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.

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.

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 – 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].

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].

Tender Law – Eligibility Criteria – Joint Venture Experience – Proportionate Experience – Arbitrary Rejection of Bid – Appellant disqualified at technical evaluation stage on ground that experience certificate pertained to joint venture and not in individual name – Tender condition required “each prime contractor in the same name and style” to have completed similar work – No clause in NIT expressly excluding experience gained as member of joint venture – Held: In absence of explicit exclusion, proportionate experience of joint venture partner must be considered – Rejection held arbitrary and violative of Article 14 [Paras 17–19, 23–24, 28–29].

Joint Venture – Concept and Legal Position – Experience of Constituents – Application of New Horizons Principle – Joint venture experience is experience of its constituents – Commercial prudence test requires examining capacity and credentials of persons behind the bidder – Failure to consider constituent experience renders decision irrational – Reliance placed on New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India and Ganpati PV–Talleres Alegria Track Pvt. Ltd. [Paras 21–22, 26–27].

Interpretation of Tender Conditions – Legal Certainty – Ambiguity in Eligibility Clauses – Tender conditions must be clear, unambiguous and explicit – State cannot reject bid based on unstated or implied disqualifications – Vagueness leads to arbitrary exclusion and unequal treatment – Doctrine of level playing field reaffirmed [Paras 24–26].

Judicial Review – Deference to Tendering Authority – Limits – Courts ordinarily defer to interpretation of tendering authority – However, where interpretation is irrational, arbitrary or produces absurd results, constitutional courts must intervene – Deference doctrine not absolute [Para 27].

Prime Contractor – Meaning – Common Parlance Test – Prime contractor refers to tenderer responsible for execution – Where bidder demonstrates execution capacity through proportionate joint venture experience, exclusion without express prohibition unjustified [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court of Chhattisgarh dated 04/04/2025 set aside – Disqualification order dated 19/03/2025 quashed – Respondents directed to reconsider appellant’s bid by accepting proportionate experience as joint venture partner – No order as to costs [Paras 29–31].

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Section 45A – Jurisdiction – Preconditions – Determination of contribution – Corporation invoked Section 45A to assess contribution for period 1988–1992 – Employer had produced ledgers, cash books, vouchers, contractor records and returns and had participated in multiple personal hearings – Held: Section 45A can be invoked only when there is complete non-production of records under Section 44 or obstruction to inspection under Section 45 – Mere inadequacy or dissatisfaction with records does not amount to non-production – Invocation of Section 45A in such circumstances is without jurisdiction [Paras 24–27, 30–31].

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Section 45A vs Section 75 – Distinct statutory fields – Section 45A is a special and exceptional provision providing for best-judgment determination in cases of default or obstruction – Where records are produced and cooperation is forthcoming, assessment must be undertaken through adjudicatory mechanism under Section 75 – Section 45A is not an alternative assessment mechanism available at the discretion of the Corporation [Paras 20–22, 24–26].

Limitation – Section 77(1A)(b) – Five-year bar – Applicability – Proviso to Section 77(1A)(b) applies to claims initiated by the Corporation before the Employees’ Insurance Court – Though Section 45A per se does not prescribe limitation, its invocation is conditioned on jurisdictional facts – Corporation cannot bypass limitation under Section 77 by wrongly resorting to Section 45A when statutory conditions are absent [Paras 22–24, 28–29].

Appellate Review – Error of jurisdiction – Employees’ Insurance Court and High Court failed to examine whether conditions precedent for invoking Section 45A existed – Acceptance of production of records and cooperation by employer rendered Section 45A proceedings unsustainable – Orders passed by Corporation, Employees’ Insurance Court and High Court vitiated by jurisdictional error [Paras 25, 29–31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 17.04.2000 passed by ESI Corporation under Section 45A set aside – Order dated 06.07.2015 of Employees’ Insurance Court and judgment dated 12.10.2023 of Madras High Court set aside – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Appeal arose from rejection of petition seeking quashing of Criminal Case No. IX of 2024 arising out of FIR No.177 of 2023 registered at Mahila Thana, Mathura – Parties informed Supreme Court that dispute stood amicably settled – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings unnecessary in view of comprehensive settlement between spouses [Paras 2–3].

