Criminal Law – Murder – Reversal of Acquittal – High Court reversed acquittal of five accused (A-1 to A-4 and A-10) and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Conviction based on consistent eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, and supported by circumstantial links such as weapon recovery and sniffer dog trail – FIR registered promptly and attributed overt acts to main accused – Delay in FIR reaching Magistrate held to be satisfactorily explained – Trial court’s findings found to be speculative and based on illusory contradictions [Paras 2, 4-5, 40-45, 48-51].

Eyewitness Testimony – Related Witnesses – Credibility – PWs 1 and 2 (brother-in-law and brother of the deceased) found to be natural and reliable witnesses – Their failure to intervene during the fatal attack justified due to real threat of harm – Minor inconsistencies treated as non-fatal – Court reaffirms duty to sift grain from chaff in witness testimony, especially in Indian context [Paras 34-38, 40, 46].

Medical Jurisprudence – Post-Mortem Report – Eleven incised and lacerated wounds recorded, including severed wrist and deep neck wounds – Medical evidence corroborated oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and FIR – Timing of post-mortem ruled out possibility of FIR manipulation – Defence’s argument regarding absence of rolling injuries found to be irrelevant embroidery [Paras 5, 43-44, 48, 50].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Ninja chain and 9 sickles recovered pursuant to disclosure – Sniffer dog tracing to A-4’s house – Physical evidence supports premeditated attack and shared common intention – Motive proved through prior feuds and earlier FIRs [Paras 5, 27, 41, 47].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Acquittal – High Court’s approach upheld – Trial court's acquittal held to be based on erroneous appreciation of evidence – No perversity in findings of High Court – Conviction upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 6-7, 32, 51-52].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and life sentences of A-1 to A-4 and A-10 upheld – No ground for interference found by Supreme Court.

Criminal Law – IPC and ITPA - Child Trafficking – Minor Victim – Commercial Sexual Exploitation – Appellant convicted for keeping minor girl in rented premises for prostitution – Decoy operation by NGO workers led to rescue of minor – Testimony of minor victim (PW-13) found credible, consistent, and corroborated by witnesses PW-8, PW-11, PW-12 and seizure of condom and marked currency – Defence’s denial of relationship with victim rejected – Held: Offences under IPC and ITPA proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 3–6, 8–13].

Victim Testimony – Appreciation of Evidence – Supreme Court lays out principles for evaluating testimony of trafficked minors – Emphasized need for latitude and sensitivity due to victim’s socio-economic vulnerability, fear, trauma, and organised nature of crime – Held: Victim is not an accomplice – Sole credible testimony of minor victim sufficient for conviction – Reliance placed on State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [Para 11].

Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – Victim’s age proved as 16 years 6 months based on school certificate (Ex. P-3) issued by PW-7 (Headmaster) – Court reaffirmed that school records prevail over medical opinion – Ossification test not mandatory when documentary proof exists – Relied on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana [Para 14].

Procedural Law – ITPA – Validity of Search – Compliance with Section 15(2) – Objection raised regarding absence of respectable woman from locality during raid – Court held that decoy witnesses (PW-8 and PW-12) were credible, and PW-14 (owner’s wife) was approached – Her hostility does not vitiate compliance – Reiterated that non-compliance with S. 15(2) is irregularity, not illegality, unless it causes prejudice – Conviction sustained [Paras 15–18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under IPC and ITPA upheld – Statutory provisions substantially complied with – Testimony of victim reliable and corroborated – No interference warranted with concurrent findings of courts below [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Criminal Revision – Abatement – Substitution – On death of informant who had filed a criminal revision against partial discharge of accused, High Court held revision abated and denied substitution of the informant’s son – Held: No provision in Cr.P.C. for abatement of criminal revisions unlike appeals – Once revision is entertained, court may proceed to decide legality or propriety of the order regardless of death of revisionist – High Court erred in mechanically treating revision as abated [Paras 12–19]

