Motor Accidents Claims – Mediclaim/Medical Insurance – Deductibility from MACT Compensation – Conflicting High Court Views – Settled by Supreme Court – Claimant received medical expense reimbursement under a Mediclaim policy and also claimed the same head of loss before the MACT – Three-Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court held that Mediclaim amounts are not deductible from MACT compensation – Insurer appealed – Supreme Court examined conflicting views across multiple High Courts and settled the law – Held: Amount received under a Mediclaim/medical insurance policy is not deductible from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 including under the head of medical expenses – The two operate on entirely different footings, one being a statutory entitlement and the other a contractual benefit flowing from premiums paid – Appeal dismissed — Matter remanded [Paras 2–3, 15–16].

Double Benefit – Principle Against – Scope and Limits – Just Compensation – The principle against double benefit mandates that a claimant cannot recover twice for the same loss, as that would amount to unjust enrichment – Compensation under the MVA must be "just compensation" and not a windfall – However, where the additional benefit is independent in nature — arising from a contract supported by consideration and not merely triggered by the accident — it cannot be treated as a substitute for the same loss and thus is not liable for deduction – Employment-related benefits such as provident fund, gratuity and pension, being accrued entitlements, are similarly not deductible [Paras 7–7.2.1].

Statutory Benefit vs. Contractual Benefit – Distinction – A statutory benefit flows from legislation enacted by the State and is available to all persons meeting its prerequisites — it requires no negotiation or consent and can only be altered by amending the law – A contractual benefit, on the other hand, flows from private agreement between parties and is enforceable under the law of contract — it is limited to parties to the contract and depends on consent – A Mediclaim policy is purchased voluntarily by a person against the uncertainties of life and is not confined to accidental coverage alone — the contractual reimbursement thereunder is independent of and not eclipsed by the MACT claim – Compensation under the MVA, being beneficial legislation guided solely by the principle of just and fair compensation without strict monetary limits, stands on a higher pedestal than the contractual benefit under a Mediclaim policy [Paras 7.3.1–7.3.3, 9–11].

Helen Rebello – Patricia Jean Mahajan – Shashi Sharma – Sebastiani Lakra – Swaminathan – Considered and Distinguished – In Helen Rebello, life insurance proceeds were held not deductible as they bore no correlation to the accidental death – In Patricia Jean Mahajan, social security and insurance proceeds were held not deductible in the absence of nexus with accidental death – In Shashi Sharma, where both compensation grounds had statutory force, deduction was directed to avoid double payment under the same head – In Sebastiani Lakra, benefits under the Employees Family Benefit Scheme were held not deductible as they were not statutory – In Swaminathan, deduction of medical expenses reimbursed by an employer was affirmed on its specific facts — Court held that Swaminathan does not aid the insurer as its observation arose in a specific context and a Mediclaim policy was not involved therein [Paras 8.1–8.5].

Judicial Inconsistency – Duty of Bar and Bench – The Court noted with concern that single judges and division benches of the same High Court had taken diametrically opposite views on the deductibility of Mediclaim amounts — illustrated with tabular reference to conflicting decisions across the Bombay, Delhi, Kerala, Punjab & Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Madras High Courts – Judicial inconsistency and uncertainty impede counsel, burden courts and undermine definitive outcomes – Counsel have a duty to bring to the Court's notice judgments both favourable and adverse to their case — the Court itself bears an independent tri-fold duty to apply correct law, ensure consistency with precedent, and avoid per incuriam decisions – Both Bar and Bench are jointly responsible for minimising problems arising from inconsistent judicial opinion [Paras 12–14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed as meritless — Mediclaim/medical insurance amounts not deductible from MACT compensation — Matter remanded to the High Court for fresh determination consistent with the judgment — Pending applications disposed of [Paras 15–16].

Civil Law - Hindu Succession — Daughters' Right in Intestate Father's Property — Second Order VII Rule 11 Application — Res Judicata — Section 6(5) as Saving Clause — Independent Right under Section 8 — Propositus died intestate in 1985 leaving three daughters and four sons — Daughters filed suit in 2007 for partition claiming 1/8th share each — First plaint rejection application dismissed by High Court in 2013 holding suit maintainable on ground that daughters had right in father's share under Section 8 — Second application filed in 2021 by legal representatives of one defendant relying on Vineeta Sharma to contend Section 6(5) operates as a complete bar — Trial Court dismissed second application on ground of res judicata — High Court allowed revision and rejected plaint — Held: High Court erred on all three counts; impugned order set aside and plaint restored [Paras 3, 70, 71].

