Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of Arun Kumar with a knife, sustaining multiple stab wounds – Trial court’s judgment affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court examines whether non-compliance with Section 313, Cr.P.C., during the examination of the accused resulted in material prejudice. The court found that the trial court and the High Court failed to ensure proper examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C., leading to a vitiated trial [Paras 1-28].

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. – Right to Fair Trial – Emphasizes the mandatory nature of examining the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C., to put all incriminating evidence to the accused for their explanation – The court found that crucial incriminating circumstances (appellant’s exhortation to kill the deceased and his act of holding the deceased to enable stabbing) were not put to the appellant during his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. – This non-compliance was held to have caused material prejudice, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The court reiterates that the failure to comply with mandatory procedures can vitiate the trial, particularly when it causes material prejudice to the accused [Paras 10-25].

Witness Testimony – Eyewitnesses – Evidence from eyewitnesses, including the deceased’s relatives, was crucial in establishing the sequence of events leading to the murder – The testimonies included details of the appellant’s actions and exhortations, which were not properly presented to the appellant for explanation during the Section 313, Cr.P.C., examination – The Supreme Court noted that the omission to question the appellant on these crucial points deprived him of the opportunity to explain and thus caused prejudice [Paras 3, 20].

Burden of Proof – Prejudice and Miscarriage of Justice – The court discusses the burden on the accused to demonstrate material prejudice resulting from non-compliance with Section 313, Cr.P.C. – The court found that the failure to put crucial incriminating evidence to the appellant directly impacted the findings of guilt under Section 302, IPC, with the aid of Section 34, IPC – The omission resulted in an unfair trial, justifying the setting aside of the conviction [Paras 10-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of the offences alleged against him – Immediate release ordered if not required in connection with any other case – The court notes that this judgment does not disturb the conviction of the co-accused as their appeals are to be dealt with separately [Para 27-28].

University Administration – Appointment of Vice-Chancellors – State of West Bengal’s appointment of 24 Vice-Chancellors in 2022 challenged – High Court found appointments invalid due to non-compliance with UGC regulations – Supreme Court constituted Search-cum-Selection Committees to ensure transparent and fair selection process – Directed to adhere to statutory procedures and involvement of UGC nominees [Paras 1-24].

Search Committee – Composition and Powers – Search-cum-Selection Committees chaired by Former Chief Justice of India Justice Uday Umesh Lalit – Empowered to shortlist and recommend candidates – Emphasized importance of competence, integrity, and adherence to statutory requirements – Mandated cooperation between State Government and Chancellor for smooth appointment process [Paras 12-24].

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Invoked to constitute Search-cum-Selection Committees for all state-aided universities in West Bengal – Aimed to resolve administrative stalemate and ensure compliance with legal standards – Court sought to maintain transparency and fairness in university administration [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Search-cum-Selection Committees constituted – State Government directed to issue advertisements for Vice-Chancellor positions – Process to be completed within specified timelines – Status report to be filed by State of West Bengal on compliance with Court's directions [Paras 14-22].

Arbitration Law – Remand by Appellate Court – The Division Bench's power to remand under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act – Held that the Division Bench was correct in remanding the matter for reconsideration as the Single Judge did not address several issues and provided inadequate reasoning – Appellate court can remand for fresh consideration when the lower court’s decision is unreasoned and incomplete [Paras 1-15].

Specific Performance – Continuous Supervision – Grant of specific performance in cases requiring continuous court supervision – Held that such contracts fall within the exceptions under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act – The arbitrator's award for specific performance involving slum redevelopment with detailed continuous acts and permissions was improper [Paras 10-12].

Damages – Evidence and Natural Justice – Award of damages must be based on comprehensive evidence – The arbitrator’s reliance on external news reports post-arguments without the parties' knowledge violates natural justice – Arbitrator found to have applied different standards of proof to the parties [Paras 11-12].

Scope of Judicial Review – Arbitration Awards – Interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 and appeal under Section 37 – Courts should not reassess the merits but ensure no excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice – Division Bench correctly refrained from detailed re-evaluation and ordered remand due to inadequate reasoning by the Single Judge [Paras 15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Matter remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration with a directive for comprehensive reasoning addressing all issues raised by the parties – Interim orders to continue till fresh hearing.

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of Tillu @ Devi Singh and assault on Tularam – Trial court’s judgment upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court dismisses appeal, confirming the Appellant’s involvement and presence at the scene based on consistent eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapon [Paras 1-70].

Eyewitness Testimony – Consistency and Credibility – Supreme Court emphasizes the reliability of eyewitness accounts, noting the consistent identification of the Appellant and the corroborative medical evidence – Reiterates that minor discrepancies do not vitiate the core of prosecution’s case [Paras 20-51].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility under Section 32(1) of IEA – Statement of deceased Tularam recorded by Investigating Officer treated as dying declaration despite absence of medical fitness certificate – Court underscores that procedural lapses do not invalidate otherwise credible and voluntary dying declarations [Paras 62-69].

