Criminal Law – Bail under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Appellant, a former Minister in Tamil Nadu, was arrested for alleged money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA – Accused of collecting large sums by promising job opportunities in the Transport Department – Bail application rejected by the High Court – On appeal, the Supreme Court considered the appellant's incarceration for over 15 months and the delay in trial – Noted that more than 2000 accused and 600 witnesses in connected scheduled offences made timely completion of the trial unlikely – Held: Continued detention would violate the appellant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1-31].

Witness Tampering – Apprehension of Tampering with Evidence – Solicitor General argued that appellant, holding significant political influence, could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses – Supreme Court observed that most evidence is documentary and already seized, reducing the risk of tampering – Imposed stringent conditions to mitigate concerns, including regular reporting to enforcement authorities and restriction on contacting witnesses [Paras 9-31].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Appellant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 emphasized – Noted that while PMLA imposes stringent bail conditions, prolonged pre-trial detention without prospects of timely trial breaches fundamental rights – Cited precedents from K.A. Najeeb and Manish Sisodia cases where constitutional courts allowed bail despite statutory restrictions due to undue trial delay – Held: Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception when a trial cannot be concluded within a reasonable timeframe [Paras 22-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Appellant granted bail on furnishing bail bonds and fulfilling specific conditions, including regular attendance before authorities and surrendering passport – Failure to comply with conditions may result in bail cancellation [Paras 31-32].

Civil Law – Specific Performance – Rejection of Plaintiffs' Claim – Appellants (Defendant Nos. 9 to 11) were bona fide purchasers of property after executing a valid sale deed with all co-owners, including the sisters (Defendant Nos. 6 to 8) – Plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) had earlier entered into an agreement for the same property with only two co-owners without securing the consent of Defendant Nos. 6 to 8, despite knowing their consent was required – Held: Plaintiffs failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act – Appeal allowed, High Court's decree set aside, and Trial Court's judgment dismissing the suit for specific performance restored [Paras 1, 9-11, 24-25].

Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiffs' Obligation to Secure Consent – The agreement dated 06.06.1993 required Plaintiffs to ensure that Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 would consent and execute the sale deed within three months – Plaintiffs took no proactive steps to secure this consent, instead relying on Defendant No. 1 and late Soumendra to fulfill this condition – Plaintiffs failed to communicate or contact Defendant Nos. 6 to 8, indicating a lack of readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract – High Court's conclusion of Plaintiffs' readiness was found to be inadequate [Paras 9-13].

General Power of Attorney – Authority to Sell – Defendant No. 1 lacked authority to sell on behalf of Defendant Nos. 6 to 8, as the General Power of Attorney dated 30.12.1982 was unregistered and effectively revoked by a partition deed dated 17.02.1988 – The partition deed limited Defendant No. 1's authority to rent collection, not the sale of property – Held: Agreement dated 06.06.1993 could not be enforced against Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 due to lack of authority [Paras 14-18].

Discretionary Nature of Specific Performance – Specific performance is a discretionary remedy under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act (pre-2018 amendment) – The agreement in question was incomplete and unenforceable against Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 – Plaintiffs failed to fulfill essential contractual obligations – Granting specific performance would unfairly prejudice the Defendants, especially Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 – Monetary compensation deemed sufficient – Appeal allowed, suit for specific performance dismissed [Paras 19-23].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The judgment and decree of the High Court dated 25.10.2013 is set aside – The judgment of the Trial Court dated 17.05.1997 dismissing the suit for specific performance is restored – Appellants (Defendant Nos. 9 to 11) are directed to refund ₹10,00,000 to the Plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1 & 2) within two months – No order as to costs [Paras 25-26].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Charges under Section 307 IPC – Appellant was assaulted due to a dispute related to Waqf Board – Initial FIR lodged under Sections 294, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC – Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 307 IPC – High Court set aside charges, ruling injuries insufficient for Section 307 – Held: Minor injuries are not a bar for framing charges under Section 307 IPC if intent is present – High Court's judgment set aside, and the accused are to face trial under all relevant sections, including Section 307 IPC [Paras 1, 6, 12-16].

Medical Evidence – Relevance of Doctor’s Report – The doctor’s report suspected throttling, which could have led to respiratory arrest – Despite the injuries being described as minor, intent to cause death could be inferred from the circumstances – The court held that medical evidence of possible throttling supported the framing of Section 307 IPC charges [Paras 7, 12-13].