Res Judicata — Interlocutory Res Judicata — Second Order VII Rule 11 Application — Same Issue — Common Interest of Defendants — Section 11 Explanation VI CPC — Issue whether plaint disclosed cause of action notwithstanding registered Partition Deed was directly and substantially decided by High Court in RFA No. 168 of 2009 in 2013 and attained finality — Second application raising identical issue barred by principle of interlocutory res judicata — High Court's reasoning that res judicata did not apply as first application was by Defendants 1 to 3 while second was by legal representatives of Defendant 4 rejected — All defendants share common interest, defend same Partition Deed, assert same plea and litigate under same title within meaning of Explanation VI to Section 11 CPC — Mere invocation of additional sub-clauses of Order VII Rule 11 in second application does not take matter outside scope of res judicata [Paras 35–42].

Change in Law — Vineeta Sharma — Res Judicata Exception — Whether Applicable — Exception that subsequent change in law can render earlier decision on pure question of law ineffective as res judicata applies only where legal basis of earlier decision is undermined — 2013 order proceeded on independent right of daughters as Class I heirs under Section 8, not on coparcenary rights under 2005 Amendment — Vineeta Sharma deals with scope of 2005 Amendment and coparcenary rights; does not alter settled position that upon intestate death of Hindu male property devolves under Section 8 on all Class I heirs including daughters — Basis of 2013 order wholly undisturbed by Vineeta Sharma — High Court's reasoning that Vineeta Sharma constituted change in law overriding res judicata rejected as erroneous [Paras 40–42].

Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act — Nature — Saving Clause, Not Jurisdictional Bar — Scope of Order VII Rule 11 — Section 6(5), read with its Explanation, saves from retroactive reach of 2005 Amendment only those partitions effected before 20.12.2004 by registered deed or court decree — Does not create jurisdictional bar to institution of suit for partition — Distinction between a bar and a saving clause legally significant: bar prevents court from entertaining suit at all; saving clause provides defence on merits to be proved by party asserting it — Whether a valid partition within meaning of Section 6(5) has been effected and is binding on daughters who were not parties to it are contested questions of fact and law requiring trial — Conflating existence of registered deed with conclusion that partition is valid and binding on all persons impermissible at Order VII Rule 11 stage [Paras 43, 53–58].

Section 8 Hindu Succession Act — Independent Right of Daughters as Class I Heirs — Unaffected by Section 6(5) — Proviso to Erstwhile Section 6 — Upon intestate death of propositus in 1985 leaving behind daughters as Class I heirs, proviso to erstwhile Section 6 attracted — Notional partition deemed to have taken place immediately before death — Deceased's undivided share devolved by intestate succession under Section 8 on all Class I heirs including daughters — This right accrued in 1985 under unamended Act, wholly independent of and predating 2005 Amendment — Section 6(5) saves pre-2004 partitions from retroactive reach of new coparcenary rights under Section 6(1) only; does not and cannot extinguish pre-existing rights of Class I heirs accrued under Section 8 — Plaint need not recite specific section number; suffices that bundle of facts pleaded brings case within Section 8 [Paras 59–67].

Revisional Jurisdiction — Section 115 CPC — Scope — High Court exceeded permissible scope of revisional jurisdiction by conducting independent and de novo appraisal of merits of dispute, scope of Partition Deed and rights of parties under Section 6(5) at threshold stage — Trial Court's order dismissing second application was reasoned, correctly applied res judicata and rightly held Section 6(5) does not bar suit — High Court's interference therewith unwarranted [Para 68].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Impugned judgment and order dated 29.08.2024 of the High Court of Karnataka in CRP No. 144 of 2023 set aside — Order dated 15.11.2022 of the Trial Court dismissing I.A. No. IV restored — Plaint in O.S. No. 5352/2007 restored to file — Status quo with respect to subject properties to continue until further orders of Trial Court — Trial Court to proceed expeditiously — No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - MPID Act – Scope of "Deposit" – "Financial Establishment" – Loan Nomenclature Irrelevant – Appellants advanced Rs.2.51 crore to respondents for a resort project with a promise of 24% per annum interest payable quarterly – Respondents failed to repay principal or interest – High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Application holding the transaction to be a "loan" outside the ambit of the MPID Act and that respondents were not a "Financial Establishment" – Held: Definition of "deposit" under Section 2(c) of the MPID Act is wide and inclusive, encompassing any receipt of money to be returned after a specified period with or without interest – Nomenclature of the transaction as "loan" is irrelevant; what matters is whether the essential ingredients of "deposit" are satisfied – All three ingredients of "deposit" satisfied in the present case – Respondents, as recipients of such amounts, qualify as "Financial Establishment" under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act – Appellants entitled to invoke Section 3 and proceed under the MPID Act [Paras 5.2–6.8].

