Cinematic Speech – Free Expression vs. Dignity – Supreme Court evaluates the conflict between the filmmaker's right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the rights of persons with disabilities to dignity and non-discrimination under Articles 14, 15, and 21, and the RPwD Act – Emphasizes the need for sensitive portrayal of disabilities in films [Paras 1-70].

Derogatory Portrayal – Stereotypes – Court highlights the historically oppressive representation of persons with disabilities in media – Notes that while humour can be a tool for engagement, it must not reinforce harmful stereotypes – Distinguishes between 'disability humour' and 'disabling humour' [Paras 26-66].

Test of Proportionality – Balancing Rights – Court outlines that disparaging portrayals must be justified by the overall message of the film – If the portrayal of persons with disabilities is stereotypical but serves a broader, positive narrative, it may be permissible – Proportionality test applied to balance filmmaker’s free speech and rights of persons with disabilities [Paras 67-74].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upholds the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition – Emphasizes the importance of considering the overall message of the film and the filmmaker’s intent – Recommends guidelines for sensitive portrayal of disabilities but refrains from judicial interference in certification decisions made by expert bodies [Paras 71-74].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of a 14-year-old girl, supported by circumstantial evidence – High Court upheld the conviction based on the identification of the appellant by witnesses – Supreme Court examines the reliability of the identification and the necessity of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) [Paras 1-16].

Eyewitness Testimony – Identification – Supreme Court finds the identification of the appellant by witnesses unreliable due to the absence of a TIP and the witnesses only seeing the appellant wearing a monkey cap, which obscured his facial features – Highlights the importance of TIP in cases involving strangers [Paras 9-13].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Incriminating Material – Court questions the validity of recoveries made without proper judicial procedures – Finds that the evidence against the appellant does not establish his identity beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 8-10].

Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Necessity and Conduct – Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of TIP in ensuring the reliability of witness identification in cases involving strangers – Criticizes the prosecution for not conducting a TIP and relying solely on dock identification [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released unless required in connection with any other case [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of his roommate over a dispute regarding playing music – Trial court’s judgment upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court examines the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence, including hostile witnesses, extra-judicial confessions, and dying declarations [Paras 1-15].

Eyewitness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Supreme Court finds that the testimonies of hostile witnesses were insufficient to support the prosecution’s case – Highlights inconsistencies and the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime [Paras 4-14].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility and Reliability – Court questions the credibility of the extra-judicial confession made to PW-19, noting the absence of supporting evidence, such as phone records and the non-examination of PSI Mishra, who was allegedly present during the confession [Paras 6-8].

Dying Declaration – Doubtful Credibility – Supreme Court finds the dying declaration made to PW-24 unconvincing due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the deceased's condition at the time of the statement [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released unless required in connection with any other case [Para 15].

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].

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 - Conviction for Murder and Unlawful Assembly - Appellants challenged the conviction under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, and 307 r/w 149 IPC - Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentences - Appellants' participation as part of the unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder established - No active role needed for conviction under Section 149 IPC [Paras 1-33].

Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - Presence of appellants at the crime scene with other accused persons sufficient for conviction under Section 149 IPC - Evidence of eye-witnesses substantiating appellants' presence and common intention - Conviction upheld despite no specific roles assigned to appellants [Paras 17-30].

Life Imprisonment - Minimum Sentence for Murder - Appellants' plea for reduction of sentence due to long incarceration rejected - Minimum sentence for murder is life imprisonment - Appellants may apply for remission or premature release as per State policy [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeals dismissed - Conviction and sentence upheld - Appellants may seek remission or premature release in accordance with State policy [Para 33].

Arrest under PMLA – Legality – Appeal against the High Court’s rejection of a criminal writ petition challenging the arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) – Supreme Court examines compliance with statutory preconditions under Section 19 of the PMLA – Emphasizes mandatory recording and furnishing of ‘reasons to believe’ – Judicial scrutiny of the validity of arrest under Section 19(1) upheld – Arrest found non-compliant with statutory requirements, deemed illegal [Paras 1-40].

