Consumer Protection – Delayed Possession of Property – Appeal against National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's Order – Supreme Court sets aside part of Commission's order allowing respondent-developer to charge interest at 9% p.a. on balance amount from appellants. Appeal arises from delayed possession of a flat by the respondent-developer. Commission partly allowed appellants' claim, but imposed interest on balance amount from 14th November, 2017. Supreme Court holds that charging interest from appellants is unjustified as possession was not delivered by the scheduled date. Orders respondent to convey outstanding amount within two months and handover possession within 30 days of final payment. [Paras 1-8]

Directions Issued – Execution of Conveyance Deed and Possession – Supreme Court directs respondent-developer to issue a statement of account, including compensation, and to execute conveyance deed and handover possession of the unit upon settlement of the account, without further delay. The imposition of 9% interest on balance amount by Commission set aside. [Paras 6-7]

Justice and Fairness in Consumer Disputes – Court emphasizes the protection of consumer rights and equitable treatment in cases of delayed possession, ensuring fairness and justice to homebuyers. [Para 6]

Order – Appeal disposed of in terms above; pending application, if any, disposed of. [Para 8-9]

Murder – Conviction and Sentencing – Criminal Appeal against High Court Judgment Upholding Trial Court's Conviction – Appellants convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court also upheld conviction under Sections 324 and 326 IPC – Supreme Court found no merit in appeal, confirmed High Court's judgment, and dismissed the appeal. [Paras 1-37]

Homicide – Evidence and Findings – Prosecution relied on 31 witnesses, including eyewitnesses and medical evidence, to establish homicidal death – Majority of neighbors turned hostile, but key witnesses including the deceased's family members and a medical expert substantiated prosecution's case – Supreme Court held prosecution successfully established homicidal nature of death and appellants' roles. [Paras 12-20, 25-27]

Private Defense – Rejection of Claim – Appellants claimed right of private defense – Supreme Court found no provocation or threat from the deceased to justify appellants' brutal attack – Held that appellants' use of excessive force negated claim of private defense. [Paras 24-34]

Intention to Kill – Assessment – Supreme Court found appellants had the intention to cause death or grievous injury – Relied on established principles and past judgments, confirming that appellants’ actions were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, thus satisfying the elements for murder under Section 300 IPC. [Paras 33-35]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with lower courts' decisions – Directed appellants to surrender, revoking the bail previously granted. [Para 37]

Appeal Against Acquittal – Standard for Interference by Appellate Court – Held – High Court erred in reversing Trial Court's acquittal without proving that the verdict was perverse or the only conclusion from evidence was guilt – Standard for appellate interference not met, leading to restoration of Trial Court's acquittal. [Para 6, 10]

Assessment of Evidence – Material Witnesses and Testimony – Examined – Discrepancies in statements and timelines of key witnesses, including presence at crime scene and injury reports, undermine prosecution's case – Presence of prior enmity also noted – Trial Court's decision to discredit witness testimony upheld as a plausible conclusion. [Para 8, 9]

Burden of Proof – Misapplication by High Court – High Court incorrectly shifted burden of proof onto appellants, contrary to established legal principles – Accused not required to prove innocence or falsify prosecution's case without statutory presumption or reverse onus clauses. [Para 7]

Decision – Restoration of Trial Court's Acquittal – Appellants' acquittal by Trial Court restored, with High Court's judgment set aside due to misapplication of principles regarding appeal against acquittal and burden of proof – Bail bonds of second appellant cancelled, first appellant directed to be released unless required in another case. [Para 10, 11]

Enhancement of Compensation in Motor Accident Claim – Civil Appeal for enhanced compensation from Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order – Tribunal's award enhanced by High Court – Appellant seeks further enhancement. [Paras 1-3]

Facts and Background – Road accident dated 23.04.2013 – Appellant sustained injuries leading to 17% whole body disability – Compensation for income loss, attendant charges, pain and suffering, and transportation contested. [Paras 4, 6, 11-12]

