Motor Accident Claim – Compensation Computation – Reliance on Minimum Wages – Set Aside – The claimant-appellant, a young student, sustained grievous injuries in a motor accident – The Tribunal awarded Rs.7,09,303/- as compensation, which was enhanced by the High Court to Rs.23,90,719/- but based on minimum wages – The Supreme Court held that for a student in his twenties, notional income should not be equated to that of an unskilled worker – Instead, reliance was placed on Harpreet Singh v. Navjot Singh, fixing notional income at Rs.10,000/- per month – Compensation recalculated to Rs.34,56,103/- with interest at 7.5% per annum – Held: Appeal allowed, and compensation enhanced accordingly [Paras 6-9].

Joint and Several Liability – Compensation Payment – Insurer Liable – The Tribunal held all respondents, including the driver, owner, and insurer, jointly and severally liable to pay compensation – However, the primary responsibility was placed on the insurer to discharge the liability – The Supreme Court upheld this finding, reaffirming that the insurer must pay the awarded sum in full – Held: Tribunal's finding on liability upheld [Para 5].

Motor Accident Claim – Disability Assessment – Medical Board Report Disregarded – Compensation Enhanced – The claimant-appellant suffered severe head injuries in a road accident and was in a comatose state – The Medical Board certified 100% permanent disability, yet the Tribunal assessed it at 50%, which was upheld by the High Court – The Supreme Court held that once the Medical Board, as an expert body, has determined 100% disability, the Tribunal and High Court could not disregard it without re-evaluation – Held: Disability assessment restored to 100% and compensation recomputed accordingly [Paras 8-9].

Future Prospects – Compensation Enhancement – Based on Judicial Precedents – The High Court granted 25% additional compensation towards future prospects – The Supreme Court followed its ruling in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and increased future prospects by 25% on 100% disability, leading to a significant enhancement in total compensation – Held: Future prospects @ 25% granted on full disability computation [Para 11].

Attendant Charges – Awarded Considering Complete Dependence – The claimant-appellant, being in a comatose state, required round-the-clock medical assistance – The High Court denied compensation for attendant charges – The Supreme Court held that in cases of total disability, a reasonable amount must be granted for medical assistance and caregiving – Held: Attendant charges awarded at Rs.7,80,000/- [Para 10].

Pain and Suffering – Inadequate Compensation Increased – The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for pain and suffering, which was upheld by the High Court – The Supreme Court, considering the claimant’s comatose condition, enhanced the compensation under this head by Rs.6,00,000/-, citing K.S. Murlidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi – Held: Pain and suffering compensation increased to Rs.6,00,000/- [Para 11].

Final Computation – Compensation Nearly Tripled – The Supreme Court recomputed the compensation considering 100% disability, future prospects, attendant charges, and increased compensation for pain and suffering – The final amount awarded was Rs.48,70,000/- with 7% interest per annum from the date of claim petition – Held: Final compensation set at Rs.48,70,000/- with 7% interest [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Disability Assessment Restored – Future Prospects and Compensation Enhanced – The Supreme Court set aside the disability assessment of 50% and restored it to 100% as determined by the Medical Board – Future prospects @ 25% were granted, increasing the overall compensation – Attendant charges of Rs.7,80,000/- were awarded considering the appellant’s need for continuous medical assistance – Pain and suffering compensation was increased from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- – The final compensation amount was enhanced to Rs.48,70,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim petition – Held: Appeal allowed, and pending applications disposed of [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Abetment of Suicide – Absence of Mens Rea – No Proximate Link – Appellants were accused of abetting the suicide of deceased Tanu by making derogatory remarks after the alleged murder of Ziaul Rahman by Tanu’s family – Held: To constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, a clear intention to instigate or aid the suicide must be established – Mere verbal altercation or casual remarks, even if harsh, do not amount to abetment unless they create a direct inducement or coercion to commit suicide – Supreme Court finds no proximate link between the alleged statements and the act of suicide, rendering the charge under Section 306 IPC unsustainable – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 17, 21].