Statutory Safeguards – Compliance – DoE’s argument of non-furnishing of ECIR and grounds of arrest distinguished – Court mandates that arrestee must be provided with reasons to believe and grounds of arrest for judicial review – Ensures the balance between investigation requirements and protection of personal liberty [Paras 22-38].

Judicial Review – Scope – Court delineates scope of judicial review in matters of arrest under PMLA – Establishes that judicial scrutiny must confirm compliance with statutory conditions and constitutional rights – Prevents arbitrary exercise of power by enforcing stringent safeguards against pre-trial arrest [Paras 39-43].

Constitutional Mandate – Article 22(1) – Court reiterates the importance of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest as per Article 22(1) – Emphasizes that the power to arrest must be exercised with care and accountability to uphold the constitutional rights [Paras 10-12, 15-16].

Preconditions for Arrest – Interpretation of Section 19(1) of PMLA – Court interprets the expressions “reason to believe”, “guilty of an offence punishable under this Act”, and “material” – Highlights the necessity for objective assessment of material before forming ‘reason to believe’ – Specifies that mere suspicion is insufficient for arrest under PMLA [Paras 9, 24-28, 31-36].

Comparison with Cr.P.C. – Distinction between Sections 41 and 167 of Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of PMLA – Court notes stricter safeguards under PMLA – Emphasizes that judicial scrutiny is necessary to ensure compliance with higher standards set by PMLA for arrest [Paras 40-42].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Arrest declared illegal due to non-compliance with Section 19(1) of PMLA – Orders of arrest and remand set aside – Appellant granted liberty to seek appropriate relief for damages and other consequences arising from the illegal arrest [Para 44-45].

Suspension of Sentence – Petitioner’s plea for suspension of sentence rejected by High Court – Petitioner aged seventy and 90% visually impaired – High Court’s failure to consider age, health, and two years already served – Supreme Court emphasizes need for application of correct principles for suspension of fixed-term sentences – Casual and mechanical approach by High Court criticized [Paras 1-6].

Bail Pending Appeal – Petitioner’s health and age significant factors – High Court’s orders lacked reasoning and consideration of exceptional circumstances – Supreme Court orders release on bail pending appeal with conditions as deemed fit by trial court [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Special Leave Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to terms and conditions imposed by the trial court [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Appellant, a Forest Section Officer, convicted for demanding and accepting bribe – Prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 5,000 as bribe from the complainant, a saw-mill operator, to refrain from booking a case for illegal possession of teakwood – The complainant's testimony contradicted by call detail records – High Court's affirmation of trial court’s judgment found unsustainable due to lack of credible evidence supporting demand and acceptance of bribe [Paras 1-55].

Procedural Lapses – Trap Proceedings – DySP, ACB, failed to verify the demand of bribe independently before organizing the trap – No telephonic conversation recorded between the appellant and complainant – No recording device placed on the complainant during the trap – Absence of independent shadow witnesses undermined the integrity of the trap proceedings – High Court overlooked these procedural deficiencies [Paras 30-33, 47-48].

Evidentiary Gaps – Reliability of Witness Testimony – Sole eyewitness, the complainant’s friend, declared interested witness due to close association – Complainant's version contradicted by call detail records which showed no calls exchanged between appellant and complainant post-17th January 2023, refuting the demand of bribe on 21st, 22nd, and 23rd January 2023 – Prosecution failed to present corroborative evidence from an independent witness [Paras 34-41, 49-51].

Defence of Planting Evidence – Defence claimed that the tainted money was planted in appellant’s bag by the complainant – Cross-examination revealed complainant handled appellant’s bag, providing opportunity for planting – Appellant’s hand wash not tested for phenolphthalein, failing to confirm handling of tainted money – Defence’s alternative hypothesis found plausible, creating reasonable doubt [Paras 54-55].

Circumstantial Evidence – Proof of Demand – Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) followed – Demand and acceptance of bribe can be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence – Prosecution’s circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove demand – Allegations by complainant unsupported by independent verification or tangible evidence [Paras 26-28, 52-55].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Court emphasized the necessity of independent verification and reliable evidence in corruption cases [Para 55].