Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Appeal against Conviction – Appellant's role in the murder was established – Appeal partially allowed - The appellant, along with co-accused, was convicted of murdering the victim due to a dispute over jaggery. The appellant was the sole convict as the co-accused were acquitted. The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, rejecting the acquittal request but modified the sentence to the period already served due to the appellant’s prolonged incarceration of over 14 years and good conduct in prison. However, the conviction under Section 34 IPC was set aside due to lack of evidence of common intention [Paras 2-5, 12, 18].

Evidence of Witnesses – Reliability of Ocular Evidence – Testimonies of eyewitnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 corroborated - The court found the depositions of the eyewitnesses credible, detailing the presence and role of the appellant in firing the fatal shot. The minor discrepancies noted by the defense were deemed immaterial to the overall case [Paras 10-13, 17].

Non-examination of Key Witnesses – Impact on Prosecution – No adverse inference - The failure to examine certain witnesses, including the investigating officer and key eyewitnesses, was found insufficient to discard the other overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution [Paras 14-16].

Sentence Modification – Good Conduct in Prison – Sentence reduced - The appellant had already served over 14 years, including time without remission, and exhibited good behavior during incarceration, leading to a reduction in his life sentence to the time already served [Paras 22-25].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Law – CIRP Deferral – Jurisdiction Under Article 226 – The appellant challenged the High Court’s order deferring the CIRP of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited after denying the respondents’ request for consolidation of CIRP with two other entities – Held: The High Court erred in deferring the CIRP despite refusing consolidation – The High Court’s direction to defer the CIRP under Article 226 is unwarranted as it breaches the discipline of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – CIRP deferral quashed [Paras 6-11].

Consolidation of CIRP – High Court Declined Relief – The respondents had sought consolidation of the CIRP of three corporate entities before the NCLT, which was rejected – The High Court also declined the same relief but, paradoxically, deferred the CIRP process – Held: The High Court had no basis to issue the deferral order after rejecting the primary relief, and such a direction is beyond the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 226 [Para 10].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The impugned order of the High Court directing the deferment of the CIRP is set aside – The CIRP shall continue as per the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [Paras 11-12].

Defamation – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – The appellant sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for defamation after making statements against respondent No. 2, calling him a "sexual predator" – Supreme Court held: The appellant, realizing his mistake, tendered an unconditional apology and agreed to publish the same in a leading newspaper and compensate the respondent with a token amount – Criminal proceedings quashed in the interest of both parties [Paras 1-4].

Unconditional Apology and Compensation – Resolution of Dispute – The Court accepted the appellant's offer of an unconditional apology to the respondent, to be published in "Daily Eenadu" and ordered a token compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for the mental agony caused by the defamatory allegations – Proceedings in CC No. 196 of 2019 and the related suit were quashed [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings in CC No. 196 of 2019 and Original Suit No. 1490/2018 pending before the courts in Telangana were quashed – Appellant to tender an unconditional apology and pay compensation to respondent No. 2 [Paras 9-11].

Criminal Law – Suspension of Sentence – Section 302 IPC – Bail Granted to Co-Accused – The appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for their involvement in the death of Babu Lal – The appellants argued that no overt act was attributed to them, and they only held the victim down while another co-accused delivered the fatal blow – Held: Considering the role of the appellants and distinguishing it from the main accused, as well as the fact that they are women with young children, the Court granted suspension of sentence and bail to the appellants, subject to conditions to be imposed by the Sessions Court.

Distinguishable Role of Co-Accused – Women Accused Granted Bail – The appellants, who are two women, were convicted along with others for murder – Since no direct act of violence was attributed to them and their role was limited to holding the victim, the Court found it appropriate to grant them bail, especially in light of their familial responsibilities, including one appellant who had given birth while previously incarcerated .

Decision:

Leave granted – Appeal allowed – The appellants are granted suspension of sentence and bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Sessions Court – They are required to appear before the court when directed by the High Court during the pending appeal.

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Prolonged Detention – PMLA Case – Bail Granted – The appellant had been in custody for over two years, facing charges under the PMLA based on an FIR that initially alleged non-scheduled offenses. With the addition of Section 384 IPC, the Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA. The Supreme Court, considering the prolonged detention and the lack of a scheduled offense at the time of filing the complaint, granted bail – Held: Continuation of custody would violate the appellant’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India [Paras 6-10].

Scheduled Offense Requirement under PMLA – FIR Analysis – The Court observed that the initial FIR registered under IPC Sections 186, 204, 353, and 120-B did not contain scheduled offenses. Even after the addition of Section 384 IPC, the charge-sheet failed to establish the commission of a scheduled offense, and therefore, the appellant’s detention under PMLA was unjustified [Paras 5-7].

Constitutional Rights – Article 21 – Right to Liberty and Prolonged Custody – The Court emphasized that prolonged detention without trial, especially when no scheduled offense was established at the time of filing the PMLA complaint, infringed upon the appellant's right to personal liberty under Article 21 [Para 8].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Bail granted to the appellant with conditions to be determined by the Special Court.

