Service Law – Waiting List/Reserved Panel – Counsel’s Concession – High Court directed absorption on future SC vacancy relying on 15.01.1999 assurance – Held: Wait list is not a source of recruitment and operates only if a selected candidate does not join – A concession contrary to statutory Recruitment Rules is not binding; cannot be enforced to extend life of wait list or fill future vacancies – Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside [Paras 12–13, 15–18; 1997 process closed].

Waiting List – Nature and Operative Period – The Court reiterates that mere placement in a wait list/“Reserved Panel” confers no vested right; it operates only if a selected candidate does not join and cannot continue indefinitely or after a fresh recruitment begins – Reliance placed on Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Assn. v. State of Gujarat (three-Judge Bench) – Held, respondent’s right as a waitlisted candidate extinguished when all three selected candidates joined in 1997 [Para 12].

Concession by Counsel – Not Binding if Contrary to Law/Rules – The 15.01.1999 statement that respondent would be “absorbed” against next SC vacancy could not override Recruitment Rules or revive a closed selection – Wrong concession on law by counsel is not binding on the client; Court refers to Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan and Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha v. K. Santhakumari – Held, State can place correct legal position and decline to act on an erroneous concession that violates statutory Rules [Paras 15–16, 17].

Future Vacancies & Prejudice to Fresh Candidates – Giving effect to the 1999 concession would fill posts in subsequent recruitment from an earlier list, prejudicing new aspirants and impermissibly extending the life of the wait list – Hence, the High Court’s absorption direction is unsustainable [Para 17].

Facts – 1997 selection for three SC Technician posts; respondent placed first in Reserved Panel; all three selectees joined; multiple rounds before CAT/High Court; 2013 recruitment and interim “one post to be kept vacant” order; ultimate HC (25.06.2024) direction to absorb with notional effect from 19.07.2013 set aside [Paras 3–11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Calcutta High Court’s judgment dated 25.06.2024 set aside – Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 18].

Civil Procedure Code – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Limitation – Mutation proceedings – Possession based on title – Suit for declaration and possession not ex facie barred where mutation proceedings culminated in 2017 and suit filed within three years – Limitation for possession 12 years under Article 65 – Declaratory right continuing – Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) erroneous – Order 2 Rule 2 not attracted – High Court orders set aside; Trial Court’s order restored – [Paras 15–24].

Civil Procedure Code – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Limitation – High Court erred in rejecting plaint as barred by limitation – For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d), only averments in the plaint are to be considered – Mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and do not confer title – Plaint indicated that mutation proceedings culminated in 2017 and the suit filed in 2019 was within limitation – [Paras 15–17].

Limitation Act – Articles 58 & 65 – Possession based on title – Suit for possession based on title carries a limitation period of 12 years from the date possession becomes adverse – Declaratory relief in such cases is a continuing right – Held, limitation for possession to prevail; suit not ex facie barred – [Paras 17, 20].

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – First suit of predecessor-in-interest rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 for being improperly framed – Fresh suit with appropriate relief not barred under Order 2 Rule 2 – [Para 22].

Mutation Proceedings – Mutation entries do not confer ownership rights but serve fiscal purposes; validity of will or title must be tested in civil proceedings – [Para 16].

Adverse Possession – Question whether defendants perfected title by adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact—Cannot be basis for rejection of plaint at threshold—To be determined on evidence during trial – [Para 23].

Principle – When multiple reliefs are claimed, if any one relief is within limitation, plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC – [Para 19].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of the High Court dated 27.01.2022 and 04.07.2022 set aside – Order of the Trial Court rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 11 restored – Suit to proceed to trial on merits – [Para 23–24].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Bar of Limitation – Petition seeking appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dismissed as hopelessly barred by limitation – Claim based on alleged payments under a partnership agreement dated 20.09.2014 and property purchase on 04.05.2016 – Notice invoking arbitration issued only on 09.12.2020 – Court held that even computing limitation from last alleged payment on 04.08.2017, claim was still time-barred – Petition under Section 11(5) filed after further delays, including two years after notice of arbitration – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-6]

