Criminal Law – Discharge Application – Appellant sought discharge from charges of rape and criminal intimidation – Lower courts dismissed the application, framing charges based on prima facie evidence – Supreme Court re-evaluates the sufficiency of evidence, including contradictions in prosecutrix’s statements and lack of material evidence [Paras 1-19].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – Supreme Court examines the concept of consent under Section 90 IPC – Finds that prosecutrix’s consent was not vitiated by misconception or coercion – Relationship was consensual, allegations of blackmail and threats not substantiated by evidence [Paras 20-24].

Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Court notes the absence of critical evidence such as photographs, mobile phone, and financial transactions – Finds that the prosecutrix’s claims are unsupported by tangible proof, weakening the prosecution’s case [Paras 17, 24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court and Sessions Judge set aside – Criminal proceedings quashed – Supreme Court emphasizes that continuing the trial would be an abuse of judicial process due to lack of credible evidence and consensual nature of the relationship [Paras 25-28].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of Arun Kumar with a knife, sustaining multiple stab wounds – Trial court’s judgment affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court examines whether non-compliance with Section 313, Cr.P.C., during the examination of the accused resulted in material prejudice. The court found that the trial court and the High Court failed to ensure proper examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C., leading to a vitiated trial [Paras 1-28].

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. – Right to Fair Trial – Emphasizes the mandatory nature of examining the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C., to put all incriminating evidence to the accused for their explanation – The court found that crucial incriminating circumstances (appellant’s exhortation to kill the deceased and his act of holding the deceased to enable stabbing) were not put to the appellant during his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. – This non-compliance was held to have caused material prejudice, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The court reiterates that the failure to comply with mandatory procedures can vitiate the trial, particularly when it causes material prejudice to the accused [Paras 10-25].

Witness Testimony – Eyewitnesses – Evidence from eyewitnesses, including the deceased’s relatives, was crucial in establishing the sequence of events leading to the murder – The testimonies included details of the appellant’s actions and exhortations, which were not properly presented to the appellant for explanation during the Section 313, Cr.P.C., examination – The Supreme Court noted that the omission to question the appellant on these crucial points deprived him of the opportunity to explain and thus caused prejudice [Paras 3, 20].

Burden of Proof – Prejudice and Miscarriage of Justice – The court discusses the burden on the accused to demonstrate material prejudice resulting from non-compliance with Section 313, Cr.P.C. – The court found that the failure to put crucial incriminating evidence to the appellant directly impacted the findings of guilt under Section 302, IPC, with the aid of Section 34, IPC – The omission resulted in an unfair trial, justifying the setting aside of the conviction [Paras 10-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of the offences alleged against him – Immediate release ordered if not required in connection with any other case – The court notes that this judgment does not disturb the conviction of the co-accused as their appeals are to be dealt with separately [Para 27-28].

Arbitration Law - Limitation for Setting Aside Award - Appellant State challenged arbitral award dated June 30, 2022 - Petition under Section 34 filed on October 31, 2022 after Pooja vacation - High Court dismissed the petition for being time-barred - Supreme Court affirmed High Court's decision - Held, limitation period expired on September 30, 2022 - No benefit under Section 4 of Limitation Act since prescribed period expired before court vacation - Petition under Section 34 not filed within extended period allowed by proviso to Section 34(3) [Paras 1-11].

Period of Limitation - Calculation under Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Limitation period for challenging arbitral award is three months - Computation of period excludes the date of receipt of award - Application filed beyond the three-month period plus maximum allowable extension of 30 days is time-barred [Paras 5-8].

Section 4 of Limitation Act - Applicability to Arbitration Cases - Explained that 'prescribed period' does not include the 30-day extension under Section 34(3) proviso - Section 4 not applicable where the original period of limitation expired before the court's closure [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - High Court's dismissal of the petition under Section 34 for being time-barred upheld - No merit in appellants' argument for extension under Limitation Act provisions [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of Tillu @ Devi Singh and assault on Tularam – Trial court’s judgment upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court dismisses appeal, confirming the Appellant’s involvement and presence at the scene based on consistent eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapon [Paras 1-70].

Eyewitness Testimony – Consistency and Credibility – Supreme Court emphasizes the reliability of eyewitness accounts, noting the consistent identification of the Appellant and the corroborative medical evidence – Reiterates that minor discrepancies do not vitiate the core of prosecution’s case [Paras 20-51].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility under Section 32(1) of IEA – Statement of deceased Tularam recorded by Investigating Officer treated as dying declaration despite absence of medical fitness certificate – Court underscores that procedural lapses do not invalidate otherwise credible and voluntary dying declarations [Paras 62-69].