Criminal Investigation – Bias and One-Sided Nature – Need for Reinvestigation – The FIR against the appellants was filed belatedly despite the death of the deceased being recorded earlier in hospital and post-mortem being conducted on the same day – Police relied solely on witness statements that parroted the FIR without any independent investigation – Held: The one-sided nature of the investigation raises serious concerns of bias and possible misuse of process – The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct an independent probe into the unnatural death of Tanu, with liberty to re-register the FIR if required [Paras 16, 22].

Principles Governing Abetment of Suicide – Supreme Court Precedents – Application to Facts – Supreme Court reiterates that for an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be active involvement or direct instigation by the accused – Held: The mere use of harsh words, criticism, or humiliation without any element of coercion or active provocation is insufficient to constitute abetment – Reliance placed on Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628, and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, where casual remarks and mere allegations of harassment were held insufficient to attract Section 306 IPC – Present case fails to meet the threshold for abetment of suicide [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Allowed – Proceedings Quashed – SIT Ordered – Supreme Court finds that the charge-sheet and order of cognizance were issued without due consideration of essential legal ingredients under Section 306 IPC – Held: Continuing the trial against the appellants would amount to gross abuse of process – Proceedings in Case No. 2843 of 2023 before the Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur quashed – SIT directed to submit a reinvestigation report in a sealed cover within two months – Matter listed for further directions on 15.04.2025 [Paras 22-24].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Allegations Against Distant Relatives – Generalized Accusations Without Specific Overt Acts – Appellants, who were the sister-in-law and nephew of the complainant’s mother-in-law, sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 506 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act – Held: Criminal law should not be misused to falsely implicate distant relatives who are not part of the immediate matrimonial home – Mere allegations of pressure to conform to family expectations, without specific instances of cruelty, do not amount to a cognizable offence – Criminal proceedings quashed against the appellants [Paras 16, 24, 35].

Domestic Violence and Dowry Harassment – Need for Specific Allegations – No Prima Facie Case Against Appellants – The complainant alleged harassment for additional dowry and claimed the appellants were complicit in threats and cruelty – Held: While genuine cases of domestic violence must be dealt with seriously, allegations against relatives who do not reside with the complainant and have no direct role must be scrutinized strictly – Mere presence in panchayat meetings or failure to intervene does not establish criminal liability – The appellants were not residing in the complainant’s matrimonial home and no specific role was attributed to them – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 25-27, 38].

Abuse of Criminal Process – Courts Must Prevent Harassment of Innocent Relatives – The tendency to implicate extended family members in matrimonial disputes was noted as a growing misuse of criminal law – Held: Courts should exercise caution in allowing criminal proceedings against relatives who are not directly involved – Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, the Court reiterated that generalized accusations without specific acts do not warrant a criminal trial – Filing of charge-sheet does not preclude quashing of proceedings where no prima facie case is made out – Criminal proceedings quashed against appellants under both IPC and DV Act [Paras 26, 32-35].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Allowed – Proceedings Quashed – The Telangana High Court’s orders dated 04.04.2022 and 03.02.2022 are set aside – Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 46 of 2022 before the Judicial Magistrate, Bhongir, and DVC No. 25 of 2021 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Bhongir, are quashed against the appellants – Observations in this judgment shall not affect proceedings against other accused persons [Paras 39-

Criminal Sentencing – Attempt to Murder – Sentence Beyond Statutory Limit – Modification of Sentence – Appellant, enraged over his wife leaving him due to his abusive behavior, attacked his mother-in-law with a billhook, causing grievous injuries, and inflicted simple injuries on his wife – Trial Court convicted him under Section 307 IPC and imposed life imprisonment, along with other sentences under Sections 498A, 324, and 506(II) IPC – High Court reduced sentence under Section 307 to 12 years RI but upheld convictions under other sections – Held: Section 307 IPC permits either life imprisonment or a maximum of 10 years RI with fine – Appellate court cannot impose a sentence beyond the statutory maximum if life imprisonment is not awarded – Sentence under Section 307 IPC reduced from 12 years RI to 7 years RI [Paras 5-8].