Definition of "Financial Establishment" – Wide Amplitude – Any Person Accepting Deposit – Section 2(d) of the MPID Act defines "Financial Establishment" to mean "any person accepting deposit under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner" – Private individuals accepting money to be returned with interest fall squarely within this definition – Repeated use of the word "any" in both Sections 2(c) and 2(d) reflects legislative intent to cast the regulatory net broadly and comprehensively – Individual respondents accepting deposits and fraudulently defaulting thereon are "Financial Establishments" within the Act [Paras 5.2.3–5.2.4, 6.2].

IPC Proceedings – Non-Applicability – Independent Remedy under MPID Act – Appellants had earlier failed to secure registration of FIR for offences under Sections 420, 409 and 405 IPC, courts holding no cognizable offence was disclosed – High Court erroneously held that failure under IPC proceedings operated as an embargo against invoking the MPID Act – Held: IPC proceedings and MPID Act operate in distinct statutory fields – Non-establishment of IPC offences cannot be equated with non-applicability of MPID Act – A complaint under Section 3 of the MPID Act is an independent recourse under a special law and is not barred by outcome of IPC proceedings – Plea of civil nature of dispute equally irrelevant once the ingredients of Section 2(c) read with Section 2(d) are satisfied [Paras 6.4–6.7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 14.08.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 64 of 2024 set aside – Appellants held entitled to invoke Section 3 of the MPID Act and avail remedies thereunder.

Contempt of Courts – Intra-Court Appeal – Maintainability – Section 5 of Kerala High Court Act, 1958 – Contempt proceedings are original proceedings in nature – An interlocutory order recording a prima facie finding of civil contempt and directing appearance under Rule 14 of the 1971 Rules is passed in the exercise of original jurisdiction – Such an order is amenable to an intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the 1958 Act before a Bench of two Judges – Held: Appellant has a statutory remedy of appeal before the High Court [Paras 7-8, 14].

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 19(1) – Scope of Appellate Remedy – An appeal under Section 19 lies only against an order of the High Court imposing punishment for contempt, i.e., passed in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt – An order initiating, dropping, or declining to initiate contempt proceedings, or an order framing charge under Rule 14, does not constitute an order punishable under Section 19 and is not appealable thereunder – Such orders may, in special circumstances, be challenged under Article 136 of the Constitution – Full Bench decision in Suni B.T. v. Vinayaka Granities, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 7614 does not express a contrary view [Paras 9, 13].

Contempt Proceedings – Nature of Proceedings – Original Jurisdiction – Contempt proceedings, though instituted through a petition or application, are essentially original proceedings – Stage for appeal under Section 19 of the 1971 Act arises only upon imposition of punishment, which had not yet occurred in the present case [Paras 7, 14].

Special Leave Petition – Article 136 – Discretionary Jurisdiction – Where a statutory remedy by way of intra-court appeal is available to the appellant, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the SLP – Appellant left open to pursue appropriate remedy before the High Court – Breathing time to be accorded by the High Court to enable the appellant to pursue such remedy [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Leave granted — Appeal disposed of — SLP declined on merits — Appellant directed to avail remedy of intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 before the High Court — High Court requested to grant breathing time to the appellant to pursue such remedy.

