Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Appeal against Conviction – Appellant's role in the murder was established – Appeal partially allowed - The appellant, along with co-accused, was convicted of murdering the victim due to a dispute over jaggery. The appellant was the sole convict as the co-accused were acquitted. The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, rejecting the acquittal request but modified the sentence to the period already served due to the appellant’s prolonged incarceration of over 14 years and good conduct in prison. However, the conviction under Section 34 IPC was set aside due to lack of evidence of common intention [Paras 2-5, 12, 18].

Evidence of Witnesses – Reliability of Ocular Evidence – Testimonies of eyewitnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 corroborated - The court found the depositions of the eyewitnesses credible, detailing the presence and role of the appellant in firing the fatal shot. The minor discrepancies noted by the defense were deemed immaterial to the overall case [Paras 10-13, 17].

Non-examination of Key Witnesses – Impact on Prosecution – No adverse inference - The failure to examine certain witnesses, including the investigating officer and key eyewitnesses, was found insufficient to discard the other overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution [Paras 14-16].

Sentence Modification – Good Conduct in Prison – Sentence reduced - The appellant had already served over 14 years, including time without remission, and exhibited good behavior during incarceration, leading to a reduction in his life sentence to the time already served [Paras 22-25].

Criminal Law – Suspension of Sentence – Section 302 IPC – Bail Granted to Co-Accused – The appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for their involvement in the death of Babu Lal – The appellants argued that no overt act was attributed to them, and they only held the victim down while another co-accused delivered the fatal blow – Held: Considering the role of the appellants and distinguishing it from the main accused, as well as the fact that they are women with young children, the Court granted suspension of sentence and bail to the appellants, subject to conditions to be imposed by the Sessions Court.

Distinguishable Role of Co-Accused – Women Accused Granted Bail – The appellants, who are two women, were convicted along with others for murder – Since no direct act of violence was attributed to them and their role was limited to holding the victim, the Court found it appropriate to grant them bail, especially in light of their familial responsibilities, including one appellant who had given birth while previously incarcerated .

Decision:

Leave granted – Appeal allowed – The appellants are granted suspension of sentence and bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Sessions Court – They are required to appear before the court when directed by the High Court during the pending appeal.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Prima Facie Case for Investigation - High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 406 and 420 IPC on the grounds that the FIR did not disclose entrustment or dishonest intention from the outset – The appellant contended that the accused failed to pay rent despite false assurances and retained possession of the truck – Held: The High Court erred in quashing the FIR at the threshold without considering the police investigation and charge-sheet, as it prematurely thwarted a legitimate investigation – Appeal allowed, High Court’s decision set aside, matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 9-12, 18-19].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Misappropriation of Vehicle – Entrustment and Retention - The allegation of non-payment of rent, coupled with failure to return the vehicle, may suggest dishonest retention or disposal, which could constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC – High Court ought to have allowed investigation into these claims before deciding on quashing the FIR [Paras 13-16].

Cheating – Dishonest Intention – False Assurances and Retention of Possession

Though one month’s rent was paid, the subsequent non-payment of rent and false assurances, while retaining possession of the truck, raised a prima facie case of dishonest intention, warranting investigation under Section 420 IPC [Paras 11-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The order of the High Court quashing the FIR and related proceedings is set aside – Case remanded for fresh adjudication after considering materials collected during the investigation – Costs made easy [Para 19].

Adverse Possession – Requirement of Continuous, Open, and Hostile Possession – Claim Rejected – The appellants' plea of adverse possession failed due to lack of proof of continuous, open, and hostile possession for the required period. The evidence showed that their possession was permissive, as they were cultivating the land as lessees (Adhiyadar). The Court held that without proving adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the appellants' claim could not stand [Paras 32-34, 37-45].

Benami Transactions – Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Act – Sale Deed Validated – The appellants’ argument that the property was held benami by Sitaram for the joint family was rejected. The Court upheld the sale deed executed in favor of the respondent, holding that the Benami Transactions Act prohibited any claim by the appellants, who were barred from asserting that the property belonged to the joint family [Paras 31, 41].

Limitation – Article 65 of the Limitation Act – Suit Within Time – The Court clarified that the limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act begins when the defendant's possession becomes adverse, not from the date of the original transaction. Since the appellants failed to prove adverse possession, the suit was deemed timely filed [Paras 36-40].

Perverse Findings – High Court's Reversal of Lower Court Judgments – The High Court found the trial court and first appellate court’s judgments to be perverse, especially regarding the finding that the property was joint family property. The courts below had not properly appreciated the evidence, and the High Court was correct in reversing those judgments [Paras 13, 15, 25].

Contempt of Court – Allegation of Creating Third-Party Rights During Status Quo Order – The contempt petition accused the appellants of creating third-party rights in violation of a status quo order. The Court, however, closed the contempt proceedings, allowing the respondent-plaintiff to execute the decree for possession following the dismissal of the appeals [Paras 48-51].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed – The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court’s findings that the plaintiff had title over the property and that the defendants' possession was permissive, not adverse – The contempt petition regarding the creation of third-party rights during the pendency of the case was dismissed, and the Court directed the plaintiff to execute the decree for recovery of possession .

Specific Performance – Bona Fide Purchaser – Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act – The appellant claimed to be a bona fide purchaser without notice of an earlier agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. However, the sale deed in favor of the appellant was executed during the pendency of the suit, thus attracting the doctrine of lis pendens – Held: The sale during the pendency of the suit is void against the plaintiff, and the appellant cannot claim protection as a bona fide purchaser under the Transfer of Property Act. The High Court was justified in decreeing specific performance of the sale agreement in favor of the plaintiff [Paras 5, 10, 15].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act – The sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendant No. 2 on 08.01.1993 during the pendency of the suit was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens – High Court ruled that defendant No. 2 could not claim to be a bona fide purchaser since the sale was conducted during the pendency of the litigation – Held: The principle of lis pendens binds the purchaser to the outcome of the litigation regardless of notice or good faith – Plaintiff entitled to specific performance [Paras 12-15].