Jurisdiction of Appellate Court – Maximum Sentence Under Section 307 IPC – Error in Sentencing – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing 12 years RI, which is beyond the statutory maximum of 10 years if life imprisonment is avoided – Held: Relying on Jagat Bahadur v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1966) 2 SCR 822, and Amit Rana @ Koka v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1763, appellate courts cannot impose a punishment higher than the prescribed statutory limit – Supreme Court modifies sentence to 7 years RI under Section 307 IPC while affirming other sentences [Paras 6-8].

Principles of Sentencing – Consideration of Relationship and Injury Severity – The Court took into account the relationship between the appellant and the victims (his wife and mother-in-law) and the grievous nature of the injuries inflicted on the mother-in-law – Held: A balanced approach is required in sentencing, considering both deterrence and proportionality – While the act was premeditated and involved serious assault, a sentence of 7 years RI adequately serves the interest of justice [Para 9].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Partly Allowed – Sentence Modified – Supreme Court modifies the High Court’s sentence under Section 307 IPC from 12 years RI to 7 years RI – Convictions under Sections 498A, 324 IPC upheld – Sentences to run concurrently as directed by the High Court – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 8-9].

Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Benefit of Doubt – The prosecution relied on last seen theory, claiming that the deceased was last seen with the appellant in an auto on 29th November 2013 – Held: Inconsistent witness testimonies weakened the prosecution's claim – PW-23's statement regarding last seen was not corroborated by PW-2, PW-3, and PW-5 – Uncorroborated last seen evidence cannot establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 31-32].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Recovery – Section 27 Indian Evidence Act – Procedural Lapses – The prosecution relied on the recovery of a stone, a Gandasa (battleaxe), and gold chains at the instance of the appellant – Held: PW-22 admitted that he and another witness signed multiple seizure memos at the police station rather than at the scene of recovery, raising serious doubts about the authenticity of the recovery process – Further, PW-26, the diver who retrieved the stone and Gandasa, stated that he acted on police instructions and not at the behest of the appellant – Recovery loses evidentiary value due to procedural lapses [Paras 22-26].

Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Flaws in Identification of Gold Chains – Reliability in Question – The prosecution claimed the appellant concealed gold chains belonging to the deceased on the rooftop of his house – Held: TIP was unreliable as witnesses stated that only two gold chains were placed for identification, contradicting the official procedure – Further, PW-2 admitted receiving the gold chains at the police station a day before the TIP, raising concerns of pre-exposure – TIP not conducted per established legal norms – Identification evidence discarded [Paras 28-29].

Prosecution's Failure to Establish Chain of Circumstances – Acquittal Justified – The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, requiring an unbroken chain of events leading conclusively to guilt – Held: Prosecution failed to prove motive, last seen theory, and valid recoveries beyond reasonable doubt – Supreme Court applied the five golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 and found the chain of evidence incomplete – Conviction set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 16-20, 32-33].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Supreme Court set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court and Trial Court judgments convicting the appellant – Appellant directed to be released unless required in any other case – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 33-34].

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement of Compensation – Functional Disability – Future Prospects – Appellant, a 25-year-old labourer, suffered amputation of his right hand below the elbow due to an accident involving a thresher machine attached to a tractor driven negligently by Respondent No.2 – MACT awarded Rs.3,76,090/- considering 20% permanent disability and notional income of Rs.60,000/- per annum – High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.6,61,690/- by increasing permanent disability to 40% – Appellant challenged the High Court order seeking higher assessment of income and functional disability [Paras 3-9].

Assessment of Income – Minimum Wages as Basis – Appellant argued that his income should be assessed at Rs.6,850/- per month as per minimum wages for unskilled workers in 2016 instead of Rs.5,000/- taken by High Court – Supreme Court relied on Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC Online SC 1778, holding that minimum wage notifications can guide income assessment in the absence of documentary proof – Appellant’s income re-evaluated at Rs.6,850/- per month [Paras 10-11].

Functional Disability – Enhancement to 80% – Appellant contended that loss of his right hand rendered him completely incapable of working as a labourer, effectively amounting to 100% functional disability – Supreme Court found merit in the claim and increased the functional disability percentage to 80% – Held: Amputation significantly impairs employment prospects, warranting enhanced compensation [Paras 11-12].