Medical Education – Student Relocation – Fee Liability – Equitable Apportionment – Students admitted to SRMCH for MBBS batches 2013-14 and 2014-15 were compelled to relocate to three private transferee colleges (KIMS, IMS & SUM Hospital, and Hi-Tech Medical College, Bhubaneswar) following non-renewal of recognition by MCI on account of serious infrastructural and faculty deficiencies – This Court regulated relocation through interim orders and permitted students to pay fees at Government rates – 122 students were ultimately relocated, 41 each to KIMS and IMS and 40 to Hi-Tech – Transferee colleges filed interlocutory applications seeking payment of fees for education imparted – Held: Primary financial liability must be fastened upon SRMCH/Selvam Trust, and the funds secured by the Trust — Rs.10 crores by way of bank guarantee with MCI/NMC and Rs.2 crores deposited with the Registry — shall be distributed equally among the three transferee colleges [Paras 4-6, 11-12, 42-46].

Defaulting Institution – Principle Against Unjust Enrichment – Latin Maxim – SRMCH/Selvam Trust failed to maintain prescribed standards for imparting MBBS education despite collecting substantially higher fees than Government colleges – Writ Petition No. 681 of 2014 filed by the college was dismissed in limine, affirming MCI's findings of deficiency – Applying the maxim commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet (no one should derive benefit from their own wrong), neither the students can claim a windfall from interim arrangements nor can the defaulting institution escape liability for its own defaults – Trust directed to pay outstanding amounts to transferee colleges from the funds secured before MCI/NMC and this Court [Paras 36-38, 42-46].

Fee Structure – Government Rate vs. Private Rate – Quota Classification – Students transferred to the three private transferee colleges were accommodated against management/private quota seats, as no material on record demonstrated the existence of vacant Government quota seats in any transferee college – Accordingly, the fee structure applicable to private/management quota was held to be the relevant benchmark – Transferee colleges, however, fairly conceded that they would be satisfied with reimbursement at SRMCH rates rather than their own higher rates; total aggregate liability computed at approximately Rs.16.2 crores – Even applying SRMCH rates, the funds available (approximately Rs.14 crores) would not fully meet the dues of the transferee colleges [Paras 26, 33, 49].

Liability of Students – Undertakings Furnished – Recovery Mechanism – Students who had completed the MBBS course had furnished undertakings acknowledging that fee liability remained pending adjudication and undertaking to abide by the final directions of this Court – Students who paid fees at Government rates (approximately one-eighth of SRMCH fee per semester) cannot claim the benefit of that interim subsidised arrangement as a windfall at the final stage – Transferee colleges permitted to approach MCI/NMC with details of shortfall of fees due from each student (at SRMCH rates), and NMC directed to provide redressal for recovery of deficit – Amounts initially paid by students at the time of admission to SRMCH shall be duly adjusted – Students complying with fee liability entitled to receive academic and course-completion documents forthwith [Paras 48, 52-54].

Decision: I.A. Nos. 73763 of 2019, 69514 of 2019 and 151684 of 2022 disposed of – MCI/NMC directed to release approximately Rs.10 crores (bank guarantee) to the three transferee colleges in equal proportions within three months – Rs.2 crores deposited with the Registry along with accrued interest to be similarly disbursed – Bank details to be furnished within two weeks – Appeals closed.

Environmental Law – Illegal Sand Mining – National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary – Compliance with Court Directions – States of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh filed compliance affidavits indicating initial steps towards installation of CCTV surveillance, GPS tracking, inter-departmental coordination and augmentation of enforcement capabilities — Held: Compliances remain nascent and substantial measures are yet to be operationalized at ground level; further directions to follow at next hearing — State of Rajasthan failed to file any compliance affidavit despite directions dated 2nd April and 17th April 2026; CEC report reveals only one CCTV camera installed out of 40 vulnerable locations, no control room, no GPS integration, no joint patrol teams, no inter-State SOP, and only four out of twenty-four check-posts equipped with surveillance — Held: Conduct of Rajasthan reflects shocking administrative apathy and institutional paralysis; serious displeasure expressed [Paras 3–7].

Illegal Mining – Organized Crime – Investigation Confined to Drivers – Masterminds Not Prosecuted – Pattern of investigation confined to drivers of mining vehicles while financiers and masterminds go unprosecuted — Held: Such pattern of investigation raises serious concern of deliberate inaction and possible connivance at various levels of administrative and enforcement machinery; cannot prima facie be treated as coincidence [Para 8].

Motor Vehicles Act – Unregistered Vehicles in Mining Operations – Sections 39, 41 and 192 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 50 Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 — Large number of tractors and trolleys found plying without number plates or registration particulars in districts of Dholpur (Rajasthan) and Morena (Madhya Pradesh) — Held: Operation of unidentified vehicles constitutes flagrant continuing violation of mandatory registration requirements; severely impedes interception, seizure, investigation and prosecution; enables organized mining networks to function with complete impunity — States directed to file detailed replies on enforcement measures [Paras 9–10].