Victim Rights – Right to Assist Court in Revision – Appellant, being son of deceased informant, had direct interest in subject matter (property) and thus qualifies as a victim under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. – Court held that victims can assist court in revision proceedings even in absence of express substitution provision – Discretion lies with court to permit such assistance to further the ends of justice [Paras 15–20]

Revisional Jurisdiction – Nature and Scope – Revisional power is discretionary and can be exercised suo motu – Revisionist’s identity not critical once court decides to examine legality of an order – Revision does not abate merely because of death of the petitioner, especially where trial is still pending – Revisional court performs supervisory function over administration of justice [Paras 13–17]

Appeal vs Revision – Abatement Distinction – Section 394 Cr.P.C. explicitly provides for abatement of appeals on death of appellant or accused – No such provision applies to revision – Courts must therefore apply different principles and may continue proceedings if interest of justice so requires [Paras 11–14]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of the High Court declaring revision as abated and rejecting substitution set aside – Criminal Revision No. 1986 of 2020 restored – Appellant permitted to assist the High Court as victim – High Court directed to dispose of the revision on merits expeditiously.

Passport Law – Renewal of Passport – Pending Criminal Proceedings – Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act – Statutory Exemption under Section 22 – GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 – Appellant’s passport expired during pendency of criminal proceedings before NIA Court and appeal against conviction before Delhi High Court – Criminal courts granted no objection for renewal subject to condition of prior permission for foreign travel and re-deposit of passport – Passport Authority refused renewal treating Section 6(2)(f) as absolute bar – Held: Section 6(2)(f) is subject to statutory exemption under Section 22 and GSR 570(E) – Once criminal courts consciously permit renewal while retaining control over travel, embargo under Section 6(2)(f) stands relaxed – Refusal of renewal unsustainable [Paras 12–16, 25].

Passports Act, 1967 – Interpretation of GSR 570(E) – Requirement of “permission to depart from India” – Whether specific foreign travel itinerary mandatory – Held: GSR 570(E) does not mandate that criminal court must authorise a particular journey as a precondition for renewal – Court may legitimately permit renewal of passport while requiring prior permission for each instance of travel – Such arrangement satisfies statutory object of securing presence of accused – Narrow interpretation adopted by High Court disapproved [Paras 10–15, 16].

Criminal Proceedings – Pending Trial and Conviction under Appeal – Distinction between Section 6(2)(f) and Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act – Appellant convicted in CBI case with sentence suspended – Held: Section 6(2)(f) applies at pre-conviction stage – After conviction, case falls under Section 6(2)(e) subject to its own conditions – Subsisting conviction under appeal cannot be used to reinforce bar under Section 6(2)(f) – Reliance placed on Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI [Paras 18–19].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Travel Abroad – Passport as Civil Document – Proportionality of Restrictions – Denial of renewal of passport despite judicial permissions held to be disproportionate and unreasonable – Legitimate purpose of ensuring presence before court adequately safeguarded by bail conditions and court supervision – Indefinite denial of passport impermissible [Paras 20–23].

Judicial Review – Writ Jurisdiction – Enforcement of Statutory Obligation – High Court erred in holding that writ petition amounted to execution of criminal court orders – Writ sought enforcement of rights flowing from Passports Act and exemption notification – Passport Authority bound to act in accordance with statute and GSR 570(E) [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of Single Judge and Division Bench of Calcutta High Court set aside – Respondents directed to re-issue ordinary passport to appellant for normal period of ten years – Passport to remain subject to existing and future orders of NIA Court, Ranchi and Delhi High Court, including condition of prior permission before leaving India – Compliance directed within four weeks [Paras 28–30].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – High Court quashed complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act holding that the cheque was not issued for any debt or liability – Held: The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by examining disputed facts at pre-trial stage and conducting a roving enquiry into the existence of debt/liability – Complaint disclosed all essential ingredients of Section 138 – Prima facie case made out – Quashing was impermissible [Paras 5, 8, 11-13, 18].

