Penal Code 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302/34 and 392 – Murder and Robbery – Conviction based on witness identification in court without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) – FIR cannot be an encyclopedia, but the first version of the complainant in the FIR is crucial when no TIP is conducted – The complainant did not provide a description of the accused in the FIR – Court held it unsafe to convict the accused based solely on in-court identification – Convictions set aside [Paras 1-13].

Identification of Accused – No Test Identification Parade – Witnesses identified the accused for the first time in court – Court emphasized the need for TIP when the accused were not known to the witnesses previously – Identification in court alone, without TIP, found insufficient for conviction [Paras 6.2-6.7].

Recovery of Cash – Insufficient Proof – Recovery of Rs. 1 lakh from each accused alleged to be part of the looted amount – Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution's claim that Rs. 5 lakhs was in the dicky of the scooter – Without establishing the presence of Rs. 5 lakhs, recovery of Rs. 1 lakh each from the accused is insignificant [Paras 6.1].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Convictions under Sections 302/34 and 392 IPC set aside – Accused acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 8].

Economic Regulation – Aeronautical Tariffs – AERA’s Determination – Appeals by airport operators challenging tariff orders by AERA – Key issues include treatment of Fuel Throughput Charges (FTC) as aeronautical revenue, calculation of Hypothetical Regulatory Asset Base (HRAB), and methodology for applying CPI-X formula for tariff determination – Supreme Court upholds AERA’s approach, emphasizing deference to regulatory expertise and consistency with contractual and legislative frameworks [Paras 21-84].

Fuel Throughput Charges (FTC) – Aeronautical Service – FTC collected by airport operators from oil marketing companies – AERA and TDSAT classified FTC as aeronautical revenue – Supreme Court concurs, noting FTC’s role in the supply chain for aircraft fuel and alignment with statutory definitions and schedules under the AERA Act and OMDA [Paras 21-45].

Hypothetical Regulatory Asset Base (HRAB) – Calculation Methodology – Dispute over inclusion of costs related to aeronautical services – Supreme Court supports AERA’s interpretation that components like prevailing tariff, revenue, and costs pertain to aeronautical services, rejecting arguments for broader inclusion of non-aeronautical revenue [Paras 46-60].

CPI-X Methodology – Sequential Application – Controversy over correct application of CPI-X formula for tariff escalation – Supreme Court finds AERA’s method consistent with contractual terms and algebraic principles, rejecting attempts to re-engineer the formula for higher tariffs [Paras 66-84].

Land Acquisition – Market Value Determination – Market value of land depends on location, area, development status, size of land plot, and other advantageous or disadvantageous factors – Rates in Ready Reckoner, intended for stamp duty collection, cannot be used to determine compensation for land acquisition – Reliance on Ready Reckoner rates leads to erroneous enhancement of compensation – Supreme Court sets aside High Court's decision enhancing compensation based on Ready Reckoner rates [Paras 1-13].

Legal Principles – Valuation Methods – Proper methods for determining market value include opinion of experts, bona fide transaction prices of similar land, and capitalization of profits – Ready Reckoner rates are not reliable for this purpose as they are uniform and do not reflect actual market transactions [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment enhancing compensation to Rs. 174 per sq. ft. quashed – Reference Court's judgment determining compensation at Rs. 21 per sq. ft. restored – No order as to costs [Para 13].

Penal Code 1860 (IPC) – Section 302/34 – Murder by Gunshot – Appellant convicted of murder – Recovery of the gun from co-accused, allegedly owned by the appellant – Prosecution failed to prove how the weapon came into the possession of the co-accused and who used it – Inadequate evidence and improper recovery process – Conviction and sentence set aside due to failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 2-10].

Witnesses – Credibility and Contradictions – Key prosecution witnesses provided contradictory statements and were not treated as hostile – Eyewitness accounts were inconsistent with the prosecution's case – Testimonies of defence witnesses supported the appellant's innocence – Forensic evidence did not conclusively support the prosecution's claims [Paras 4-6].

Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report – Contradictions – FSL report indicated discrepancies in the type of weapon used and the cartridges recovered – Officer who authored the report was not present to clarify contradictions – Report not deemed reliable [Para 5].

Recovery – Improper Procedure – Recovery of weapons not conducted according to legal standards – Evidence of recovery witnesses was inconsistent – Recovery of the weapon from the co-accused not satisfactorily explained [Paras 6, 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted and set at liberty – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Terrorist Activities – Appellants convicted for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, possession of arms and explosives, and association with banned organization Lasker-e-Toiba – Convictions upheld under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 124A, 153A, and 153B of IPC; Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act; and Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act – High Court correct in holding sanctions valid under UAPA and other statutes [Paras 1-40].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity of Sanction – High Court found that sanctions accorded by competent authorities under IPC, Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, and UAPA were valid and based on proper application of mind – Trial Court erred in rejecting sanctions for UAPA offenses – Sanctions under Section 45 of UAPA and Section 39 of Arms Act upheld [Paras 34-37].