Disclosure Statement and Recovery – Application of Section 27 of IEA – Knife used in the crime recovered based on the Appellant’s disclosure statement – Court validates admissibility and relevance of recovery as crucial corroborative evidence [Paras 52-58].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender if on bail; otherwise, to serve the remainder of the sentence in custody [Paras 70-71].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Desertion – The appellant-husband sought a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion following a failed decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The Trial Court granted the divorce, but the High Court reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had been deserted by the respondent without reasonable cause, meeting the grounds for desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act [Paras 1-16].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Compliance and Consequences – The appellant's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was granted by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court, but the respondent failed to comply. This non-compliance was critical in establishing desertion [Paras 13-14].

Alimony – Lump Sum Settlement – The appellant's offer to pay Rs. 30 lakhs as a lump sum alimony was deemed reasonable. The decree for divorce would come into effect only upon payment of this amount [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the decree of divorce on grounds of desertion. The decree would become effective upon payment of Rs. 30 lakhs to the respondent as alimony [Paras 16].

Income Tax – TDS – Applicability of Section 206C – Assessee engaged in the manufacture and sale of arrack – Auctioning of retail vending rights by the state government – Assessing officer held that income tax should have been collected at source from the liquor vendors – High Court upheld the assessing officer’s decision – Supreme Court quashed the orders, stating that excise contractors are not "buyers" as defined under Section 206C​​.

Natural Justice – Principles of Natural Justice – Notice and Hearing – Orders under Section 206C(6) were passed without proper opportunity of hearing – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of following principles of natural justice even if the statute is silent​​.

Income Tax – Section 206C of the Income Tax Act – Overview of statutory requirements including TDS collection, payment to central government, and conditions under which tax must be collected​​.

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the High Court set aside – Supreme Court held that Mysore Sales International Ltd. is not liable to collect TDS from the excise contractors under Section 206C​​.

Criminal Law – Conviction Reversed – The appellant was initially acquitted by the Trial Court but convicted by the High Court for murder and house trespass under Sections 302 and 450 read with Section 34 of IPC – Supreme Court found discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of identification parade (TIP) for the appellant who was a stranger to the witnesses – Conviction set aside, appellant acquitted by giving benefit of doubt [Paras 1-19].

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility and Contradictions – PW-1 and PW-2 identified the appellant as one of the assailants – Supreme Court found inconsistencies in their testimonies and discrepancies with the post-mortem report – Court noted absence of ligature marks on the back of the neck, contradicting the witnesses' account of strangulation [Paras 2-14].

Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Importance and Absence – No TIP conducted for the appellant who was unknown to the eyewitnesses – Court held that absence of TIP weakened the prosecution's case, as identification in court without prior TIP is inherently weak [Paras 8, 14-16].

Post-Mortem Report – Discrepancies with Witness Accounts – Post-mortem report did not fully support the eyewitnesses' version of the strangulation method – Ligature marks were not found encircling the neck as described by the witnesses, casting doubt on the prosecution's case [Paras 13-14].

Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution's Inability to Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Supreme Court emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Given the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, the appellant was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentencing by the High Court set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds and sureties discharged [Para 19].

Specific Performance – Refund of Advance Sale Consideration – Appellant sought specific performance of a sale agreement or, alternatively, refund of the advance paid – Trial Court directed refund of Rs. 18,00,000/- – High Court reduced the amount to Rs. 3,00,000/- – Supreme Court examines the evidence to determine the correctness of the High Court's findings [Paras 1-13].

Evidence – Proof of Payment – Supreme Court finds that the plaintiff failed to provide positive evidence to corroborate the payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- as additional advance – Agreement and endorsement scrutinized – Lack of supporting documents and inconsistencies noted [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upholds the High Court's modification of the refund amount – Confirms that the plaintiff proved payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- only, not Rs. 18,00,000/- as claimed [Para 13].

Service Law – Reservation for Disabled Candidates – The respondent, a 100% visually impaired candidate, appeared in the CSE-2008 but was denied an appointment – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court directed the Union of India to fill backlog vacancies as per the PWD Act, 1995 – Supreme Court upholds CAT and High Court decisions, directs the Union of India to reconsider the backlog vacancies and accommodate the respondent and other similarly placed candidates [Paras 1-5].

Compliance with PWD Act – The Supreme Court observed that the Union of India failed to implement the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995, resulting in unfilled backlog vacancies – It was noted that IRS (IT) and IRS (C&E) services were not exempted from the reservation for the visually impaired as per Section 33 of the PWD Act – Court directed the Union of India to redo the exercise of ascertaining backlog vacancies for visually impaired candidates [Paras 6-11].

Section 36 of the PWD Act – The Court emphasized the need for interchange of vacancies among different categories of disabilities as per Section 36 of the PWD Act to ensure that eligible candidates are accommodated – This was particularly important given the gross default by the Union of India in implementing the PWD Act provisions [Paras 10-15].

Decision – Appeal disposed of with directions – Union of India to consider respondent no.1 and other eligible visually impaired candidates for appointment against backlog vacancies within three months – Appointments to be prospective, with no arrears of salary or seniority benefits – Directions issued as a one-time measure under Article 142 of the Constitution of India [Paras 15-15(e)].