Negotiable Instruments – Presumption under Section 139 – High Court not justified in rebutting statutory presumption of debt at threshold stage – Presumption under Section 139 includes legally enforceable debt – Can only be rebutted during trial – Trial is the proper stage to raise such defence – Complaint could not be quashed merely on the plea that no debt existed [Paras 13-15, 18].

Precedents – Application of Legal Principles – Court reaffirmed principles laid down in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Narender, Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Interference at threshold discouraged when presumption exists and trial stage is yet to commence [Paras 14-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of High Court quashing the complaint set aside – Criminal complaint restored on file of Magistrate to be decided as per law – No opinion expressed on merits of cheque issuance [Paras 19-20].

Bail – Grant of Bail by High Court – Annulment of Bail Order – Respondents accused of offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act – Earlier bail cancelled due to misuse of liberty and murder of prime injured witness while on bail – High Court granted bail again without considering prior cancellation and supervening circumstances – Held: Bail order vitiated by perversity, arbitrariness and non-application of mind – Ignoring prior bail cancellation and demonstrated abuse of liberty renders the order unsustainable – Bail annulled [Paras 12–12.5, 14].

SC/ST (POA) Act – Victim’s Right to be Heard – Section 15A(5) – Mandatory Nature – Appellant contended that objections of victim were not considered while granting bail – Held: Section 15A(5) mandates opportunity of hearing, not acceptance of submissions – Once victim is notified and heard, statutory requirement stands satisfied – Bail cannot be cancelled merely for absence of detailed discussion of objections – No violation of Section 15A(5) made out [Paras 11–11.10].

Criminal Law – Misuse of Bail – Witness Intimidation and Elimination – Accused, while on bail in attempt to murder case, allegedly committed murder of prime injured witness – Subsequent FIR under Section 302 IPC registered – Bail earlier cancelled on this ground – Held: Death of material witness and intimidation strike at the root of fair trial – High Court failed to evaluate this determinative factor – Serious threat to administration of justice established [Paras 10, 12.1].

Bail Jurisprudence – Cancellation vs Annulment of Bail – Distinction Explained – Cancellation based on post-bail misconduct – Annulment justified where initial bail order is illegal or perverse – Held: Present case falls within annulment category as High Court ignored gravity of offence, antecedents, prior bail cancellation and societal impact – Superior court justified in setting aside bail [Paras 12, 12.5].

Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act – Gravity and Societal Impact – Allegations of caste-based abuse and armed assault – Requirement of strict scrutiny at bail stage – High Court failed to consider seriousness of offences and impact on marginalised community – Held: Mechanical grant of bail in such cases impermissible [Paras 12.2, 12.5].

Joint Trial – Separate FIRs – Distinct Occurrences – Direction for Joint Trial at Bail Stage – Crime No. 39 of 2020 (attempt to murder) and Crime No. 202 of 2022 (murder of witness) arise from different transactions, different years and distinct factual foundations – Held: Separate trial is the rule under Section 218 Cr.P.C. and Section 242 BNSS – Joint trial permissible only if statutory conditions satisfied – High Court exceeded jurisdiction by directing joint trial at bail stage – Direction unsustainable [Paras 13–13.7].

Decision: Criminal appeals allowed – Impugned judgment of the High Court dated 09.04.2025 set aside – Bail granted to respondents/accused cancelled – Accused directed to surrender before trial Court within two weeks – Trial Court to proceed independently on merits – Direction for joint trial quashed [Paras 14–15].

