Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction set aside – Prosecution case resting mainly on testimony of related eyewitness (mother of deceased) suffering from material contradictions – Non-examination of material witness (granddaughter who allegedly informed informant) – Independent witnesses turned hostile – Medical evidence not conclusively corroborating ocular version – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to acquittal [Paras 7–18].

Evidence – Related / Interested Witness – Mother of deceased claimed to be eyewitness – Law reiterated that testimony of related witness cannot be discarded solely on that ground but requires strict scrutiny – On facts, deposition contained serious inconsistencies regarding manner of assault, timing and presence at scene – Reliance on such testimony held unsafe [Paras 8–9, 13–15].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Material Witness – Granddaughter of informant allegedly first informant of incident not examined – Prosecution failed to explain omission – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution version [Paras 9, 14].

Witnesses – Hostile Independent Witnesses – PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9 did not support prosecution case – Seizure and recovery of weapons through memorandum statements not proved – Recovery evidence held unreliable [Paras 10–11, 15].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistency with Ocular Testimony – Post-mortem revealed three incised wounds – Prosecution alleged use of sticks and one stone – Doctor failed to specify which injury was caused by which weapon – Improbability of incised wounds being caused by single stone – Medical evidence not supporting prosecution story [Paras 12, 16].

Common Object – Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Mere presence of accused at spot without clear proof of participation or overt act insufficient – Failure to establish common object beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 14–16].

Standard of Proof – Criminal Trial – Benefit of Doubt – Where prosecution evidence suffers from contradictions, hostile witnesses and weak medical corroboration – Conviction cannot be sustained – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court dated 17.02.2021 affirming conviction and sentence set aside – All appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 18–20].

Administrative Law – Power of Chief Justice – High Court Additional Sitting – Section 51(3) of States Reorganisation Act – Validity of Notification – Notification appointing Kolhapur as an additional place of sitting of the Bombay High Court challenged under Article 32 – Petitioner contended that such appointment amounts to establishing a permanent bench, requiring Presidential order under Section 51(2) – Held: Section 51(3) is an independent and continuing source of power – No requirement of central government approval – Power lies with Chief Justice with Governor’s approval – Establishment of additional place of sitting does not result in territorial bifurcation or require permanence – No colourable exercise of power – Reaffirmed precedent in State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik – [Paras 19–30, 55]

Judicial Administration – Role of Chief Justice – Consultation – Full Court not mandatory – Chief Justice is master of roster and head of administration – Statute does not require consultation with Full Court under Section 51(3) – While internal deliberation is desirable, absence thereof does not vitiate exercise of power – [Paras 31–37]

Judicial Review – Administrative Decisions – Scope – Courts will not interfere unless mala fides, extraneous considerations, or manifest illegality shown – No fundamental right of the petitioner violated – Objections pertain to policy disagreement, not legal infirmity – [Paras 18, 42–44, 54]

Equality before Law – Article 14 – Rational Basis – Selection of Kolhapur not arbitrary – Geographic proximity, volume of litigation, and logistical feasibility justify the decision – Simultaneous consideration of all regional demands not constitutionally required – Article 14 not violated – [Paras 45–48]

Access to Justice – Article 21 – Establishment of High Court sittings at convenient locations enhances access – Resource allocation is a policy matter – Decision furthers constitutional mandate – [Paras 49–52]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Notification dated 01.08.2025 upheld – Held to be within statutory power under Section 51(3) – No costs. [Paras 53–57]

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Bail – Suspension of Sentence – High Court granted bail to co-accused (father and son) convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC citing delay in FIR submission and absence of original inquest report – Supreme Court held such grounds irrelevant and unsustainable – Convicts were armed and actively participated in a premeditated group assault – Held: Suspension of sentence in such grave offences requires exceptional circumstances, which were absent – High Court erred in applying lenient standards [Paras 5.3–6.5, 7–9 of both appeals]

Criminal Procedure – Section 389 CrPC – Scope – Convicts sentenced to life imprisonment not entitled to bail as a matter of course – Judicial precedents mandate restraint – Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence ceases post-conviction – Reiterated principles in Hasmat, Shakuntala Shukla, Omprakash Sahni, Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai – [Paras 6.1–6.5]

Joint Liability – Role of Instigation – Presence with Firearms – Both accused (Sheo Narayan Mahto and Rajesh Mahto) instigated killing and were armed – Witness testimonies and medical evidence corroborated coordinated assault leading to death – Instigation and armed presence established common object of unlawful assembly – Active role ruled out leniency [Paras 5.5–5.6, 7–9]

Judicial Review – Appellate Interference with Bail – Held: High Court misapplied law by equating “instigation” with lesser culpability – Ignored gravity of offence and evidence on record – Bail order set aside – Convicts directed to surrender within 10 days [Paras 9–11]

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court orders dated 28.08.2024 and 16.01.2025 suspending sentence and granting bail to Sheo Narayan Mahto and Rajesh Mahto set aside – Both respondents directed to surrender – Police to ensure compliance within time permitted [Paras 10–11 of both judgments]

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Irretrievable Breakdown – Article 142 Invoked – Trial Court and High Court rejected husband’s petition under Section 13 on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Parties living separately for nearly two decades – Despite opportunity, mediation failed – Supreme Court held: Marital relationship broken beyond repair – Continued cohabitation futile – Marriage dissolved under Article 142 – [Paras 4–8, 10].

