Criminal Law  – Murder – Evidence Appreciation – IPC 302/34, 201 – Conviction Affirmed; Appeals Dismissed – Eye-witness account of related witnesses (PWs 9 & 10) found cogent and credible; absence of independent witnesses in faction-ridden village not fatal; “falsus in uno” inapplicable—court separates grain from chaff; minor omissions/discrepancies do not erode core case; non-explanation of trivial injuries on accused not decisive where prosecution evidence is clear – High Court rightly convicted appellants while distinguishing acquitted co-accused [Paras 4-13, 14-23, 25-27, 28].

Interested/Related Witnesses – Credibility – Relationship does not per se taint testimony – Court must scrutinize but not reject mechanically – Close relations less likely to shield real culprits – Applied: Dalip Singh; Vadivelu Thevar; Masalti; Jagir Singh – Evidence of PWs 9 & 10 accepted as cogent [Paras 14-19].

Absence of Independent Witnesses – Not Fatal in Faction-Ridden Villages – Natural witnesses are those present/inmates; prosecution need not examine non-occurrence bystanders – Applied: Teja Ram – No adverse inference for not examining other co-villagers [Para 20].

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – “Falsus in Uno” Not a Rule – Court must separate truth from embellishment; acquittal of some co-accused no automatic benefit to others – Principles reiterated: Nisar Ali; Gurcharan Singh; Sohrab; Balaka Singh – Conviction can rest on residue that is reliable [Paras 19, 21-23].

Normal vs Material Discrepancies – Minor inconsistencies (e.g., PW10’s absence in inquest; DDR omission) plausibly explained and not material – Normal memory/observation errors do not corrode credibility – Applied: State of Rajasthan v. Kalki; Krishna Gopal – Core prosecution version stands [Paras 19, 23, 27].

Non-Explanation of Injuries on Accused – Not Invariably Fatal – Duty arises only where defence version competes in probability or injuries are significant – Here injuries were trifling/superficial; prosecution evidence clear and cogent – Applied: Mohar Rai; Lakshmi Singh; Vijayee Singh; Ramlagan Singh; Hare Krishna Singh – No suppression of genesis inferred [Paras 25-26].

Witness Inaction During Assault – Not Ground to Discard Testimony – Unarmed PWs facing assailants with deadly weapons; self-preservation instinct recognized – Their non-intervention does not diminish credibility [Para 24].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – No Automatic Parity – Courts below noted distinguishing features vis-à-vis acquitted accused Rattan and Gurdip; conviction of appellants sustained on reliable part of evidence [Paras 11, 19].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC and 201 IPC with sentences affirmed [Para 28].

Panchayat Election – Disqualification for Having More than Two Children – Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1), Haryana Panchayati Raj Act – Constitutional Validity Upheld – Challenge raised on grounds of arbitrariness, violation of personal liberty under Article 21, and religious freedom under Article 25 – Held: Right to contest elections is not a fundamental right – Disqualification is reasonable, serves public interest in promoting family welfare and population control – Law neither arbitrary nor discriminatory – Not violative of any fundamental right [Paras 5, 20-21, 60-61, 65].

Article 14 – Reasonable Classification – Validity of Population-Based Disqualification – Law provides intelligible differentia between persons with more than two children and those with two or fewer – Disqualification serves objective of promoting national population policy – Held: Legislation is valid and not arbitrary or discriminatory – Legislative choice of number of children not open to judicial review [Paras 7-11, 18-20].

Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty – No Violation – Right to procreate not absolute – Disqualification provision does not restrict the right to have children but imposes a condition on eligibility for elected office – Held: Legislative control over personal choice in the interest of public health, welfare, and sustainable development justified – Provisions constitutionally valid [Paras 26-41].

Article 25 – Freedom of Religion – No Conflict with Muslim Personal Law – Right to religious practice does not extend to claiming immunity from valid social welfare legislation – Having more than two children or practising polygamy not essential tenets of Islam – Held: Personal law does not override public law – Disqualification not violative of Article 25 [Paras 42-49, 59].

Legislative Competence – State Power Under Entries in Lists II and III – Population control and local self-government fall within State’s legislative domain – Held: State of Haryana was competent to enact disqualification – Panchayati Raj Act consistent with Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties [Paras 38-39].

