession retained by secured creditor [Paras 24-25].

Decision of the Case – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s direction restoring possession set aside – Status quo maintained with secured creditor till DRT adjudication within two months – No costs awarded [Paras 26-27].

Criminal Law – Criminal Review Jurisdiction –Abuse of Investigative Process – Review Jurisdiction – Interference by High Court – Appellant challenged the Division Bench’s order dated 13th May, 2025, passed on review petitions that were filed against the dismissal of writ appeals – Despite earlier finding no ground for review on 8th May, 2025, the Division Bench proceeded to pass substantive directions amounting to interference in the investigation process – Held: Division Bench’s order indefensible as it exceeded its jurisdiction and invoked review power without fulfilling conditions under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC – Such action amounted to reopening concluded proceedings under the guise of “interest of justice” without any legal justification [Paras 2, 4, 5(d), 7–9].

Criminal Writ – Improper Transfer of Investigation – CID Involvement Set Aside – On basis of impugned review order, investigation in FIR No. 588/2024 was transferred to CID – Supreme Court, noting the review order as invalid, directed restoration of investigation to original Investigating Officer – Evidence collected by CID to be handed over – Investigation to proceed uninfluenced by superior officers and in accordance with law [Paras 10–11].

Writ Jurisdiction – Intra-Court Appeal in Criminal Writ – Improper Relief by Single Judge – Court expressed doubt whether intra-court appeal was maintainable in a criminal writ under Article 226 in light of Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana – Even if maintainable, Division Bench should have confined itself to examining interim order, not expanded into review of investigation – Also held: Single Judge wrongly restrained holding of EGM in a criminal writ despite no such prayer by petitioner – Relief not sought should not be granted, as reiterated in Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi [Paras 6, 12–14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s order dated 13th May, 2025 set aside – Investigation restored to original Investigating Officer – Interim injunction against company meetings not to apply to future meetings – Appellant may approach appropriate forum if affected by future decisions [Paras 9, 11, 14–15].