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Dissolution Despite Denial by One Party – Respondent-wife opposed divorce and denied cruelty – But long separation and lack of reconciliation attempts justified exceptional exercise of power under Article 142 – Held: Ends of justice warrant granting divorce to avoid further hardship – [Paras 7–8].

Family Law – Permanent Alimony – Lump Sum Settlement – Parties are government teachers – Appellant offered ₹15 lakhs; Court enhanced to ₹20 lakhs – Held: Fair and reasonable amount considering long separation and financial parity – Amount to be paid within two months – [Paras 9–11].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Closure on Divorce – Upon proof of payment of alimony, all pending proceedings between parties arising out of matrimonial dispute shall stand closed – [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Trial Court (14.08.2012) and High Court (28.02.2014) set aside – Decree of divorce granted under Article 142 – ₹20 lakhs directed as full and final alimony – All pending proceedings to stand closed on compliance – [Paras 13–14].

Service Law – Appointment from Rank List – Validity of Rank List vs. Communal Rotation – Vacancy Arising Due to Resignation – Appellant, a Scheduled Caste candidate, was second in rank list for Associate Professor post reserved for SC – First-ranked candidate (Dr. Anitha) resigned after serving over a year – Appellant claimed right of appointment during currency of two-year rank list under Section 31(10) – University rejected on ground of communal rotation under Section 31(11) – Held: Section 31(10) and Section 31(11) must operate harmoniously – Rank list provides validity period, but appointment must adhere to rotation rules during that time – Post reserved for SC deemed satisfied in form and substance by Dr. Anitha’s appointment – Fresh vacancy on resignation rightly assigned to Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian turn under roster [Paras 5.4–5.5.4, 6.4, 9–10].

Wait List – No Indefeasible Right – Appellant has no vested right to appointment from wait list unless vacancy corresponds with her category under roster – Vacancy post-resignation not earmarked for SC in roster cycle – Rejection justified [Paras 4.2, 5.5.2, 5.5.3, 7.4, 8].

Statutory Interpretation – Harmonious Construction – Sections 31(10) and 31(11) must be construed to avoid rendering either provision redundant – Communal rotation applies even during rank list’s validity – Wait list cannot override statutory reservation rotation [Paras 5.4.5–5.5.4].

Reservation – Fulfilment of Reserved Post – SC reservation deemed fulfilled upon appointment and probation of Dr. Anitha – Vacancy arising from resignation does not entitle same category appointment again if roster indicates otherwise – Held: Reservation not just in form, but must be in substance – Post cannot be recycled for same category [Paras 6.3–6.4].

Lien – Resignation Terminates Lien – Initial rejection of appellant’s claim based on lien of earlier appointee (Dr. Anitha) found untenable – Lien ends on resignation and substantive appointment elsewhere – Cannot be ground to deny appointment [Paras 5.1–5.1.2].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment and order affirmed – No costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction – Affirmation – Deceased widow set ablaze for resisting sexual advances – Medical evidence proved homicidal death due to 60% burns – Hostile witnesses not fatal – Presence of accused and flight from scene proved through corroborative testimony – Dying declarations recorded by police officer and Magistrate found reliable and voluntary – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 4–7].

Evidence Act – Dying Declaration – Multiple Declarations – Reliability – Dying declarations recorded by police officer and Magistrate corroborated by medical evidence – Doctor certified fitness of declarant – Minor inconsistencies and hostile witnesses do not dilute probative value – Sole dying declaration sufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 6–7].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment – Meaning – Life imprisonment ordinarily means imprisonment for entire natural life subject to remission and commutation – Sessions Court has no power to direct that life sentence shall mean imprisonment till end of natural life without remission – Such power vests only in Constitutional Courts [Paras 9, 13–15].

Sentencing Policy – Special Category Sentence – Swamy Shraddananda (2) Principle – Life Imprisonment Without Remission – Power restricted to Supreme Court and High Courts – Sessions Courts incompetent to impose sentence beyond statutory framework – Reaffirmation of Constitution Bench ruling in V. Sriharan (Murugan) [Paras 11–15].

Criminal Procedure – Section 428 CrPC – Set-off – Mandatory Statutory Right – Period of detention during investigation, inquiry and trial must be set-off against sentence – Sessions Court cannot deny statutory set-off – Direction denying set-off illegal and liable to be deleted [Paras 16–17].

Remission and Commutation – Executive Power – Articles 72 & 161 – Cannot be curtailed by trial court – Accused entitled to be considered for remission as per law and government policy [Paras 9, 14–15, 18].

