Property Dispute - Alleged Sale of Portion of Inherited Property - Appellant and Respondent, brothers, in dispute over land inherited from their father - Allegation that one brother sold a portion of his share to the other - Possession of the sold land forcibly taken by Appellant - Suit for possession filed by Respondent - Lower courts returned findings in favor of Appellant - High Court set aside concurrent findings and ruled in favor of Respondent - Instant appeals against High Court judgment. [Para 1]

Scope of Second Appeal - Applicability of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 - Court's jurisdiction to frame substantial questions of law - Held, in appeals arising from Punjab or Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per Section 100 of CPC - Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act applies. [Para 7, 8]

Rights of Co-Share Purchaser - Right to possession - Applicability of precedent - Appellant's contention that purchaser of co-share does not have a right to possession - Reference to judgments in Ramdas v. Sitabai and Gurmej Singh v. Jai Singh - Court finds judgments inapplicable to the present case due to the existence of evidence showing partition by the father of the Appellant - No effort made by Appellant to substitute himself in place of Respondent in the property transaction. [Para 12, 13]

Interference with Findings of Fact in Second Appeal - Conditions for disturbing lower courts' findings - Court may interfere if lower courts ignored material evidence, drew wrong inferences, or wrongly cast the burden of proof - Analysis of witness statements shows lower courts ignored evidence of property partition - Contradictions in Appellant's statements add weight to Respondent's claim - High Court's findings valid. [Para 14, 15]

CIVIL APPEAL - Limitation - Condonation of delay - Justice-oriented approach - Delay of 52 days in filing the appeal - Whether the delay can be condoned - Effect of delay on deciding the matter on merits - Sufficient cause for condoning the delay - Supreme Court sets aside lower Appellate Court and High Court judgments, and condones the delay - Matter restored to the file of the lower Appellate Court for consideration on merits - All contentions left open for consideration - Civil Appeal allowed.(Para No.1-9)

Delimitation Act 2002 – Section 10A and Representation of the People Act 1950 – Section 8A – Constitutionality challenged – Deferral of delimitation exercise in a State due to threats to unity, integrity, peace, and public order – Rescission of deferment order and entrusting delimitation exercise to the Election Commission – Challenge to the political inclusivity of the process – Alleged violation of democratic principles and constitutional norms.

Process of Delimitation – Political Representation – Section 8A of RP Act – Delimitation Act provides for inclusion of political representatives – Election Commission entrusted with delimitation exercise in States specified in Section 8A – Constitutional challenge raised on dilution of political process in delimitation exercise.

Power to Rescind Deferment Order – President’s Authority – Notification rescinding deferment issued by Union Ministry of Law and Justice – Election Commission’s actions contrary to the terms of rescission – Challenge to the validity of the President’s notification and Election Commission’s role in the process.

Constitutional Norms – Article 170(2) and Article 81(2) of the Constitution – Density of Population – Draft proposal by Election Commission based on population density – Alleged breach of constitutional norms regarding the ratio between population and seats in constituencies.

Notice Issued – Counter-Affidavits and Rejoinders – Court reserves the constitutional challenge for further deliberation – Parties directed to file counter-affidavits within three weeks, and rejoinders within two weeks thereafter.

Delimitation Process – Interdiction at this Stage – Process already commenced following the rescission of deferment order – Court refrains from interdicting the ongoing delimitation process.

Next Listing – Petitions to be Listed – Petitions to be listed in the first week of October 2023 for further consideration.

Criminal Law – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 6 – Exercise of Jurisdiction by the NIA – Validity – High Court directed the investigation of several First Information Reports (FIRs) to be transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Explosive Substances Act – Petitioners challenged the High Court’s order – Supreme Court observed that the Central Government had already exercised its powers under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act and issued a notification for NIA’s investigation – Court held that it was not within its remit to decide the sufficiency or veracity of the allegations at this stage – The Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment, holding that the exercise of jurisdiction by the NIA was valid – Special Leave Petitions disposed of accordingly.

Army Act, 1950 - Sections 39(b), 71, 72, 73, and 120 - Defence Service Regulations, 1987, Regulation 448 - Punishment for absence without leave or overstaying leave - Dismissal from service. (Para 1)

Disciplinary history of the appellant - Habitual defaulter - Analysis of past punishments for unauthorized absence - Court noted several instances of indiscipline prior to the present incident - Appellant had a record of being repeatedly absent without leave. (Para 9)

Discretion of Summary Court Martial (SCM) - Authority to impose appropriate punishment - SCM empowered to pass any legal sentence depending on the nature and degree of the offense - Acknowledgment of sufficient discretion vested in SCM to award a higher punishment. (Para 12)

Interpretation of Army Act provisions - Section 39(b), 71, 72, 73, and 120 - Section 39(b) deals with offenses related to absence without leave - Section 71 lists punishments on conviction by Court Martial in a sliding scale - Section 72 and 73 allow Court Martial discretion to determine appropriate punishment for a specific offense. (Para 13)

Compliance with procedure - Appellant's contention on the Court of Inquiry's conduct - Absence of prescribed procedure for reporting directly to the higher authority refuted - No merit in appellant's plea of unfair procedure. (Para 6)

Proportionality of punishment - Court Martial's right to award a suitable sentence - Dismissal from service held to be an acceptable punishment, considering appellant's history of indiscipline and repeated unauthorized absence. (Para 10)

Dismissal upheld - Appeal dismissed - The punishment of dismissal from service affirmed as reasonable and proportionate considering the appellant's conduct and disciplinary record. (Para 17)

