Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Section 302 IPC – Altered to Section 304 Part I IPC – Appellant convicted of murder for assaulting the deceased with a bamboo stick – Supreme Court found no evidence of premeditation or motive to commit murder – Assault occurred in a sudden quarrel during a heated moment – Conviction altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I of Section 304 IPC [Paras 12-19].

Sudden Provocation and Lack of Premeditation – Evidence revealed no prior intent or preparation by the appellant to commit the act – Weapon used was a bamboo stick, commonly available in villages, and not carried with intent – Altercation arose from a heated argument, indicating sudden provocation – Conviction under Section 302 IPC not sustainable [Paras 16-18].

Benefit of Doubt – Nature of injuries and circumstances of the assault indicated absence of cruelty or undue advantage – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt, leading to reduction in conviction [Paras 17-19].

Sentence Already Undergone – Appellant had served more than 9 years of actual imprisonment and over 12 years with remission – Sentence modified to period already undergone, considering justice served [Para 21(iii)].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 20-21].

Locus Standi in Criminal Appeals – Third-party intervention – The appellant, M.R. Ajayan, sought to challenge the quashing of proceedings in a criminal case involving allegations of tampering with evidence in judicial custody – Supreme Court held that locus of a socially spirited individual is permissible under Article 136 of the Constitution in cases concerning interference with judicial processes and public interest – Appeal maintainable [Paras 15-19].

Bar under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC – Prosecution for tampering with evidence – High Court quashed proceedings citing the bar under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC – Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that the initiation of proceedings stemmed from judicial orders of the Kerala High Court and public interest warranted prosecution – Bar under Section 195(1)(b) inapplicable when judicial integrity is at stake [Paras 21-30].

Retrial and De Novo Steps – High Court’s direction for de novo steps against the accused challenged by Antony Raju – Supreme Court upheld the direction, emphasizing that retrial is justified in cases of procedural irregularities affecting the administration of justice – Tampering with judicial records constitutes exceptional circumstances warranting retrial [Paras 31-34].

Public Interest and Judicial Integrity – Alleged tampering with evidence during judicial proceedings struck at the foundation of the justice system – Supreme Court underscored the need to maintain the integrity of judicial processes and dismissed claims that public interest was absent – Prosecution ordered to proceed expeditiously [Paras 28-30, 36].

Decision – Appeal by M.R. Ajayan allowed – Appeal by Antony Raju dismissed – Proceedings in Crime No. 215 of 1994 and C.C. No. 811 of 2014 restored – Trial Court directed to conclude proceedings within one year [Paras 35-37].

CENVAT Credit – Definition of Capital Goods – Whether Mobile Towers and Prefabricated Buildings (PFBs) Qualify – Bombay vs. Delhi High Court Divergence – Reconciliation by Supreme Court – The Bombay High Court held that mobile towers and PFBs are immovable property and therefore ineligible for CENVAT credit under Rule 2(a)(A) or Rule 2(k) – The Delhi High Court opined that towers and PFBs are movable, marketable, and integral to telecom operations, qualifying as "capital goods" under Rule 2(a)(A)(iii) or as "inputs" under Rule 2(k) – Supreme Court reconciled the conflict by emphasizing mobility, dismantling capability, and their functional role in service provision – Held: Towers and PFBs are movable properties, thus qualifying as "capital goods" or "inputs" under CENVAT Rules [Paras 11.1–11.6].

Attachment to Earth – Movability vs. Immovability – Supreme Court Reiterates Principles – The Court considered tests for movability, permanency, marketability, and intended use of towers/PFBs – Applying judgments such as Solid and Correct Engineering Works and Triveni Engineering, it was held that the temporary attachment of towers to the earth for stability did not render them immovable – Held: Towers and PFBs are movable and marketable properties as they can be dismantled without substantial damage and relocated [Paras 11.7–11.9.6].

Definition of Inputs and Accessories – Nexus Between Towers, PFBs, and Telecom Equipment – The Supreme Court held that towers and PFBs enhance the functionality of antennas and BTS equipment and therefore qualify as accessories under Rule 2(a)(A)(iii) – Furthermore, as goods used for providing mobile telecom services, these also satisfy the definition of "inputs" under Rule 2(k) – Held: MSPs are entitled to CENVAT credit for towers and PFBs [Paras 11.10–11.12.6].

Circulars Issued by Revenue – Not Binding on Courts – The Revenue circular categorically excluding towers and PFBs from excisable goods was declared unenforceable to the extent it conflicted with statutory provisions and judicial interpretation – Held: Revenue cannot rely on circulars contrary to the law declared by the Court [Paras 11.9.20–11.9.22].