Sentencing Discretion – Proportionality – Heinousness of offence acknowledged – Case not warranting special category sentence of fixed minimum term without remission – Distinction from cases such as Ravinder Singh applied [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed –

(i) Conviction under Section 302 IPC affirmed

(ii) Sentence modified to imprisonment for life simpliciter

(iii) Direction that sentence shall run till end of natural life set aside

(iv) Statutory set-off under Section 428 CrPC restored

(v) Accused entitled to consideration of remission/commutation as per law – Other sentences to run concurrently – Pending applications disposed of.

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Ground of Desertion – Consent of Parties – Decree Modified under Article 142 – Family Court and High Court granted divorce on ground of desertion – Appellant contested desertion, but agreed to dissolution by mutual consent during Supreme Court hearing – Respondent also agreed – Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142 to modify the decree to reflect mutual consent and not desertion – Marriage dissolved accordingly – [Paras 5–8].

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Consent Divorce Ordered by Supreme Court – Where parties unequivocally agreed to separation and reconciliation failed, Court invoked Article 142 to substitute contested decree with one based on mutual consent – Held: In view of irretrievable breakdown, ends of justice warrant such course – [Paras 7–8].

Family Law – Permanent Alimony – One-time Settlement – Both parties being financially independent – Supreme Court fixed Rs. 25 lakhs as full and final settlement – Amount to be deposited within two months and drawn by wife – All pending disputes (civil/criminal) to be closed upon compliance – [Paras 9–12].

Decision: Appeal disposed – Divorce decree based on desertion set aside – Marriage dissolved by consent under Article 142 – Rs. 25 lakhs directed as full settlement – Pending proceedings to stand closed on payment compliance – [Paras 8–13].

Forest Conservation – Lease of Forest Land for Agriculture – Illegality – State granted lease of 134 acres 6 guntas of forest land to cooperative society for agricultural purpose – Cultivation involved clearing trees and deforestation – Lease not liable to be extended and could not be continued through representation mechanism – High Court erred in granting liberty to seek continuation/extension through Central Government consideration – Held: permission for non-forest use (agriculture) is barred under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 without prior Central approval and continuation would perpetuate illegality [Paras 4, 5, 13-16].

Forest Land – Eviction Proceedings – Possession Taken – After lease termination and dismissal of earlier writ petitions/suits/appeals, Forest Department initiated eviction under Karnataka Forest Act/Manual – Eviction order passed – Department took possession on 23/01/2007 and placed caution boards – Held: once possession reverted to Forest Department, direction allowing respondent to seek continuation of lease is unsustainable [Paras 8-10, 16].

Environment & Forests – Non-dereservation Directions – Binding effect – Reliance on Supreme Court’s continuing mandamus/orders restraining de-reservation and requiring cessation of non-forest activities without Central approval – Held: cultivation on forest land is a non-forest purpose; no permission could be granted to allow such use contrary to Section 2 FCA and Court directions [Paras 11-14].

Relief – Restoration/Reafforestation – Mandatory direction – Appeal allowed – High Court orders set aside insofar as they enabled representation for continuation of lease – Forest Department directed to restore forest on 134 acres by planting indigenous species in consultation with experts – Compliance within 12 months – Matter listed for compliance report on 17/12/2026 [Paras 16-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court directions permitting representation for continuation of lease set aside – Forest Department directed to restore forest land by plantation of indigenous trees – Compliance within 12 months – Listed on 17/12/2026 for compliance report.

Service Law / Recruitment – Eligibility Condition – Driver Posts – Continuous valid driving licence for two years – Renewal after expiry – Break cannot be treated as “continuous” merely because renewal is granted – After Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, licence does not continue even for a single day beyond expiry and renewal takes effect from date of renewal – “Continuously” means uninterrupted legal capacity to drive – High Court orders treating expired-and-later-renewed licences as continuous set aside – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 22-35].

Recruitment Notification – Technical qualification – “Must have possessed… LMV (Transport) / HMV licence… continuously for full two years and above as on date of notification” – Meaning – Must be read literally to require unbroken validity with no intervening period of expiry/disqualification – Weight must be given to use of word “continuously” and not treated as redundant [Paras 25, 32-33].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 14 & 15 (post-2019) – Proviso to Section 14 granting 30-day continuation after expiry omitted – Statute now does not allow licence to continue after expiry even for a single day – Section 15 only provides a window for renewal but does not erase the legal disability during interregnum – Harmonious construction applied [Paras 27-31].

Interpretation – “Continuously” – Defined as “uninterruptedly; in unbroken sequence; without intermission… without intervening time” (Black’s Law Dictionary) – Applied to conclude that backdated/retrospective effect of renewal cannot be used to claim continuous validity for the gap period [Para 33].

Selection Process – Driving test at later stage – Does not dilute threshold eligibility – Candidate cannot gain eligibility merely because later driving proficiency is tested – Otherwise similarly placed candidates who did not apply considering themselves ineligible would be prejudiced (equality concern) [Para 34].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court Division Bench judgment dated 03/10/2023 and Single Judge interim orders dated 13/03/2023 & 28/03/2023 set aside – Underlying writ petitions dismissed – Recruitment process directed to be completed expeditiously, within three months – No order as to costs – Connected Diary No.12553/2024 appeals also allowed on same terms [Paras 35-37].