Administrative Directions – Application of Disqualification – Adoption of Third Child Does Not Cure Disqualification – Held: Once disqualification is incurred, giving a child in adoption will not remove it – Law targets birth and living children, not subsequent status change [Para 62].

Gender Discrimination – No Exemption for Women – Disqualification applies equally to men and women – Held: Any legislative exemption may be considered by the legislature, but current provision not unconstitutional for treating both equally [Para 63].

Exceptional Cases – Triplets or Twins – Not Grounds for Invalidating Law – Held: Legislation cannot be tested on hypothetical or rare scenarios – Validity judged on general application and public purpose [Para 64].

Decision – All Writ Petitions and Appeals Dismissed – Provisions Held Intra Vires – Proceedings under Section 177(2) to Resume as per Court Directions – Disqualification for having more than two children upheld as valid and constitutional [Paras 65-67].

Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal Ordered – Prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence of accused hiring taxi, staying at hotel, recovery of ornaments, and letter allegedly written by accused – Hotel waiter, the sole direct witness, not examined – Register entries not legally proved – Recovery of common ornaments not connected to deceased – Letter contained no confession and not proved through handwriting expert – Circumstances insufficient to sustain conviction – Trial Court and High Court erred in convicting – Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence of appellant – Co-accused also extended same benefit despite not appealing – Both acquitted [Paras 5-10, 17-18].

Circumstantial Evidence – Proof Required – Each circumstance must be proved by substantive evidence and form complete chain connecting accused with crime – Withholding key witness (hotel waiter) fatal – Hearsay testimony of hotel owner inadmissible – Register entry unproved – No substantive evidence of presence in hotel – Chain incomplete [Paras 6-7].

Recovery Evidence – Gold chain and ring – Articles of common use, not identified by family members of deceased – No test identification parade held – Identification by shopkeeper unreliable – Recovery held insufficient to prove guilt [Para 9].

Confession – Letter to Mother – No admission of guilt contained – Prosecution failed to prove handwriting/signature through expert – Cannot be relied upon as confession or admission [Para 8].

Supreme Court’s Powers – Article 136 and 142 – Court can extend benefit of acquittal to non-appealing co-accused where circumstances show conviction of any accused unsustainable – Powers exercisable suo motu to prevent miscarriage of justice – Failure to extend benefit would violate Article 21 by perpetuating illegal detention – Extended benefit to co-accused Balwinder Singh though he did not appeal [Paras 11-17].

Decision – Conviction and sentence of appellant Pawan Kumar and co-accused Balwinder Singh set aside – Both acquitted of charge under Section 302/34 IPC – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case [Para 18].

Service Law – Suspension – Rule 10(2) CCS (CCA) Rules – Deemed Suspension – Validity – Employee detained beyond 48 hours deemed suspended by operation of law – Delhi High Court held such deemed suspension ends on release from detention – Held: Unsustainable – Rule 10(5)(a) & 10(5)(c) make clear that suspension, whether made or deemed, continues until modified or revoked by competent authority – Suspension does not lapse automatically on release from custody – High Court’s view contrary to plain language of statute [Paras 14-18, 27].

Interpretation of Statutes – Deeming Provision – Legal fiction under Rule 10(2) has full efficacy as an actual order – Courts cannot read into provision limitations not expressed – Words “until further orders” absent in Rule 10(2) immaterial in view of Rule 10(5)(a) – Casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretation – Statutory construction must rely on text, not presumed intention [Paras 15-26].

Suspension – Long Duration – Validity – Prolonged suspension not per se invalid – Continuance justified if plausible reasons exist – Court cannot annul merely on ground of duration [Para 30].

Comparative Provisions – Rule 10(3) & 10(4) CCS (CCA) Rules operate in different contexts (appellate/review or court orders) – Cannot be imported into Rule 10(2) – Nelson Motis case distinguished [Paras 29].

Decision – Orders of Delhi High Court quashing suspension set aside – Appeals allowed – Fresh suspension orders, if challenged, to be adjudicated separately on merits [Paras 32-33].