Limitation – Last Cause of Action – Receipt of Rs. 1 lakh on 04.08.2017 cited as last transaction – Court held that even with that date as starting point, limitation expired by 09.12.2020 – Prior criminal complaint filed in 2017 also rejected – Subsequent filing before High Court of Karnataka in June 2022, and again before Supreme Court in 2025 held to be belated – No explanation for delay provided – Held: Arbitration claim hopelessly time-barred [Paras 3-6]

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Kidnapping – Rape – Unnatural Offences – Conviction Restored – Appellant took 15-year-old minor to another city and subjected her to forcible sexual and anal intercourse – Trial Court acquitted appellant – High Court reversed acquittal and convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 377 IPC – Held: As victim was a minor, her consent is irrelevant – Conviction upheld [Paras 2.5, 11, 15].

Victim Testimony – Credibility – Sterling Witness – Victim (PW-4) gave consistent and detailed deposition of rape and sodomy – Stated sequence of events from abduction to abuse – Also made similar disclosures to examining doctors – No material contradictions – Held: Victim's testimony reliable and qualifies as sterling witness – Conviction can be sustained solely on such testimony [Paras 11, 12, 13].

Medical Jurisprudence – Corroboration of Rape Allegations – PW-1 and PW-2 examined the victim and opined she may have undergone recent sexual intercourse – Though no direct evidence of anal intercourse, possibility of sodomy not ruled out – Medical evidence supported and did not contradict victim’s version – Held: Medical evidence need not conclusively prove offence if ocular testimony is credible [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Procedure – Reversal of Acquittal – Permissible Scope – Trial Court gave undue benefit of doubt despite clear and cogent prosecution evidence – High Court reappreciated evidence and found only possible view was conviction – Held: High Court rightly set aside acquittal – No interference called for by Supreme Court [Paras 5, 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Conviction and sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment with ₹20,000 fine confirmed – Default sentence of 1-year simple imprisonment upheld.

Criminal Law – Murder and Dowry Death – Circumstantial Evidence – False Defence – Conviction Restored – Deceased Pushpa found dead inside matrimonial home – Accused (father-in-law) lodged false report alleging electrocution – Medical evidence proved death by strangulation; burn injuries were post-mortem – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in discarding cogent evidence and misapplying settled principles – False explanation by accused regarding cause of death formed an additional link completing the chain of circumstances – Conviction under Sections 302, 498-A, and 201 IPC restored [Paras 3–7, 16–21].

Dowry Death – Cruelty and Demand – Corroboration by Relatives – Testimony of deceased’s parents (PW-2 and PW-19) and uncle (PW-4) consistent regarding persistent cruelty and dowry demands – Minor delay in recording statements not fatal when corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence – High Court erred in treating delay as fatal to prosecution [Paras 8, 10, 18].

Evidence Act – Section 106 – Burden of Proof – Facts Especially Within Knowledge of Accused – Death occurred inside house exclusively occupied by accused – Explanation that deceased was electrocuted while ironing found false – Once prosecution established homicidal death inside house, burden shifted to accused to explain circumstances – Failure to discharge such burden strengthens prosecution case [Paras 13–14, 19].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Completeness Test – Prosecution proved (i) death by strangulation, (ii) occurrence within accused’s house, (iii) false report of electrocution, (iv) prior cruelty and dowry harassment – Each circumstance formed a continuous chain pointing unerringly to guilt of accused, excluding any hypothesis of innocence – High Court’s contrary finding perverse [Paras 16–19].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Misappreciation of Evidence – High Court ignored material testimony and medical findings, and failed to address reasons given by Trial Court – Supreme Court held that though presumption of innocence strengthens post-acquittal, interference warranted where findings are perverse or contrary to evidence [Paras 15, 20].

Fabrication of Evidence – Lodging of False Report – Section 201 IPC – Accused filed false report of accidental electrocution to mislead police – Such conduct establishes guilty mind and attracts Section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence and furnishing false information [Paras 4, 17, 21].

Result – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction Restored – High Court’s judgment dated 06.04.2010 set aside – Trial Court’s conviction and sentence of accused under Sections 302, 498-A, and 201 IPC restored – Accused to be taken into custody forthwith to serve remainder of sentence [Paras 21–23].