Assessment of Permanent Disability – Tribunal's reduction of disability percentage from 17% to 10% without adequate reasoning, contrary to medical evidence – Held, tribunal and High Court erred in not accepting medical evidence fully – Disability reassessed at 17%. [Para 10]

Income Assessment – Monthly income of appellant, a mechanic with 30 years of experience, undervalued – Held, income should be assessed at Rs.6,500 per month, not Rs.3,500 as determined by Tribunal and High Court. [Para 11]

Compensation Calculation – Total compensation for loss of future income, attendant charges, pain and suffering, transportation reassessed – Enhanced from Rs.1,27,700 to Rs.1,92,820. [Paras 11-13]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced with directions to Insurance Company for payment – No order as to costs. [Paras 14-15]

Improper Acceptance of Nomination – Challenge to Election of Karikho Kri – Allegations of non-disclosure of assets and government dues – High Court declared election void but Supreme Court reversed decision, holding that disclosures were substantial and non-disclosures did not materially affect the election [Paras 9, 13, 27, 34, 43, 50].

Non-Disclosure of Assets – Analysis – The Court held that non-disclosure of certain assets, specifically three vehicles that remained registered in the names of Karikho Kri’s family members, did not amount to ‘undue influence’ under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It reasoned that the actual ownership of the vehicles had been transferred prior to Kri’s nomination, and mere registration in family members’ names did not equate to current ownership or possession. This non-disclosure was not deemed significant enough to influence the election outcome. [Para 28, 50]

Role of ‘No Dues Certificate’ and Government Accommodation in Nomination Process – The Court found that Karikho Kri’s failure to disclose his previous occupancy of government accommodation and to submit a ‘No Dues Certificate’ did not constitute a defect of a substantial nature. It noted that there were no outstanding dues and that this non-disclosure was not significantly material to his nomination or the election’s outcome. [Paras 42-43]

Disclosure of Municipal/Property Taxes – Partial non-disclosure by Karikho Kri – Considered not pressing by Nuney Tayang’s counsel and not found to be of substantial nature affecting the election [Paras 11, 49].

Decision – Upholding of Election of Karikho Kri – The Supreme Court has allowed Civil Appeal No. 4615 of 2023 filed by Karikho Kri, thereby upholding his election as the returned candidate from 44 Tezu (ST) Assembly Constituency in Arunachal Pradesh. The Court set aside the judgment of the Itanagar Bench of the High Court, which had declared Karikho Kri's election void based on various allegations of non-disclosure. The Court found that the grounds under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, were not sufficiently established to warrant the invalidation of his election. [Paras 50-51]

Title and Possession – Suit for Partition – Inheritance under Modified Mitakshara Law – Appeal from High Court decision granting partition – Supreme Court reverses decision, upholding First Appellate Court’s findings. Clarifies legal heirs’ entitlement and lease agreements related to property. Affirms that Chiruthey lost her rights in her first husband’s property upon remarriage, and her subsequent lease agreements post-1910 cannot confer ownership. [Paras 1-19]

Lease Agreements – Legal Validity – Examination of back-to-back lease transactions from 1910 – Supreme Court holds transactions as unusual but valid, lacks evidence of illegality. However, reiterates that Chiruthey, having lost rights upon remarriage, cannot pass valid title through these leases. [Para 17]

Rights of Remarried Widow – Application of Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856 – Court finds that Chiruthey’s remarriage led to loss of any rights in her first husband’s property. Holds that rights from subsequent lease agreements post-1910 cannot establish property ownership. [Paras 8, 17, 19]

Decision – Dismissal of Suit for Partition – Supreme Court sets aside High Court judgment, upholds First Appellate Court’s dismissal of suit. Concludes that Chiruthey and, by extension, her son with Neelakandan had no valid claim to property ownership for partition. [Para 19]