Criminal Law - Murder – Ocular Testimony vs. Medical Evidence – Appeals Dismissed – Sessions Judge acquitted accused of strangulating deceased; High Court reversed and convicted under Section 302/34 IPC – Supreme Court upheld conviction – Eyewitness testimony of police constables on patrol duty fully corroborated by medical and documentary evidence – No inconsistency between ocular version and post-mortem findings – Absence of proved motive immaterial where direct evidence is trustworthy – Appeals dismissed, life imprisonment confirmed [Paras 2-21].

Ocular Testimony – Greater Weight – Reliable eyewitness account corroborated by prompt FIR and medical evidence cannot be discarded on hypothetical conflict with medical opinion – Ligature mark dimensions depend on type of cloth and manner of strangulation – No inconsistency between eyewitness version and medical findings [Paras 12-17].

Motive – Proof Not Essential – Failure of prosecution to prove motive not fatal where direct evidence establishes guilt – Motive often difficult to prove and may remain undiscoverable – Conviction sustainable on reliable ocular and medical evidence even without proof of motive [Para 18].

First Information Report – Prompt Lodging – FIR lodged within two hours of occurrence, promptly sent to Magistrate – Documentary evidence corroborates prosecution version and rules out false implication [Para 11].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope – High Court justified in reversing perverse acquittal where trial court ignored reliable eyewitness and medical evidence – Supreme Court upheld conviction, directing accused to surrender to undergo life sentence [Paras 18, 21].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302/34 IPC upheld – Accused directed to surrender immediately [Para 21].

Taxation Law - Excise Classification – Banphool Oil – Classification Dispute – Ayurvedic Medicament Confirmed – The issue was whether Banphool Oil should be classified as “perfumed hair oil” under Tariff Item 3305.10 or as an “Ayurvedic Medicament” under Tariff Item 3003.30 – Tribunal’s majority classified the product as Ayurvedic – Supreme Court upheld the view – Held: Product contained ingredients from Ayurvedic texts, was manufactured under a drug license, and used in treatment of various ailments – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1–2, 12–14].

Interpretation of Excise Tariff – Onus on Department – Common Parlance Test – Department Failed to Discharge Burden – Held: Revenue bears the burden of proving classification – Mere over-the-counter sale or non-prescription availability does not negate Ayurvedic nature – No evidence produced by Department to show product was understood as cosmetic or hair oil in common parlance – Label indicated dosage and medicinal use – Classification as Ayurvedic Medicament affirmed [Para 12].

Role of Drug Controller's Opinion – Board Circular Binding – Department Bound by Its Own Circular – Held: Board’s Circular dated 05/12/1991 required reference to Drug Controller in case of doubt – Opinion of Drug Controller confirmed that Banphool Oil is an Ayurvedic preparation – Revenue failed to escalate for further clarification as per Circular – Tribunal rightly relied on the Drug Controller’s view [Paras 8, 13].

Percentage of Medicinal Ingredients – Low Proportion Not Determinative – Fillers Do Not Alter Medicinal Character – Held: Medicaments often have active ingredients in small quantities mixed with carriers or fillers – Example of Vicks Vaporub cited – Court held that low percentage of ayurvedic ingredients does not defeat classification if therapeutic use is established [Para 12].

Precedents – B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals, Amrutanjan Ltd., Selsun Cases Applied – Functional Use Over Marketing Terminology – Held: Earlier judgments clarified that classification depends on intended therapeutic use, not product labels or prior descriptions – Even if ingredients overlap with cosmetics, medicinal use and consumer understanding determine classification – Banphool Oil satisfied test of medicament as per settled law [Paras 10–11].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Classification as Ayurvedic Medicament Confirmed – Supreme Court found no infirmity in Tribunal’s majority judgment – Appeals by Department dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Murder – IPC Sections 302, 307, 109 – Appeal Allowed – Conviction set aside – Appellant convicted for firing fatal shot at deceased, while co-accused acquitted by High Court – Ballistic expert’s report directly contradicted eye-witness version on weapons used – High Court disbelieved oral evidence for acquitted accused but accepted same against appellant – Held: Inconsistent appreciation of same evidence unsustainable – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant – Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 7-8].

Evidence – Eye-witness testimony vs. Expert report – Where ballistic expert’s opinion contradicts oral version on weapon used, and prosecution fails to reconcile contradiction, reliance solely on partisan witnesses unsafe – Non-examination of independent witnesses further weakens prosecution – In such cases, eye-witness testimony alone cannot sustain conviction [Para 7].