Bridge on NH-44 – Structural Integrity Threatened – Extensive illegal excavation found beneath and in dangerous proximity to pillars of bridge on National Highway-44 near Morena-Dholpur border verified by CEC — NHAI directed to be impleaded as party respondent and to file affidavit on measures for safeguarding structural integrity and reasons why CCTV monitoring should not be directed on and around the bridge [Para 11].

Directions Issued – Personal Presence of Senior Officials – Five senior officials of Rajasthan (Additional Chief Secretary Home; Principal Secretaries of Mining & Geology, Finance, Forest & Environment, and Transport & Road Safety) directed to remain personally present before the Court on the next date and file individual compliance affidavits — Principal Secretary Transport, Madhya Pradesh also directed to be personally present with affidavit on unregistered vehicles — NHAI impleaded and directed to file affidavit — Matter listed for 20/05/2026 [Para 12].

Decision: Compliance by Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh noted as nascent — Serious displeasure expressed against State of Rajasthan for complete non-compliance — Directions issued for personal presence of senior State officials of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh — NHAI impleaded as party respondent — All three States directed to file replies on unregistered vehicles — Matter listed on 20/05/2026.

Criminal Law - Preventive Detention - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bootleggers Drug-offenders Dangerous Persons Video Pirates Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act 1981 - Section 3 - Appellant placed under detention by Commissioner of Police Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar based on five cases under Maharashtra Prohibition Act 1949 - Three cases were pending trial and two were under investigation at the time of order - High Court dismissed the challenge finding no fault in subjective satisfaction - Supreme Court observed that the offences alleged were cognizable but no effort was made by the Investigating Agency to arrest the appellant under ordinary law - Held - Invocation of preventive detention is not warranted where a person can be dealt with under ordinary laws of the land and there is an absence of cogent material to show breach of public order - Appeal allowed and detention order quashed - [Paras 1-15].

Criminal Law - Public Order vs Law and Order - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1981 - Section 2(p) - Definition of Bootlegger - Detaining authority alleged activities were prejudicial to public order due to sale of spurious Toddy - Supreme Court held that a bald averment of prejudice to public order is insufficient - Material must indicate disruption of public order such as consumers falling sick or public peace being disturbed - Mere repetitive use of stereotypical words from the statute without factual substantiation does not satisfy the requirement of subjective satisfaction - Held - Activities attributed to appellant did not cross the threshold from law and order to public order - [Paras 7-12].

Criminal Law - Non-application of Mind - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1981 - Section 3 - Failure to exercise ordinary penal powers - Relying on Arjun vs State of Maharashtra the Court noted that if the Investigating Agency found no reason to arrest the appellant despite the registration of multiple cases there was no justification for preventive detention - The detaining authority failed to consider why the appellant was not arrested during investigation of cognizable offences - Held - Satisfaction of the detaining authority had no real basis in the absence of efforts to invoke ordinary criminal law - [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order dated 25.02.2026 set aside – Preventive detention order dated 13.10.2025 quashed – Appellant directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Service Law – Appointment – Regular vs. Contractual – Discrimination – Advertisement issued for regular posts of Assistant Professor in Pay Band-III with no mention of contractual appointments – Appellant, fully qualified with Ph.D. and First Class preceding degree, shortlisted and interviewed through the same process as all other candidates – Selection Committee recommended thirteen other candidates for regular appointment while arbitrarily recommending the appellant and one other for contractual appointment at fixed pay of Rs. 40,000/- per month for one year – No reason recorded for differential treatment – Held: Denial of regular appointment patently illegal and unconstitutional – Appellant entitled to regular appointment [Paras 12, 13, 14].

Selection Committee – Scope of Judicial Review – Arbitrary Recommendation – Court acknowledged that in judicial review it does not sit as a court of appeal over views of the Selection Committee – However, the point in issue was not whether reasons recorded were right or untenable, but whether denial of regular appointment against a regular vacancy, after subjecting the appellant to the identical selection process, could be justified at all – Absence of any recorded reason for singular treatment rendered the recommendation unsustainable [Para 13].