Fraud Allegations – Cross-Objections – The First Appellate Court’s finding that the agreement was collusive between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 was not supported by any cross-objections or appeals by the defendants – The Trial Court had rejected the fraud allegation – Held: In the absence of cross-objections, the First Appellate Court could not revisit the fraud issue, as the defendants had accepted the Trial Court's findings on this matter [Paras 10-11].

Plaintiff’s Readiness and Willingness – Grant of Specific Performance – High Court found that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – The plaintiff had marked his presence with the Sub-Registrar on the date agreed for the execution of the sale deed – Held: Plaintiff’s conduct demonstrated his bona fide intent, warranting specific performance despite the alternative relief granted by the lower courts [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decree for specific performance affirmed – No order as to costs [Para 16].

Defamation – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – The appellant sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for defamation after making statements against respondent No. 2, calling him a "sexual predator" – Supreme Court held: The appellant, realizing his mistake, tendered an unconditional apology and agreed to publish the same in a leading newspaper and compensate the respondent with a token amount – Criminal proceedings quashed in the interest of both parties [Paras 1-4].

Unconditional Apology and Compensation – Resolution of Dispute – The Court accepted the appellant's offer of an unconditional apology to the respondent, to be published in "Daily Eenadu" and ordered a token compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for the mental agony caused by the defamatory allegations – Proceedings in CC No. 196 of 2019 and the related suit were quashed [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings in CC No. 196 of 2019 and Original Suit No. 1490/2018 pending before the courts in Telangana were quashed – Appellant to tender an unconditional apology and pay compensation to respondent No. 2 [Paras 9-11].

Criminal Law – Conviction Reversal – Acquittal – The appellants were convicted by the High Court for abduction and murder under Sections 364/34 and 302/34 IPC – The Supreme Court reversed this conviction, holding that the High Court erred in overturning the Trial Court's acquittal of two accused (A-6, A-7) – The High Court’s decision lacked proper reasoning to reverse acquittals, especially when the Trial Court’s view was plausible – Appellants were acquitted as prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-30].

Witness Testimonies – Credibility of Eye-Witnesses – The testimonies of prosecution witnesses (PW18, PW2, PW4, and PW5) were inconsistent and unreliable – Discrepancies regarding their presence at the crime scene raised doubts – Non-examination of natural witnesses such as tenants and neighbors further weakened the prosecution’s case – The Court found that PW18’s statement regarding the involvement of A-6 and A-7 was an improvement over the FIR, casting serious doubt on the prosecution’s version [Paras 12-26].

Motive and Circumstantial Evidence – The prosecution’s case largely rested on circumstantial evidence, but the chain of evidence was incomplete – The presence of property disputes provided a motive, but this alone could not prove guilt – The prosecution failed to link the accused directly to the murder, and no reliable evidence of abduction was found – Thus, the Court ruled that the conviction for murder could not be sustained [Paras 27-35].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside – All seven appellants acquitted – They are to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case [Paras 35-40].

Contract Law – Tender Process – Rejection of Technical Bid – Appellant’s technical bid was rejected by BCCL for non-compliance with Clause 10 of the NIT, while Respondent No. 8’s bid was accepted despite non-submission of essential documents at the time of bidding – Held: The rejection of the appellant’s bid was arbitrary and discriminatory as Respondent No. 8 was allowed to submit shortfall documents after the bid opening – The impugned decision was set aside, and BCCL was directed to initiate a fresh tender process [Paras 19-21].

Judicial Review – Arbitrariness in Government Contracts – The Supreme Court reiterated that while courts exercise restraint in reviewing administrative actions, government bodies must ensure fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination in the award of contracts – BCCL's decision-making process lacked transparency and violated the principle of equal treatment of bidders, warranting judicial intervention [Paras 22-23].

Scope of Judicial Review – Government Tenders – The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, focusing on the decision-making process rather than the merits of the contract – However, deviations from mandatory tender conditions must apply equally to all bidders, and any element of arbitrariness or discrimination in the process justifies interference [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – BCCL's rejection of the appellant's technical bid and the award of the contract to Respondent No. 8 were quashed – BCCL directed to initiate a fresh tender process in accordance with law [Paras 20, 21, 24].

Income Tax Law – Revision of Returns – Limitation – Appellant filed revised returns multiple times for the assessment year 1989-90, the last of which was submitted on 29th October 1991 – Assessing Officer refused to consider the return, citing Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, which barred the revised return due to the lapse of the one-year time limit – Appeals were filed but the High Court upheld the decision, stating that the revised return could not be entertained as it was barred by limitation – Held: Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to consider claims made in a time-barred revised return [Paras 1-3].

Appellate Powers of Tribunal – Section 254 of the IT Act – Appellant contended that the Tribunal could consider claims omitted from the original return during assessment proceedings – Reliance placed on Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax – However, Tribunal did not invoke its powers under Section 254 and instead remanded the case to the Assessing Officer, who had no authority to consider the time-barred return – High Court upheld the decision, finding no fault in the Tribunal's approach [Paras 5-7].

Judgment: Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision affirmed – Revised return filed after the time limit could not be considered by the Assessing Officer – Tribunal erred in remanding the matter for reconsideration by the Assessing Officer, as it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the claim [Paras 9-11].