Settlement Between Parties – Comprehensive Resolution – Husband and wife appeared in person before Court – Joint application filed recording full and final settlement – Agreement for payment of Rs.30,00,000/- by husband to wife towards permanent alimony – Demand drafts of Rs.15,00,000/- each acknowledged – Undertaking given to withdraw all civil and criminal cases pending against each other and family members [Paras 3–5, Tables at pp. 4–5].

Article 142 – Extraordinary Powers – Dissolution of Marriage – Marriage found to have irretrievably broken down – Supreme Court invoked powers under Article 142 to dissolve marriage by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act – Registry directed to draw up decree of dissolution – Held: Ends of justice warranted complete closure of matrimonial dispute [Paras 5–6].

Withdrawal and Closure of Proceedings – Binding Directions – Numerous criminal, civil and matrimonial proceedings pending before various courts and authorities detailed in tabular form – Direction issued that all such cases shall stand closed upon production of certified copy of order – Parties bound by undertakings recorded by Court [Paras 5–6].

Ancillary Directions – Social Media Conduct – Parties undertook to remove all photographs and videos relating to each other and their family members from social media platforms and not to upload any such content in future – Undertakings accepted and recorded [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.177 of 2023 and all connected cases directed to be closed – Marriage between appellant No.3 and respondent No.2 dissolved by exercise of powers under Article 142 – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 6–7].

Arbitration – Section 11 – Consortium Agreements – Existence of Arbitration Agreement – Referral to Arbitral Tribunal Upheld – First respondent (Tecpro Systems Ltd.), a member of a three-party consortium, invoked arbitration individually under Clause 22.2 of General Conditions of Contract – Appellant objected that only the Consortium could invoke arbitration, not individual member – Supreme Court held: At referral stage under Section 11(6-A), court’s role is limited to prima facie satisfaction of existence of arbitration agreement – Complex issues of party status, authority, consortium dissolution, and maintainability are to be adjudicated by Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 – Held: Prima facie arbitration agreement existed and invocation not barred at referral stage – High Court order constituting Tribunal upheld [Paras 2, 14-19, 21].

Arbitration – Consortium Member’s Standing – Joinder of Non-Signatory – Prima Facie Test – Kompetenz-Kompetenz – Court emphasized limited jurisdiction under Section 11(6-A) – Referral court need not decide whether the member is a “veritable party” or “legal successor” to consortium – Such issues to be examined by AT applying doctrines of competence-competence and group of companies – Reference to Cox & Kings, Duro Felguera and Interplay Constitution Bench cases – Held: Consortium dissolution, insolvency, or loss of leadership by member does not automatically preclude referral – No “mini-trial” to be held at referral stage [Paras 15-18].

Contract Law – Incorporation by Reference – Arbitration Clause in GCC Validly Incorporated – Arbitration clause in GCC validly incorporated into Purchase Orders through reference – Despite separate jurisdiction clause in POs, not inconsistent with arbitration – Held: Arbitration clause survives as operative mechanism under composite contract – Distinguished from separate contractual regime argument [Paras 11.1, 14].

Judicial Discipline – Similar Arbitration Already Proceeding in Related Matter – Judicial Consistency Emphasized – Supreme Court noted similar arbitration proceedings were allowed in related case involving Telangana State Power Generation Corp. – Objections there also dismissed – Held: No reason to adopt contrary view when consortium and contract structure are materially the same [Paras 11.3, 20].

Decision: Civil Appeals dismissed – Order appointing Arbitral Tribunal affirmed – Tribunal to decide all objections including maintainability under Section 16.