Criminal Law - UAPA – Grounds of Arrest – Mandatory Written Communication – Appellants arrested under UAPA without being furnished written grounds of arrest at the time of apprehension – State argued that grounds were explained by remand court and later supplied to counsel – Held: Explanation by court or post-facto supply to counsel does not satisfy requirement under Section 43B UAPA and Article 22(1) – Arrest and remand proceedings quashed

Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Protection Against Arbitrary Arrest – Supreme Court reiterates that furnishing written grounds of arrest to the accused at the time of arrest is mandatory – Reading out or explaining by the court is inadequate – Compliance must be contemporaneous and in writing to ensure right to legal remedy – Violation renders arrest illegal

Distinction Between “Reasons for Arrest” and “Grounds of Arrest” – Court draws distinction between general reasons (standard proforma) and personal grounds necessitating arrest – Arrest memo without specific grounds is insufficient under constitutional and statutory mandates

Precedents – Binding Nature – Supreme Court affirms that decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576, and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 are binding under Article 141 – Followed and reiterated by Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana – Recent decisions in Kasireddy Upender Reddy and Sri Darshan also affirm compliance requirement

Decision: Appeal allowed – Arrest and remand proceedings set aside solely on ground of non-compliance with statutory requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest – Liberty granted to State to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if warranted

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Rape of Minor – POCSO – SC/ST Act s.3(2)(v) – Conviction Upheld – Victim’s testimony held trustworthy and consistent with statement under Section 164 CrPC – Her version that accused took her to forest and forcibly committed intercourse found reliable – Minor contradictions and omissions immaterial – Age proved through school register entry (Section 35 Evidence Act) showing DOB as 15.09.2004 – On date of incident (14.05.2018) victim was below 18 years – Medical evidence corroborated allegations – Doctor (PW-10) found hymenal tear, and FSL report confirmed presence of semen on victim’s vaginal slide and underwear of both victim and accused – Chain of custody proved – Hostile witnesses’ testimony partly relied on for corroboration – Court found no ground to interfere with concurrent conviction – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4, 7, 16-20, 21-25, 26].

Witnesses – Hostile Witnesses – Discretion under Section 154 Evidence Act / Section 157 BSA, 2023 – Judicial Restraint in Declaring Hostile – Court cautions that permission to treat a witness as hostile cannot be granted mechanically or as a matter of routine – It is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly when witness’s testimony is inconsistent, evasive, or indicates deliberate suppression of truth – Minor inconsistencies or non-recollection do not justify declaration of hostility – Reliance placed on Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa and Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana – Trial Court must record reasons for such declaration [Paras 9-12].

Proof of Age – Evidentiary Value of School Register – Section 35 Evidence Act – School admission register produced and proved by headmaster/teacher (PW-9) as official record of birth – Entries made contemporaneously, maintained in ordinary course of school’s functions – No suspicion regarding authenticity – Therefore admissible under Section 35 and sufficient to determine age of prosecutrix – Birth certificate or ossification test not mandatory where reliable school record exists – Followed State of Chhattisgarh v. Lekhram [Paras 16-18].

Victim’s Testimony – Credibility – Sole Testimony of Victim in Sexual Offences – Court reiterates that conviction can rest on sole testimony of victim if it inspires confidence and is found reliable – Prosecutrix consistently narrated sequence of abduction and sexual assault – Statement under Section 164 CrPC corroborates deposition before Court – Absence of external injuries not fatal, as delay in medical examination explained – Defence cross-examination failed to shake core version – Held: Victim’s testimony forms the substantive basis of conviction [Para 7].

Medical & Forensic Corroboration – Reliability of FSL Evidence – Doctor (PW-10) observed hymenal tear and prepared slides; FSL report confirmed human semen on slides and on victim’s and accused’s clothes – Seizure of exhibits proved by investigating officer (PW-12) – Chain of custody established beyond reasonable doubt – Forensic findings corroborate ocular testimony and exclude hypothesis of false implication [Para 20].