Service Law – Regularization – Ad-hoc Appointments – Discrimination – Appellants appointed to Class III posts in High Court as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants under powers of Chief Justice – Though similarly situated persons were regularized, appellants denied such benefit citing their appointments were ad-hoc – Held: All categories of appointees were appointed through same channel under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of 1976 Rules – Mere difference in wording of appointment orders not sufficient ground to treat them differently – Distinction drawn by administrative committee was arbitrary and violated Article 14 – Directions issued under Article 142 for reinstatement and regularization [Paras 23–28, 30–34].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equal Treatment – Arbitrary Discrimination – Supreme Court held that all appointees appointed through same legal authority and performing same duties must be treated equally – Classification based on labels such as "ad-hoc" or absence of examination clause in appointment letters is irrational when nature of work and source of power are identical – Denial of regularization violated principles of non-arbitrariness [Paras 24–29].

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Appellants rendered over a decade of service before discontinuation – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to restore their services and direct regularization with consequential benefits (excluding back wages), overriding technical objections of procedural limitations or rule amendments – Relief restricted to facts of this case [Paras 33–36].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court orders set aside – Appellants to be reinstated and regularized with all consequential benefits (excluding salary for non-working period) – Compliance directed within 8 weeks – Relief not to be treated as precedent [Paras 34–36].

Criminal Law – Matrimonial Disputes – FIR Quashed – Allegations under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act made by wife against husband and in-laws – FIR lodged in response to restitution notice by husband – Allegations found to be vague, omnibus and lacking specific instances – Supreme Court held that routine matrimonial discord and financial disagreements do not amount to “cruelty” under Section 498A IPC – FIR and consequent complaint quashed as an abuse of process of law [Paras 1-2, 6-7, 22-28].

Dowry Prohibition Act – Sections 3 and 4 – No Specific Allegations – Alleged demand of ₹1 crore not substantiated with evidence – No identifiable acts or proximate link to mental or physical cruelty established – Complaint found to lack sufficient basis for prosecution under Dowry Prohibition Act [Paras 9, 14-16].

Judicial Review – Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Supreme Court invoked guidelines laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – Allegations held to fall under categories (1) and (7) of para 102 of Bhajan Lal – Complaint held to be manifestly attended with mala fide and intended to harass husband – Criminal prosecution quashed [Paras 25-26].

Abuse of Legal Process – Misuse of Section 498A IPC – Court reiterated warning in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 – Cautioned against using criminal law as a tool for vengeance in matrimonial disputes – Allegations without material particulars cannot be sustained – FIR must reflect prima facie case and specific acts of cruelty to justify criminal proceedings [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of High Court dated 27.04.2023 set aside – FIR No.29 of 2022 and Complaint Case No.1067 of 2022 quashed – Observations not to affect pending matrimonial or other civil proceedings.

Civil Law - Mutation Proceedings – Will-Based Mutation – Permissibility – The appellant, claiming under a registered will executed by the deceased tenure holder, was granted mutation by the Tehsildar – Mutation confirmed by SDO and Commissioner – High Court interfered under Article 227, holding mutation cannot be allowed on basis of will – Held: No prohibition under Section 110 of 1959 Code against mutation based on a will – Mutation entry is fiscal in nature and does not confer title – High Court erred in interfering with well-reasoned orders of revenue authorities in absence of jurisdictional error [Paras 10–19]

Testamentary Succession – Validity of Will – No objection by legal heirs – Will was registered – Objector was not a legal heir but claimed possession based on unregistered agreement to sell – Held: Objection not sufficient to bar mutation based on will – Disputes if any can be adjudicated by civil court – Mutation rightly allowed by revenue authorities [Paras 16–22]

Revenue Law – Jurisdiction of Tehsildar – Tehsildar performs administrative not judicial functions under Section 110 of 1959 Code – Can entertain will-based mutation and notify legal heirs – If serious dispute exists, parties may approach Civil Court – In absence of serious challenge, mutation permissible based on will [Paras 12, 14–18]

Constitution – Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or legal infirmities – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside administrative mutation order without finding any such infirmity [Para 17]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Mutation order by revenue authorities restored – Subject to final adjudication by competent civil or revenue court.