Income Tax Law – Revision of Returns – Limitation – Appellant filed revised returns multiple times for the assessment year 1989-90, the last of which was submitted on 29th October 1991 – Assessing Officer refused to consider the return, citing Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, which barred the revised return due to the lapse of the one-year time limit – Appeals were filed but the High Court upheld the decision, stating that the revised return could not be entertained as it was barred by limitation – Held: Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to consider claims made in a time-barred revised return [Paras 1-3].

Appellate Powers of Tribunal – Section 254 of the IT Act – Appellant contended that the Tribunal could consider claims omitted from the original return during assessment proceedings – Reliance placed on Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax – However, Tribunal did not invoke its powers under Section 254 and instead remanded the case to the Assessing Officer, who had no authority to consider the time-barred return – High Court upheld the decision, finding no fault in the Tribunal's approach [Paras 5-7].

Judgment: Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision affirmed – Revised return filed after the time limit could not be considered by the Assessing Officer – Tribunal erred in remanding the matter for reconsideration by the Assessing Officer, as it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the claim [Paras 9-11].

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Eligibility Criteria – Quashing of Selection Process – The appellant and others challenged the cancellation of the recruitment process for Junior Engineer (Civil) posts in Bihar, initiated through an advertisement dated 08.03.2019 – The State Government canceled the process following litigation on the eligibility of candidates with diplomas from universities not approved by AICTE – The High Court allowed the cancellation without fully adjudicating the issues – The Supreme Court held that altering the rules after the selection process violates established principles – Fresh merit list ordered with age relaxation provisions [Paras 1-30].

Doctrine of Acquiescence – Participation in Selection Process – Appellants argued that the writ petitioners, having participated in the recruitment process, could not challenge the eligibility criteria after being unsuccessful – The Supreme Court cited established precedents that altering criteria post-selection is impermissible, affirming the vested rights of successful candidates in the selection process [Paras 27-32].

Rule of Law – Arbitrary State Action – The cancellation of the recruitment process, despite completion and the preparation of a final select list, was deemed arbitrary and unjustified – The Court ordered the preparation of a fresh select list considering prior High Court directions and AICTE’s stand on eligibility, providing relief to candidates who were previously disqualified under the 2017 rules [Paras 30, 32].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Cancellation of the recruitment process set aside – Fresh select list to be prepared within three months, and appointments to follow within 30 days thereafter – Provision for age relaxation as a one-time measure for candidates affected by the delayed recruitment process [Paras 30-32].

Criminal Law – Conviction Reversal – Acquittal – The appellants were convicted by the High Court for abduction and murder under Sections 364/34 and 302/34 IPC – The Supreme Court reversed this conviction, holding that the High Court erred in overturning the Trial Court's acquittal of two accused (A-6, A-7) – The High Court’s decision lacked proper reasoning to reverse acquittals, especially when the Trial Court’s view was plausible – Appellants were acquitted as prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-30].

Witness Testimonies – Credibility of Eye-Witnesses – The testimonies of prosecution witnesses (PW18, PW2, PW4, and PW5) were inconsistent and unreliable – Discrepancies regarding their presence at the crime scene raised doubts – Non-examination of natural witnesses such as tenants and neighbors further weakened the prosecution’s case – The Court found that PW18’s statement regarding the involvement of A-6 and A-7 was an improvement over the FIR, casting serious doubt on the prosecution’s version [Paras 12-26].

Motive and Circumstantial Evidence – The prosecution’s case largely rested on circumstantial evidence, but the chain of evidence was incomplete – The presence of property disputes provided a motive, but this alone could not prove guilt – The prosecution failed to link the accused directly to the murder, and no reliable evidence of abduction was found – Thus, the Court ruled that the conviction for murder could not be sustained [Paras 27-35].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside – All seven appellants acquitted – They are to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case [Paras 35-40].

Contract Law – Tender Process – Rejection of Technical Bid – Appellant’s technical bid was rejected by BCCL for non-compliance with Clause 10 of the NIT, while Respondent No. 8’s bid was accepted despite non-submission of essential documents at the time of bidding – Held: The rejection of the appellant’s bid was arbitrary and discriminatory as Respondent No. 8 was allowed to submit shortfall documents after the bid opening – The impugned decision was set aside, and BCCL was directed to initiate a fresh tender process [Paras 19-21].

Judicial Review – Arbitrariness in Government Contracts – The Supreme Court reiterated that while courts exercise restraint in reviewing administrative actions, government bodies must ensure fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination in the award of contracts – BCCL's decision-making process lacked transparency and violated the principle of equal treatment of bidders, warranting judicial intervention [Paras 22-23].

Scope of Judicial Review – Government Tenders – The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, focusing on the decision-making process rather than the merits of the contract – However, deviations from mandatory tender conditions must apply equally to all bidders, and any element of arbitrariness or discrimination in the process justifies interference [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – BCCL's rejection of the appellant's technical bid and the award of the contract to Respondent No. 8 were quashed – BCCL directed to initiate a fresh tender process in accordance with law [Paras 20, 21, 24].