SC/ST Act – Section 3(2)(v) (Post-2016 Amendment) – Knowledge Standard – Presumption under Section 8(c) – Court notes legislative shift post-2016 amendment replacing “on the ground that such person is a member of SC/ST” with “knowing that such person belongs to SC/ST” – Requirement of specific motive based on caste no longer applicable – Once accused is shown to have known victim’s caste, presumption arises under Section 8(c) – In present case, accused was resident of same village and acquainted with family; thus, presumption stands unrebutted – Offence under Section 3(2)(v) made out – Followed Patan Jamal Vali v. State of A.P. [Paras 21-24].

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Appellate Interference under Article 136 – Supreme Court reiterates that where Trial Court and High Court have recorded concurrent findings based on credible evidence, interference is warranted only if perversity or gross misappreciation is shown – In absence of such infirmity, conviction under IPC, POCSO and SC/ST Act sustained – Appeal dismissed [Paras 25-26].

Result – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC, Section 4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act affirmed – Sentences including life imprisonment under SC/ST Act to run concurrently – Accused to continue serving sentence as awarded [Paras 2, 26].

Criminal Law – Bail after Conviction – Section 319 CrPC – Appellant not named in FIR nor chargesheeted after investigation – Later summoned under Section 319 CrPC based on testimony of PW1 and PW2 and convicted under IPC Sections 307, 149, 147, 148, and 506 – High Court rejected suspension of sentence – Supreme Court noted that appellant had initially been exonerated by police and was implicated only later through witness testimony – Held: Actual role of appellant is a matter to be adjudicated in pending appeal – Continued detention not warranted – Bail granted [Paras 3, 5, 6, 9]

Criminal Law – Threat to Witnesses – Objection by Complainant – Respondent-State and complainant opposed bail citing threats to complainant and family – Court allowed bail with stringent conditions including regular police attendance to ensure complainant’s safety – Held: Apprehension of threat addressed through conditions imposed on bail, not by continued incarceration [Paras 7, 10–11]

Section 319 CrPC – Scope – Appellant brought into trial only after initial exoneration – FIR and investigation did not implicate him – Conviction based on later statements of PW1 and PW2 – Court held that this late implication and lack of overt act directly attributable to appellant justified reconsideration of custody during appeal [Paras 5, 9]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Appellant enlarged on bail pending appeal – Sessions Court to impose appropriate and stringent conditions, including twice-a-week police attendance [Paras 11–12]

Labour and Service Law – Gratuity – Applicability of Government Notified Ceiling – Regulation 107 – Interpretation – Respondents retired between 2018–2019 from AFC – Gratuity paid with ceiling of ₹7 lakhs as per 2012 Office Order – Held: Regulation 107 of the 2007 Staff Regulations specifically provides gratuity to be paid as per internal formula or “as notified by the Government of Assam from time to time” – State Government had increased gratuity limit to ₹15 lakhs in 2017 – AFC’s failure to adopt higher ceiling does not defeat right of employees – Higher limit notified by State is applicable by operation of the regulation itself [Paras 12–18]

Service Law – Delay in Adoption of Enhanced Benefits by Public Sector Corporation – Equitable Treatment – Lethargy of Corporation – Consequences – Though AFC deferred proposal to enhance ceiling in 2022, Court held that employees who retired prior to formal decision are also entitled to enhanced limit – Observed: Inequitable to deny benefit due to AFC’s inaction – Regulation already incorporated dynamic link with State's notification – Gratuity must be paid as per State-notified ceiling of ₹15 lakhs [Paras 16–19]

Labour Law – Gratuity Act – Non-obstante Clause in Section 14 – No Finding on Statutory Applicability – Though High Court granted relief relying on Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Supreme Court refrained from expressing conclusive view on Act’s applicability to AFC – Held: Since benefit flowed directly from Regulation 107, no need to determine whether AFC is covered under the Act – Statutory question left open [Para 20]

Interpretation of Service Regulations – Liberal Construction in Favour of Employees – Court held that Regulation 107 must be interpreted benevolently – Restriction of benefit solely based on Board approval is untenable when regulation already mandates alignment with government notification – Notification by Government of Assam to prevail [Paras 16–18]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Gauhati High Court affirmed – Employees of Assam Financial Corporation held entitled to gratuity up to ₹15 lakhs as per Government of Assam notification – Gratuity to be recalculated and paid within six months – Pending applications also disposed of.