Section 302 IPC - Appeal against conviction – Murder – Evidence based on circumstantial and hearsay evidence – Failure to establish motive – Inconsistent testimony of witnesses – Medical evidence not supporting prosecution’s case – Possibility of false implication – Acquittal ordered. [Para 37]

Eye-witness testimony – No direct evidence of the accused assaulting the deceased – Testimony of witnesses inconsistent and unreliable – Lack of credibility in the prosecution’s case. [Para 32]

Motive – Prosecution fails to establish a motive for the accused to commit the crime – No enmity or dispute between the appellant and the deceased – Motive plays an important role in the absence of direct eyewitnesses. [Para 34]

Influence of Sarpanch – Allegations of false implication due to the influence of Sarpanch – Sarpanch had a grudge against the accused – Possibility of the appellant being falsely implicated. [Para 34]

Medical evidence – Weapon of assault does not match the injury observed in the post-mortem report – Suggestion that the injury could have been caused by the deceased falling on a sharp object – Probability of the deceased being heavily drunk. [Para 34]

Delayed lodging of FIR – Unsatisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the FIR. [Para 35]

Prosecution fails to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant entitled to acquittal – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant to be released if not wanted in any other case. [Para 37]

Criminal Law – Distinction between Culpable Homicide and Murder – Elements of Intention and Knowledge – Determination of Guilty Intention – Single Injury Resulting in Death – Inference of Guilty Knowledge – Application of Statutory Exceptions – Assessment of Factual Circumstances – Intent to Cause Bodily Injury Likely to Cause Death – Inference of Absence of Intention to Cause Injury Sufficient to Cause Death. (Para 62)

Criminal Law – Interpretation of Statutory Provisions – Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 299, 300, 302, and 304 – Scope and Application – Requirements for Establishing Murder and Exceptions – Offense under Section 304 Part I and Part II – Failure to Establish Clauses of Section 300 – Charge of Murder Not Sustained – Consideration of Four Clauses of Section 300 for Murder Conviction. (Para 63)

Criminal Law – Assessment of Guilty Intention or Knowledge – Factors to Consider – Nature of Weapon Used – Part of Body Injured – Extent of Injury – Degree of Force Applied – Manner of Attack – Circumstances Preceding and Attending the Attack – Inference of Guilty Knowledge from Proven Circumstances. (Para 8)

Criminal Law – Intent to Cause Death or Injury Sufficient to Cause Death – Distinction in Establishing Murder – Intention Not Limited to Killing – Intent to Cause Injury Sufficient in Ordinary Course of Nature to Cause Death – Inference of Intent from Act or Acts Resulting in Injury or Injuries – Determination Based on Factual Findings of Each Case. (Para 9, 10, 11)

Criminal Law – Single Injury Resulting in Death – Evaluation of Intent – Absence of Premeditation or Intentional Killing – Consideration of Sudden Fight, Quarrel, or Accidental Circumstances – Inference of Guilty Knowledge – Offense Under Section 304 Part II IPC – Application of Section 304 Rather than Section 300. (Para 12)

Criminal Law – Head Injury Causing Death – Assessment of Intent – Common Agricultural Tool as Weapon – Knowledge of Likelihood of Causing Injury Likely to Cause Death – Inference of Absence of Intention to Cause Injury Sufficient to Cause Death – Reliance on Post Mortem Report – Inference of Intent to Cause Injury Likely to Cause Death. (Para 62)

Constitutional Validity - Challenge to Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance 2023 [“NCT Ordinance”] - Scope of Legislative and Executive Powers - The petitioner, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), challenges the NCT Ordinance, promulgated under Article 123 of the Constitution, which amends the GNCTD Act 1991. The NCT Ordinance introduces Section 3A, excluding Entry 41 of List II from GNCTD's legislative competence, and establishes a new scheme for executive power distribution between Union of India and GNCTD.

Grounds of Challenge - The petitioner raises several grounds of challenge, including the amendment of a constitutional provision (Article 239-AA(3)(a)), abrogation of principles of governance for NCTD, and validity of Parliament's power exercised under Article 239-AA(7).

Substantial Questions of Law Referred - The Court refers two substantial questions of law to a Constitution Bench: (i) The extent of Parliament's power to enact a law under Article 239-AA(7); and (ii) Whether Parliament, under Article 239-AA(7), can abrogate the constitutional principles of governance for NCTD.

Constitution Bench Direction - The Constitution Bench is directed to dispose of the writ petition and answer the questions mentioned above. The Court also dismisses IA No. 130505 of 2023 seeking a stay of the NCT Ordinance.

Anticipatory Bail – FIR registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 423 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Appellant’s plea for anticipatory bail – Complainant’s year of birth mentioned in FIR as 1967, while appellant much younger and not previously married – Complainant’s second marriage with the appellant – Complainant claims appellant has adopted her child from the first marriage – Appellant filed Summary Suit/Petition for recovery of money against the complainant before the registration of FIR – Grant of anticipatory bail considered – No firm opinion on conflicting assertions and claims given – Appellant’s case for anticipatory bail accepted – Appellant directed to be released on bail by arresting/investigating officer/trial court on terms and conditions to be fixed by trial court – Appellant to comply with conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Appellant to appear before the Investigating Officer on a specified date – Failure to comply may lead to cancellation of anticipatory bail – Directions clarified not to be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits – Impugned order set aside – Appeal allowed accordingly.