Consistency of Judicial Reasoning – High Court erred in applying different standards – Oral evidence used to acquit co-accused cannot be selectively relied on to convict appellant – Reasoning must be uniform in assessing reliability of prosecution version [Para 7].

Benefit of Doubt – Contradictions in oral evidence, interested nature of witnesses, and failure to clarify ballistic inconsistencies – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence quashed [Para 8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant set aside – If in custody, appellant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Para 8].

Per Incuriam – Coordinate Bench Discipline – Article 141 – Appeal Allowed and Matter Remanded –Patna High Court Full Bench declared Section 15 ultra vires and curtailed the bar/abatement under Sections 4(b), 4(c), 37 by terming the earlier Full Bench in Ramkrit Singh as per incuriam – Held: Decision is per incuriam only if rendered in ignorance of a binding statute or precedent; mere non-consideration of an aspect or perceived incorrectness is not a ground – A coordinate Bench must follow or refer to a larger Bench; it cannot bypass by labelling per incuriam – Impugned judgment set aside; case remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration in light of this ruling [Paras 1, 3-6, 8-13, 14].

Doctrine of Per Incuriam – Tests and Limits – Per incuriam applies where there is omission to notice a binding precedent of the same/superior court or a relevant statutory provision – Not attracted merely because a possible argument/aspect was not considered – Reliance placed on Halsbury, Young v. Bristol Aeroplane; approved in Synthetics & Chemicals; Fuerst Day Lawson; B. Satyanarayana Rao [Paras 5-9].

Judicial Discipline – Coordinate Benches – If a Bench disagrees with a coordinate Bench, proper course is reference to a larger Bench; conflicting views cannot co-exist – Followed Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho; Pradip Chandra Parija – High Court misapplied per incuriam and ought to have referred [Paras 11-12].

Consolidation Act – Sections 3, 4(b),(c), 15, 37 – Validity/Effect – High Court’s dilution of abatement/bar and striking down of Section 15 set aside not on merits but for misapplication of per incuriam; issues to be reconsidered by High Court on remand [Paras 1-3, 13-14].

Decision – Supreme Court allowed appeal – Set aside Patna High Court Full Bench judgment – Remanded to High Court to decide afresh in accordance with law – Costs easy [Para 14].

Land Acquisition – Constitutional Law – Absence of Solatium and Interest – Classification Valid – Defence of India Act Not Arbitrary – Sections 30 and 31 of the Defence of India Act, 1971, which provide for acquisition of requisitioned land and compensation without solatium or interest, challenged under Article 14 – Held: The classification between acquisitions under the Defence of India Act and the Land Acquisition Act is reasonable – The former deals with emergency requisitions, distinct in nature and object – Therefore, the provisions do not violate Article 14 [Paras 1–2, 24–30].

Compensation – Scheme of Defence of India Act – Acquisition of Requisitioned Property – Held: The Act constitutes a self-contained code – The compensation under Section 31 is based on market value as if the land remained in same condition as on date of requisition – Absence of solatium and interest does not render the scheme unconstitutional – Owners already receive compensation for the period of requisition [Paras 15–17, 26–28].

Doctrine of Reasonable Classification – Article 14 – Held: Classification based on nature and purpose of acquisition under different statutes is permissible – Defence of India Act serves special purposes linked to defence and emergency – Distinct from public purpose acquisitions under Land Acquisition Act – Differential treatment in compensation is constitutionally valid [Paras 25, 30].

Precedents – Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla and Dhanwanti Devi – Upheld – Decisions affirming the validity of statutes not granting solatium or interest in certain types of acquisitions reaffirmed – No need to overrule earlier judgments – Case distinguished from Nagpur Improvement Trust case [Paras 17–18, 31–33].

Refund – Equitable Relief – Solatium and Interest Already Paid – Not to be Recovered – Though the High Court judgment granting solatium and interest is reversed, amounts already paid decades ago to respondents not to be recovered – Relief granted considering prolonged delay, pending arbitration, and small amounts involved – Direction not to be treated as precedent [Paras 35–37].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Constitutionality of Defence of India Act, 1971 Upheld – Judgment of High Court declaring the Act violative of Article 14 set aside – However, no recovery of amounts already paid towards solatium and interest [Paras 34, 38].