Estoppel – Acceptance Under Economic Compulsion – Oral Protest – High Court and Division Bench held that acceptance of contractual appointment without written protest and continued service thereunder barred the appellant from challenging the appointment – Supreme Court disagreed, noting that options for the unemployed are few and acceptance on the assurance of the then Director could not operate as estoppel against an underlying illegality in the selection procedure [Paras 6, 9, 10].

Relief – Moulding of Relief – Continuity Without Financial Benefit – Court directed Respondent No. 2 to issue order of regular appointment within four weeks – Appellant to be placed last in seniority among candidates recommended by the Selection Committee resolution dated 06.04.2013 – Relief moulded to deny financial benefits for the intervening period while granting continuity of service [Para 14].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Orders and judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench set aside – Respondent No. 2 directed to issue order of regular appointment as Assistant Professor within four weeks – Appellant to be placed last in seniority among the batch recommended on 06.04.2013 – Continuity of service granted without financial benefits for the intervening period – No order as to costs [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Murder – SC/ST Act – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act by the Special Sessions Judge and sentence confirmed by the High Court of Telangana – On appeal, Supreme Court finds that the prosecution case rested on weak, contradictory and crumbling evidence – Occurrence of the incident itself not proved – Motive and genesis of crime not established – Both courts committed concurrent error in convicting the appellant – Held: Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 2, 10.2, 10.3].

Prosecution Case – Motive and Background – Deceased Shiva Shankar had earlier eloped with the appellant's younger sister, following which a Panchayat was allegedly held directing the deceased to leave the village – Deceased returned to the village to attend a friend's wedding and was allegedly beaten to death by the appellant with a shabad stone on 12.05.2013 – Appellant belonged to Mudiraj backward class community; deceased to the Mala Scheduled Caste community – FIR initially registered under Section 324 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act; Sections 302 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act added upon death of the deceased [Paras 3, 3.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.4].

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Collapse of Prosecution Case – PW3 (Narendar), projected as an eyewitness and the person who allegedly informed PW1 about the incident, turned hostile and categorically denied going to PW1's house or witnessing the incident – His Section 161 CrPC statement was disowned as false – PW4 and PW5 also turned hostile and denied the holding of any Panchayat – The combined effect of hostile evidence directly contradicted and demolished the testimony of PW1 (mother of the deceased), the sole remaining eyewitness – Evidence of PW1, being that of an interested and related witness riddled with contradictions, was found unreliable [Paras 5.1.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 10].

Interested Witness – Evidentiary Standard – Court reiterated that evidence of partisan or interested witnesses must be appreciated with great care, scrutinising discrepancies, probability and genuineness of the story – When such evidence is further demolished by other reliable evidence on record, it loses all reliability to support the prosecution – Applied to hold PW1's uncorroborated testimony insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 7.5, 7.6, 8, 8.1, 8.2].

Hostile Witness – Law Restated – Evidence of a hostile witness is admissible and can be relied upon to the extent found dependable and corroborated – Court affirmed the converse principle: evidence of a hostile witness, when credible and consistent with other evidence on record, can equally be utilised to discredit the prosecution case and support acquittal – Applied to hold that the hostile testimony of PW3, read with PW4 and PW5, demolished the fulcrum of the prosecution [Paras 8.3, 8.4, 8.4.1, 8.4.2, 9].

Medical Evidence – Postmortem Report – Evidentiary Value – Postmortem Report (Ex. P8) contained irreconcilable discrepancies as to the date and time of conclusion of postmortem – Explanation offered by PW7 (doctor) that the date was entered in error due to a 24-hour night duty was not credible – Wound Certificate (Ex. P15) did not bear any date – Court reiterated that a postmortem report is not substantive evidence by itself and requires corroboration through oral testimony of the medical expert – Absence of satisfactory explanation by PW7 reduced the evidentiary value of the medical evidence to nil [Paras 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 6, 6.1, 10.1].

Public Place – Independent Witnesses – Non-Examination – Scene of offence was on the main road frequented by quarry trucks and lorries round the clock – No independent witness from the vicinity was examined despite the incident allegedly occurring in a public place – Absence of such witnesses further reinforced the doubt cast on the very occurrence of the incident [Paras 7.1, 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – Appellant to be released forthwith unless required to be detained in connection with any other offence [Paras 10.2–10.4, 11].