Outcome – Delhi High Court Judgment Upheld – Bombay High Court Judgment Set Aside – The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 118, and overruled the Bombay High Court’s judgment in Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 10409 – Held: MSPs can claim CENVAT credit on excise duties paid for towers and PFBs under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 [Paras 11.13–11.14].

Decision: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of mobile service providers, granting them the right to claim CENVAT credit on excise duties paid for mobile towers and prefabricated buildings. By holding that these items qualify as "capital goods" under Rule 2(a)(A) and as "inputs" under Rule 2(k), the Court dismissed the appeals challenging the Delhi High Court’s pro-MSP decision and allowed appeals against the Bombay High Court’s ruling.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – FIR alleging rape under Section 376(2)(n) and criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC – High Court refused to quash FIR citing lack of consent by the complainant – Supreme Court holds FIR and statements do not substantiate essential ingredients of offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC – Relationship between the appellant and complainant was consensual, and prosecution would amount to abuse of the legal process – FIR and trial quashed [Paras 2, 17-19, 21].

Consent in Sexual Relationships – Promise to Marry – Complainant alleged physical relationship based on false promise of marriage – Supreme Court observes that no promise of marriage was established at the outset of the relationship – Relationship continued voluntarily despite the appellant's subsequent marriage – Held: Consensual relationships cannot be criminalized due to breakup or unfulfilled marital intentions [Paras 17-19, 22].

Abuse of Process – Continuation of Prosecution – Appellant and complainant are now married to different individuals – Continuation of trial would be futile and cause injustice – High Court erred in failing to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings – Held: Quashing warranted to prevent abuse of court process [Paras 20-21].

Relevant Case Law – Principles of Consent – Reiterated principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 – False promise of marriage must be shown to have been made in bad faith to constitute rape – Active consent of complainant evident from facts [Paras 11, 22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – FIR No. 272 of 2019 and related proceedings quashed – Held: Ingredients of Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC not made out – Prosecution would amount to abuse of process [Paras 23].

Invocation of Section 319 CrPC – Evidentiary Threshold – Test for Prima Facie Case – Power under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised only when evidence meets the standard of more than prima facie that would lead to conviction if unchallenged – Allegations in examination-in-chief, contradicted during cross-examination, do not satisfy this threshold – Held: High Court erred in summoning appellant based on incomplete evidence [Paras 7–10].

Contradictions and Omissions – Section 162 Explanation – Effect on Prima Facie Case – Witnesses alleged in examination-in-chief that appellant inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased – Cross-examination revealed significant omissions amounting to contradictions under Section 162 CrPC – Such evidence cannot substantiate a prima facie case under Section 319 CrPC – Invocation of power held unjustified [Paras 9–12].

Timing of Section 319 CrPC Applications – Cross-Examination Consideration – Application filed post cross-examination necessitates consideration of entire evidence, including inconsistencies – Ignoring cross-examination in such circumstances undermines judicial fairness – Held: Court must evaluate cross-examination before summoning additional accused [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's order summoning appellant under Section 319 CrPC set aside – Criminal Revision Petition No. 375 of 2015 dismissed – Clarified that the decision is confined to the issue of invocation of Section 319 CrPC and does not impact the merits of the trial [Para 15].

Matrimonial Law - Interim Maintenance – Quantum and Standard of Living – Maintenance Restored – The wife sought interim maintenance of ₹2,50,000 per month, initially awarded ₹1,75,000 by the Family Court but reduced to ₹80,000 by the High Court – Supreme Court restored the Family Court's award, emphasizing the husband's substantial income and the wife's entitlement to maintain her standard of living during litigation [Paras 14-19].

Assessment of Income – Omission of Key Factors – Reassessment Ordered – High Court limited its evaluation to two sources of the husband’s income, omitting evidence of additional properties and inherited wealth noted by the Family Court – Court directed a holistic consideration of income evidence for determining maintenance [Paras 15-16].

Sacrifice of Employment – Consideration for Maintenance – Entitlement Upheld – Court recognized the wife’s sacrifice of her professional career due to marital obligations as a relevant factor – Maintenance aligned with her matrimonial lifestyle upheld [Paras 17-18].

Judicial Review – Failure to Address Critical Findings – Family Court Restored – High Court overlooked findings on additional properties and income streams of the husband – Supreme Court held that such omissions led to an erroneous reduction of maintenance, justifying restoration of Family Court's judgment [Paras 16-19].

Decision – Maintenance Enhanced – Appeals Disposed of – Appeal of the wife allowed, restoring ₹1,75,000 per month as interim maintenance; appeal of the husband dismissed [Para 20].