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in NDPS Act Case – Detailed Analysis of Procedural Non-Compliance – Supreme Court overturns conviction of Smt. Najmunisha and Abdul Hamid Chandmiya in narcotics case under NDPS Act. Elaborates on failures in lawful search and seizure, highlighting non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements of Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act. Identifies flaws in the prosecution’s approach: absence of prior written information or personal knowledge of Gazetted Officer justifying search at accused’s residence, discrepancies in raiding party’s testimony, and absence of proper authorization. These procedural lapses deemed sufficient to question the prosecution’s case integrity, leading to the acquittal of the accused. [Paras 28, 35, 36, 46, 47]

Inadmissibility of Confessional Statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act – Supreme Court’s Rationale – Relies on the landmark decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, reinforcing the principle that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as confessionals in trials. Clarifies the scope and limits of powers conferred on officers under Sections 41 and 42, emphasizing that these officers do not qualify as police officers authorized to investigate or file a police report, thereby rendering any confessional statements made to them inadmissible for conviction under NDPS Act. [Paras 50-52]

Upholding Fundamental Rights and Ensuring Fair Trial – Constitutional Imperatives – The judgment underscores the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution in ensuring a just and fair trial. Critiques the investigation for failing to observe due process, adversely impacting the credibility of the prosecution’s case and leading to a violation of the accused’s fundamental rights. Highlights the criticality of adhering to statutory safeguards in search and seizure procedures, as a balance between individual rights and social security. [Paras 24, 48]

Decision –  Acquittal – Appeals allowed – Convictions set aside due to procedural lapses and inadmissibility of key evidence – Benefit of doubt accorded to the appellants [Para 54].

Acquittal - Dishonor of Cheques – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Criminal Appeals against Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Cases - Appeals against High Court judgment upholding acquittal of respondent for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner, a partnership firm, alleged issuance of cheques by respondent that were dishonoured due to insufficient funds, claiming financial assistance provided to respondent. High Court found no conclusive evidence of legally enforceable debt or liability on respondent’s part. Supreme Court finds no perversity in findings of High Court and First Appellate Court, dismissing the appeals. [Paras 1-6, 12]

Burden of Proof in Cheque Dishonour Cases – Analysis – In cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the 1881 Act, once the signature on cheque and receipt of money in respondent’s account are established, burden shifts to accused to disprove the presumption of debt or liability. However, Supreme Court upholds High Court’s finding that in this case, the presumption of guilt was successfully rebutted by the respondent, with the petitioner failing to prove existence of a legally enforceable debt. [Paras 7-9, 11]

Interference with Acquittal – Scope under Article 136 of the Constitution – Supreme Court’s interference with concurrent findings of fact in acquittal cases is limited. Finds no perversity or absence of evidence in the concurrent findings of First Appellate Court and High Court. Dismisses petitions as findings were neither perverse nor based on no evidence. [Paras 11, 12]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals against Acquittal – Supreme Court dismisses the petitions, affirming the decisions of the High Court and the First Appellate Court. No substantial point of law warranting interference under Article 136. [Para 12-14]

Settlement and Discharge in Cheque Dishonour Case – Initial agreement in Lok Adalat failed due to non-fulfillment of financial obligations by the appellant – Subsequent payments made, including interest for delayed payment – Supreme Court focuses on substantial compliance and overall justice rather than strict adherence to procedural timelines – Held, the intent of the parties was to resolve the matter through financial restitution, which was fulfilled by the appellant. [Paras 1-15]

Compounding of Offences Under Section 138 of NI Act – Compounding at initial stages encouraged, but permissible at any stage – Despite full payment, complainant unwilling to compound the offence – Supreme Court emphasizes the compensatory over punitive aspect of the law, highlights overcrowding of courts with cheque dishonour cases – Consent of complainant necessary for compounding under current legal framework – Court finds continuation of criminal proceedings unwarranted after full restitution. [Paras 11-13]

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Considering the appellant's compliance with payment directives, including the additional interest for delayed payment, and lack of fraudulent intent from the start – Court quashes all criminal proceedings against the appellant, including the pending criminal appeals against his conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act – Exercise of powers under Article 142 to do complete justice – Directed trial court to hand over the deposited Demand Drafts to the complainant. [Paras 14-15]