Conviction for Murder and Disappearance of Evidence – Conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC for murder of Sushildhar Dubey – Sentenced to life imprisonment by Sessions Court and confirmed by High Court – Based on circumstantial evidence. [Para 1]

Factual Background – Appellant and deceased were related and cohabitants of village Amgoan – Frequently consumed liquor together – Deceased last seen alive with appellant on 29^th September 1993 – Dead body found next day on road – Prosecution case hinged on circumstantial evidence, primarily last seen theory, recovery of murder weapon, and medical evidence. [Paras 2, 6-7]

Appellant’s Submission – Challenged the reliability of last seen together circumstance, questioning the evidence of weapon recovery and absence of motive – Argued for the possibility of accidental death, citing evidence of PW-7 and PW-15. [Para 3]

Prosecution’s Argument – Supported the judgment, stressing the discovery of the deceased soon after being last seen with appellant and the recovery of weapon used in the assault. [Para 4]

Supreme Court’s Assessment – Applied principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Requirements for conviction not fully satisfied. [Para 5]

Weak Last Seen Theory – Regular habit of deceased drinking with appellant, absence of motive or altercation, and deceased’s company with appellant not unusual – Circumstantial evidence weakens the last seen together theory. [Para 7]

Unproved Weapon Recovery – Evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 fails to conclusively establish the recovery of murder weapon at appellant’s instance – Memorandum of appellant’s statement not duly proved. [Para 8-9]

Alternative Theory of Accidental Death – PW-7’s observation of glass pieces at the incident site and PW-15’s admission regarding the possibility of injuries being caused by glass lend credibility to accidental death theory. [Paras 10-11]

Conclusion and Decision – Circumstances not conclusively pointing to appellant’s guilt – Existence of reasonable doubt – Acquittal of the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC – Bail bonds cancelled. [Paras 12-13]

Repudiation of Insurance Claim – Analysis of Material Suppression – Appellant’s claim repudiated by respondent insurance company on the grounds of non-disclosure of pre-existing insurance policies held by the insured-deceased – NCDRC upheld repudiation – Supreme Court finds repudiation to be unjustified due to lack of adequate evidence supporting respondent’s claim of other existing insurance policies – Impugned NCDRC order set aside. [Paras 48-52]

Interpretation of Queries in Insurance Proposal Form – Ambiguity and Contra Proferentem Rule – Queries in the insurance proposal form concerning pre-existing policies interpreted – Application of contra proferentem rule leads to finding that the insured-deceased did not suppress material facts in the insurance application form – Respondents failed to prove fraudulent suppression by the insured-deceased. [Paras 39-42, 52]

Burden of Proof in Insurance Claims – Onus lies on the insurer to prove allegations of non-disclosure or suppression of material facts – Respondents failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate their claim of existing policies – Merely providing a tabulation of information without corroboration does not satisfy the burden of proof. [Paras 47-51]

Applicability of Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 – Ascertaining Material Suppression and Fraudulent Intent – In light of Section 45, the court finds that the insurer has not proven that the insured-deceased had fraudulently given false information regarding pre-existing policies – Insufficient evidence to demonstrate knowledge of suppression by the insured-deceased. [Paras 16-17, 35-37, 51]

Direction for Payment of Insurance Claim – Court directs respondent insurance company to pay the appellant the claimed amounts under both insurance policies with interest – Insurance claims amounting to Rs. 7,50,000/- and Rs. 9,60,000/- to be paid with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing the complaint. [Para 53]

Acquittal – Murder- Circumstantial Evidence – Reliance on Memorandum Under Section 27 of Evidence Act – Appeals challenging High Court’s judgment affirming convictions for murder and conspiracy – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence including memorandum statements under Section 27 of Evidence Act – Discovery of deceased’s body in pond at Bhatgaon and involvement of appellants [Paras 3, 12-14].

Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies – Failure to Establish Discovery Solely on Accused’s Information – Contradictions in witness statements regarding the discovery of the body – Witnesses knew about the murder and body’s location prior to the recording of appellants’ statements under Section 27 – Statements possibly created post-facto [Paras 15-21, 23].

Section 27 of Evidence Act – Inadequate Evidence of Discovery – Investigating Officer’s (IO) testimony insufficient to prove discovery of the body based solely on appellants’ information – Lack of clear nexus between the information provided by appellants and discovery of the body [Paras 24-25].

Failure to Establish Complete Chain of Circumstances – Prosecution unable to prove a complete chain of circumstances leading exclusively to appellants’ guilt – Essential for conviction based on circumstantial evidence [Para 26].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Convictions by High Court and Trial Court set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges [Para 27].

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]