Civil Law - Adverse Possession by State – Legal Prohibition – Claim Denied – The State of Haryana claimed adverse possession over the suit property since 1879-80 – Held: A welfare state cannot claim adverse possession against its citizens as it violates constitutional principles and erodes public trust – Appeal dismissed [Paras 34-37].

Admission of Ownership through Adverse Possession Plea – Legal Consequences – Ownership Affirmed – By claiming adverse possession, the appellants impliedly admitted the plaintiffs' title under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC – The court affirmed the plaintiffs' ownership based on revenue records and sale deeds, rejecting the appellants' challenge to title [Paras 26-31].

Revenue Records and Title Proof – Evidentiary Weight – Ownership Upheld – Plaintiffs relied on continuous jamabandi entries, sale deeds, and mutation records as proof of title – Court emphasized that while revenue records do not confer title, they corroborate ownership when supported by additional evidence [Paras 28-30].

Permissive Possession – Hostility and Adverse Possession – Conditions Not Met – The appellants' possession was permissive as evidenced by Misal Hakiyat of 1879-80 – Acts such as placing bitumen drums and constructing boundary walls were insufficient to establish hostile possession necessary for adverse possession [Paras 32-34].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Reappreciation of Evidence in High Court – Substantial Questions of Law – High Court framed substantial legal questions, including whether the State could claim adverse possession – Found the First Appellate Court’s judgment perverse for ignoring material evidence and legal principles – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC [Paras 35-38].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment restoring the Trial Court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs. The State's plea of adverse possession was declared untenable, affirming citizens’ rights to property and the State’s accountability.

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings Post-Superannuation – Jurisdictional Limitations – Proceedings Declared Void – Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent after the expiration of his extended service period on 01.10.2010 were held void-ab-initio – Court emphasized that initiation of proceedings post-superannuation lacks jurisdiction under Rule 19(3) of the Service Rules, which permits only the continuation of pre-existing proceedings [Paras 20-23, 26-29].

Superannuation – Three Contingencies for Retirement – Applicability Explained – Court clarified that under Rule 19(1) of the Service Rules, retirement occurs upon fulfilling any one of three contingencies: attaining age, completion of 30 years of service, or 30 years of pensionable service – Respondent’s extended service ended on 01.10.2010, severing the master-servant relationship [Paras 15-18, 21-22].

Legal Fiction of Continuance – Limited to Pending Proceedings – Application Restricted – Rule 19(3) creates a legal fiction to treat an officer as in service solely for concluding pre-existing disciplinary proceedings – Court held this rule inapplicable to proceedings initiated post-retirement, reiterating precedents in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman and UCO Bank vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor [Paras 22-26, 30].

Standard of Discipline in Banking – Procedural Flaws Impact Validity – Disciplinary Action Quashed – Court noted procedural deficiencies, including post-retirement initiation of charges, which rendered the penalty of dismissal invalid – Directed appellants to release service dues of the respondent [Paras 27-30, 34].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Directions for Settlement of Dues – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision quashing the dismissal order – Appellants directed to release all dues expeditiously within six weeks [Para 35].

Prolonged Detention – Section 479 of BNSS, 2023 – Identification of Eligible Undertrial Prisoners – Guidelines Issued - Section 479 of BNSS provides for the release of undertrial prisoners based on the duration of detention relative to the maximum imprisonment for the offense – Court emphasized accurate and continuous identification of eligible prisoners, requiring active coordination by Undertrial Review Committees (UTRCs) with Jail Superintendents and Legal Services Authorities – Specific directions were issued for streamlining the identification and release process [Paras 1-8, 12-16].

Special Consideration for First-Time Offenders and Women Prisoners – Beneficial Provisions of Section 479 - Provisions for release on bond for first-time offenders and attention to female prisoners were highlighted – Jail Superintendents instructed to prioritize eligible women prisoners – Directed strict adherence to legislative intent to ensure justice for underprivileged detainees [Paras 22-24].

Non-Compliance by States/UTs – Delay in Filing Reports – Admonition by Court - States and UTs failing to comply with prior court orders for submitting reports on eligible undertrials were admonished – Deadline set for filing comprehensive responses, warning against laxity in implementing beneficial provisions [Paras 26-28].

Data Reporting – Uniform Format Prescribed – Elimination of Ambiguity - To enhance clarity in reporting, the Court mandated a uniform format for submitting data on eligible undertrials – Urged for proactive updating and accurate record maintenance to avoid depriving deserving detainees of liberty [Para 18].

Decision: Matter adjourned to 10/12/2024. States and UTs directed to comply with orders and file comprehensive reports within two weeks [Paras 28-30].