Revised Compensation Calculation – Supreme Court recalculated compensation considering the revised income and 80% functional disability – Applied multiplier of 17 – Future prospects at 40% – Compensation increased to Rs.20,55,452/- under various heads, including medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet, pain and suffering, loss of income, and cost of artificial hand – Substantial increase from Rs.6,61,690/- awarded by the High Court [Paras 12].

Decision – Civil Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs.20,55,452/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal – Impugned orders modified accordingly – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 13].

Criminal Law - Income Tax Act – Prosecution for Late Filing of Returns – Compounding of Offences – Appellant delayed filing income tax returns for AY 2011-12 and AY 2013-14 – Show cause notices issued under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Appellant’s compounding application for AY 2011-12 allowed, but rejected for AY 2013-14 on the ground that it was a second offence – High Court upheld rejection – Supreme Court held that the offence for AY 2013-14 was committed before the show cause notice for AY 2011-12, making it the ‘first offence’ under 2014 Guidelines – Held: Compounding rejection was erroneous [Paras 3-10, 81].

Offence Under Section 276CC – Timing of Commission – Whether the offence is committed on the actual date of filing of the belated return or on the day immediately following the due date – Held: Offence is committed on the day following the due date for filing returns under Section 139(1) – Supreme Court relied on Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT (2004) 9 SCC 686 – Subsequent filing of returns does not negate the commission of the offence [Paras 27-36].

Compounding of Offences – Guidelines for Compounding, 2014 – Expression "First Offence" – Offence is compoundable if committed before the issuance of any show cause notice or departmental intimation – Offences voluntarily disclosed before detection also qualify as ‘first offence’ – Held: Appellant’s offence for AY 2013-14 was committed before the first show cause notice for AY 2011-12, making it eligible for compounding – Rejection by tax authorities and High Court was based on an erroneous reading of guidelines [Paras 60-74].

Nature of Guidelines – Discretionary or Mandatory? – Compounding not a right, but authorities must consider facts and circumstances of each case – 2014 Guidelines allow discretion for compounding even if offences do not fall under general compounding rules – Supreme Court relied on Sports Infratech P. Ltd. v. DCIT, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6543 – Held: Guidelines should be applied flexibly, and not mechanically, particularly in cases where intent to evade taxes is absent [Paras 76-80].

Decision – Supreme Court allowed appeal – High Court and Chief Commissioner’s rejection of compounding application set aside – Appellant directed to file fresh compounding application within two weeks – Authorities to decide within four weeks – Pending trial stayed – If compounding allowed, trial proceedings to abate; if rejected, trial to continue [Paras 82-85].

Consumer Law - Insurance Law – Rejection of Insurance Claim – Validity of National Permit – Non-Payment of Authorization Fee – Appellant’s insured truck caught fire due to a short circuit on 08.06.2014 while operating in Bihar – Insurance company rejected the claim, arguing that the national permit was not valid due to non-payment of the authorization fee beyond 14.10.2013 – Held: The permit was issued for a valid period (14.10.2012 to 13.10.2017) – The authorization fee was only required for inter-state travel, and since the accident occurred within Bihar, the insurer’s repudiation was arbitrary and unjustified – Supreme Court reinstates the State Commission’s decision directing settlement of the claim [Paras 6-8].

Consumer Protection – Insurance Claim Settlement – Unfair Denial of Benefits – The Supreme Court observed that the insurance company’s refusal to honor the claim on a technical ground led to unnecessary litigation – Held: The insurer’s conduct was unfair and against the principles of consumer protection – Repudiation of a claim must have a valid and reasonable basis – Insurance claim reinstated with 9% interest per annum from the date of the complaint until actual payment [Paras 8-9].

Interest on Delayed Settlement – Compensation for Unjustified Rejection – The claim was wrongfully denied in 2014, and despite the State Commission allowing the claim in 2017, the National Commission reversed it in 2020, leading to further delay – Held: Given the prolonged delay and financial loss suffered by the appellant, interest at 9% per annum is awarded on the insurance amount from the date of the complaint before the State Commission until final payment – Insurer directed to pay within 60 days [Para 9].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Insurance Claim with Interest Granted – Supreme Court sets aside the National Commission’s order – Directs the insurance company to process and pay the claim within 60 days along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the complaint before the State Commission until full payment – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 9].