Section 307 IPC – Attempt to Murder – Essential ingredients include intent to kill or knowledge that the act was likely to cause death – Court emphasized that even minor injuries could suffice if the intent to kill is present – Injuries, whether simple or grievous, are irrelevant if the intent is clear – The court applied this principle to hold that the High Court erred in refusing to frame charges under Section 307 IPC [Paras 10-14].

Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Eight accused were involved, and the court examined the applicability of Section 34 IPC – Common intention can be inferred from the actions and circumstances – The court highlighted that common intention need not be pre-arranged and could develop on the spot – The accused acted with a common purpose, making Section 34 applicable [Paras 11.4-11.5].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – High Court's order in Criminal Revision No. 3125 of 2021 set aside – Trial court directed to proceed with trial, including Section 307 IPC, without being influenced by the current judgment – Trial to be expedited [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law – Abduction and Murder – Acquittal – The appellants were accused of abducting and murdering Neelam in furtherance of a land dispute – Trial Court convicted five accused under Sections 302/34 and 364/34 IPC and acquitted two (A-6, A-7) – Patna High Court overturned the acquittal of A-6 and A-7, convicting them and sentencing all seven to life imprisonment – Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Neelam was abducted by the appellants or that she was residing in the house from which she was allegedly abducted – Held: All appellants acquitted, conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 1, 25, 33, 45, 67].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Eye-Witnesses – Testimonies of PW18 (informant), PW2, PW4, and PW5 deemed inconsistent and unreliable – Presence of PW5 at the scene was doubted due to his questionable route – Testimonies of PW2 and PW4 lacked a credible explanation for their presence – Key independent witnesses (Doman Tenti, Kumud Ranjan Singh, etc.) were not examined – The alleged threat with a pistol by A-6 was not corroborated, and significant contradictions were found between FIR and trial depositions – Court concluded that the prosecution fabricated witness testimonies to implicate the appellants [Paras 23-25, 40, 46, 59].

Circumstantial Evidence – Residence of the Deceased – Doubts were raised regarding whether Neelam was residing in her father’s house at the time of the abduction – No personal belongings or corroborative evidence from cohabitants were presented – Makeup articles found were insufficient proof, and their connection to the deceased was based on objectionable reasoning by the High Court – Held: Prosecution failed to establish the foundational fact of residence, undermining the entire case [Paras 34-37, 48-51].

Post-Mortem Evidence – Time of Death – Post-mortem report indicated Neelam’s death occurred around 5:00 PM, conflicting with the prosecution's claim that she was abducted around 10:00 PM – Given the unreliable eyewitnesses, the post-mortem findings were accepted as accurate – The inconsistency in time of death added to the doubts surrounding the prosecution's case [Paras 62-63].

Motive – Property Dispute – The alleged motive of abducting and murdering Neelam over a family property dispute was insufficient to establish guilt – Motive could apply to either side of the family conflict, making it a double-edged argument – The Court held that motive alone could not sustain a conviction in the absence of conclusive evidence [Paras 65-67].

Decision: Appeals allowed – All seven appellants acquitted of charges under Sections 302 and 364 IPC – They are to be released immediately if not wanted in any other cases [Para 70].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Appeal against dismissal of petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR and subsequent chargesheet – Appellants accused under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC for alleged cruelty towards the complainant – High Court held that a prima facie case of cruelty was made out and dismissed the petition – Supreme Court examined the allegations, finding them vague and largely civil in nature – Held: Criminal proceedings were an abuse of process, instituted with mala fide intentions linked to a property dispute – FIR and chargesheet quashed [Paras 7.1, 8.1, 10.1, 13.1, 15, 18].

Matrimonial Dispute – Allegations of Dowry Demand – FIR alleged dowry demands and threats to deprive the complainant and her husband of property share – Allegations found vague and lacking material particulars – The same allegations were previously rejected in a Domestic Violence case by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna – Complaint appeared to be motivated by a contentious civil dispute over ancestral property, furthering personal interests in the civil suit filed by the complainant’s husband [Paras 7.1, 8.1, 10.1, 15].