Disclosure Statement and Recovery – Application of Section 27 of IEA – Knife used in the crime recovered based on the Appellant’s disclosure statement – Court validates admissibility and relevance of recovery as crucial corroborative evidence [Paras 52-58].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender if on bail; otherwise, to serve the remainder of the sentence in custody [Paras 70-71].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Desertion – The appellant-husband sought a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion following a failed decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The Trial Court granted the divorce, but the High Court reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had been deserted by the respondent without reasonable cause, meeting the grounds for desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act [Paras 1-16].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Compliance and Consequences – The appellant's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was granted by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court, but the respondent failed to comply. This non-compliance was critical in establishing desertion [Paras 13-14].

Alimony – Lump Sum Settlement – The appellant's offer to pay Rs. 30 lakhs as a lump sum alimony was deemed reasonable. The decree for divorce would come into effect only upon payment of this amount [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the decree of divorce on grounds of desertion. The decree would become effective upon payment of Rs. 30 lakhs to the respondent as alimony [Paras 16].

Income Tax – TDS – Applicability of Section 206C – Assessee engaged in the manufacture and sale of arrack – Auctioning of retail vending rights by the state government – Assessing officer held that income tax should have been collected at source from the liquor vendors – High Court upheld the assessing officer’s decision – Supreme Court quashed the orders, stating that excise contractors are not "buyers" as defined under Section 206C​​.

Natural Justice – Principles of Natural Justice – Notice and Hearing – Orders under Section 206C(6) were passed without proper opportunity of hearing – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of following principles of natural justice even if the statute is silent​​.

Income Tax – Section 206C of the Income Tax Act – Overview of statutory requirements including TDS collection, payment to central government, and conditions under which tax must be collected​​.

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the High Court set aside – Supreme Court held that Mysore Sales International Ltd. is not liable to collect TDS from the excise contractors under Section 206C​​.

Criminal Law – Bail Conditions – The appellant, a Nigerian national, was granted bail by the High Court with conditions including obtaining a certificate of assurance from the High Commission of Nigeria and dropping a PIN on Google Maps to ensure location tracking – Supreme Court held that the condition to drop a PIN on Google Maps violated the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and was redundant as it did not enable real-time tracking – The condition was ordered to be deleted [Paras 10.1-10.2].

Bail Conditions – Certificate of Assurance from High Commission – Supreme Court discussed the requirement for a certificate of assurance from the High Commission for foreign nationals – Held that this condition should not be imposed in every case – If the High Commission fails to issue the certificate within a reasonable time, the court has the power to dispense with the condition – The condition must be based on the facts of each case [Paras 11-12].

Right to Privacy – Article 21 of the Constitution – Emphasized that bail conditions must respect the fundamental rights of the accused, including the right to privacy – Conditions that enable constant monitoring of the accused's movements violate privacy rights and are not permissible – Courts must balance the need for conditions to ensure the accused's presence and compliance without infringing on constitutional rights [Paras 7-7.1].

Decision: Conditions imposed by the High Court for obtaining a certificate from the High Commission and dropping a PIN on Google Maps were set aside – The bail conditions were modified to ensure compliance without violating the appellant's right to privacy – Appeal allowed.

Res Judicata – Application in Civil Suits – Appellant's suit for declaration of title over specific land parcels was initially decreed by the trial court – First Appellate Court and High Court reversed the decree, applying the principle of res judicata based on an earlier title suit – Supreme Court examined whether the previous suit directly and substantially adjudicated on the issues relevant to the current suit – Held that the earlier suit did not adjudicate on the specific rights of the appellant over the disputed land [Paras 1-22].

Conditions for Res Judicata Among Co-Defendants – Supreme Court outlined three essential conditions for applying res judicata between co-defendants: (i) conflict of interest between co-defendants; (ii) necessity to decide the conflict for granting relief to the plaintiff; (iii) final decision on the conflict – Found no such conflict adjudicated in the earlier suit [Paras 13-25].

Adjudication of Property Rights – Court affirmed the appellant's established title and possession over the disputed land based on documentary evidence and historical possession – The claim of adverse possession by the Cantonment Board over the entire land was not substantiated [Paras 26-34].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of High Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Trial court's decree restored, confirming the appellant’s title over the suit land – No order as to costs [Paras 35-36].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for murder as part of an unlawful assembly – Sessions Court and High Court upheld the conviction – Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with concurrent findings – Appellant and co-accused attacked victim with deadly weapons resulting in death – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Witness Credibility – Discrepancies in eyewitness testimonies – Court found minor inconsistencies immaterial – PW1 and PW2 corroborated each other on key facts – Hostile witness (PW4) did not impact prosecution case significantly – Appellant failed to discredit key witnesses [Paras 10-20].

Section 300 IPC – Applicability – Nature and location of injury – Single stab wound sufficient to cause death – Factors like weapon type, attack premeditation, and absence of provocation considered – Conduct of appellant met criteria under Section 300 IPC clauses (1) and (3) [Paras 21-26].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Bail order vacated – Appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence [Paras 27-28].