Evidence – Incriminating Articles and Confessional Statements – Recovery of arms, explosives, and incriminating literature from appellants supported by witness testimonies and forensic evidence – Confessional statements corroborated the prosecution’s case – Trial Court’s findings on the sufficiency of evidence affirmed [Paras 7-22].

Decision: Appeals disposed of with modifications – Convictions under UAPA restored – Sentences affirmed for other offenses – High Court’s judgment modifying sentences for certain offenses upheld – Proper assessment of evidence and validity of sanctions ensured convictions were legally sound [Paras 54-55].

Constitutional Law – Article 72 – Extradition and Sovereign Assurance – Appellant convicted in the 1993 Bombay Blasts Case – Completing 25 years of sentence – Central Government bound to advise the President of India for release under Article 72 in accordance with international commitment and principles of comity of courts – Courts in India must impose sentence as required by law, while the Executive ensures compliance with international obligations [Paras 34-42, 54].

Criminal Law – Set-off Period – Detention under Red Corner Notice – Appellant's period of detention in Portugal not eligible for set-off against Indian sentence – Set-off to commence from the date of appellant's conditional release in Portugal and subsequent detention by Indian authorities [Paras 43-53].

Decision: Appeals disposed of with directions to the Government of India to advise the President of India to exercise powers under Article 72 to release the appellant upon completion of 25 years of sentence. Government directed to take necessary actions within one month of the completion of the sentence [Paras 54-55].

Civil Law – Religious Endowments – Suit jewellery claimed by the appellant as private property – Jewellery kept in the Temple's Kudavarai and used for adorning the deity during festivals – Concurrent findings by three courts affirming the jewellery as a specific endowment to the deity – Dedication inferred from long possession and use for religious purposes [Paras 15-25].

Specific Endowment – Evidence and Inference – Evidence showed jewellery was donated by the ancestors of appellant – Suit jewellery recorded in the Temple's register as endowment – Long possession and usage for adorning the deity confirmed the public nature of the endowment – Appellant's claim based on inheritance from adoptive parents rejected [Paras 15-19].

Bar of Res Judicata – Prior Suit – Previous suit dismissed for technical reasons, not on merits – Subsequent suit for declaration of title and injunction not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata – Plea of Order II Rule 2 of CPC also rejected as causes of action in the suits were different [Paras 26-34].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment and decree of declaration of specific endowment upheld – Direction to appellant to hand over the keys of the Kudavarai and the suit jewellery to the Temple authorities during festival times – Appellant restrained from interfering with the Temple's right to use the jewellery [Paras 37-40].

Murder – Common Intention – Section 302/34 IPC – Conviction based on the non-cooperation of the accused in a test identification parade – Courts drew adverse inferences without considering the exposure of witnesses to the accused in the police station – Identification parade is part of the investigation and should not be overemphasized – Prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution’s evidence lacked reliability and consistency – Convictions and sentences under Section 302/34 set aside [Paras 1-15].

Test Identification Parade – Evidentiary Value – The evidence available on record must be scrutinized when the accused have been exposed to witnesses prior to the identification parade – Reliance on such evidence without corroboration is flawed – Prosecution failed to establish common intention and occurrence beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 3-14].

Constructive Liability – Section 34 IPC – Section 34 does not constitute an offence by itself but creates constructive liability based on proven foundational facts – Prosecution failed to demonstrate common intention and participation in the crime adequately – Evidence presented was inconsistent and not wholly reliable [Para 13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellants to be released forthwith [Paras 15].

Selection Process – Award of Marks for Experience – Appellant contested the denial of marks for prior experience as a daily wager – High Court failed to consider the merits of this plea – Specific challenge was against the Selection Committee's decision – High Court should have adjudicated on whether the Selection Committee's actions were justified [Paras 2-3].

Eligibility Criteria – Qualifications of Selected Candidate – Appellant contended that respondent no.6 did not meet the eligibility criteria of having experience in a Computer Science Lab – High Court did not assess this claim on merits, deferring to the Selection Committee’s decision without judicial review – Matter remanded to Single Judge for fresh consideration on both issues [Paras 2-3].

Judicial Review – Scope of High Court’s Power – High Court’s refusal to interfere with the Selection Committee’s decisions on the grounds of judicial review was erroneous – High Court required to examine if the Selection Committee's actions were arbitrary or unjustified [Para 3].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgments of Single Judge and Division Bench set aside – Case remanded to Single Judge to reconsider writ petition on merits regarding the awarding of marks for experience and the qualifications of respondent no.6 – Parties allowed to submit additional documents within four weeks – Single Judge to complete hearing within six months [Paras 4].