Abuse of Legal Process – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Color – Allegations in the FIR were overwhelmingly civil in nature, particularly concerning property rights – Appellants subjected to false and omnibus allegations, creating an undue criminal burden – Supreme Court emphasized the need to prevent abuse of criminal law in cases rooted in civil disputes – Held: Continuing with the criminal trial would amount to a travesty of justice [Paras 8.1, 10.2, 15, 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR dated 25.03.2013 and chargesheet quashed – Criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC set aside [Para 18].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appeal – Appellants convicted for murder and attempt to murder following an altercation – Trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 302, 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment – High Court upheld the convictions – On appeal to the Supreme Court, arguments focused on the lack of evidence regarding brick-batting injuries and claims of private defence – Held: Prosecution's case was corroborated by the testimonies of injured witnesses, and the appellants’ contention of self-defence was unsupported by independent evidence [Paras 3, 18, 33].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Injured Eye-Witnesses – P.W. 3, P.W. 4, and P.W. 5 were injured witnesses and their testimonies were corroborated by medico-legal evidence – The appellants questioned the absence of independent witnesses – Court held that non-examination of independent witnesses did not affect the case since the testimonies of injured witnesses were reliable and stood cross-examination [Paras 3, 18].

Common Intention – Applicability of Section 34 IPC – Appellants argued that no common intention was proved – Court held that common intention can be formed moments before the act and can be inferred from the conduct of the accused – The appellants acted in concert to retaliate after a previous altercation, establishing their common intention [Paras 18, 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Convictions under Sections 148, 302, and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC upheld – No evidence of failure of justice or misapplication of law – Appellants to remain in custody [Para 33].

Criminal Law – Custodial Death – Acquittal – Appellants, police officials, convicted for custodial torture and death of one Shama @ Kalya while in illegal detention – Trial Court convicted appellants under Sections 304 Part II, 330, 331, 348, 387, and 201 IPC, and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment – High Court upheld convictions except under Section 201 IPC regarding disappearance of the dead body – On appeal, Supreme Court held that prosecution failed to prove the identity of the exhumed body as that of the deceased Shama @ Kalya due to unreliable fingerprint evidence – Appellants granted benefit of doubt and acquitted of charges under Section 304 Part II IPC – Conviction under Sections 330, 348, and 387 IPC confirmed, with one year rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed [Paras 49, 50, 52, 53].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Eye-Witnesses – PW-1 (wife of the deceased) and PW-16 (mother-in-law of the deceased) testified to witnessing injuries on Shama while in custody – PW-1’s claim that Shama’s leg veins were cut, contributing to his death, contradicted by her previous statements and uncorroborated by medical evidence – Trial Court’s reliance on this testimony deemed improper due to material contradictions and absence of medical proof – High Court erred in not considering the omissions as significant [Paras 35, 36, 37].

Custodial Torture – Appellants convicted for custodial torture under Sections 330, 348, and 387 IPC based on multiple witness testimonies, including police personnel (PW-20, PW-22) who corroborated Shama’s illegal detention and injuries – Prosecution established that Shama was subjected to third-degree methods while in police custody, resulting in severe injuries, though the cause of death remained unproved due to failure in identifying the body [Paras 11, 12, 49].

Circumstantial Evidence – False Entry of Escape – Prosecution alleged appellants staged an escape of Shama from custody by using a proxy, PW-8, to impersonate him – PW-8 turned hostile – Defense presented a Railway Court conviction of one Shama for traveling without a ticket to argue Shama was alive, but the Court dismissed it as fabricated – Court emphasized that defense evidence must meet the standard of preponderance of probabilities and ruled that it failed to do so convincingly [Paras 38, 41, 42].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Convictions under Section 304 Part II and related sections set aside, acquitting appellants on those charges – Conviction under Sections 330, 348, and 387 IPC upheld – Appellants to serve one year of rigorous imprisonment with fines where applicable [Paras 48, 53].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Reduction of Sentence – Appellants convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for stabbing the deceased with a knife – Trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence – Supreme Court finds that the incident occurred in a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation or intent to act cruelly – Held: Conviction altered to Part-I of Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) – Sentence reduced to the period already undergone (over 8 years) [Paras 9, 13-16].

Delay in FIR – Lodging of FIR – Rahul (PW-1), the injured witness, delayed the lodging of the FIR by more than 24 hours – His explanation that he fell unconscious and was searching for deceased Sachin not found plausible – Held: Delay in FIR casts doubt on the prosecution's case – This, combined with contradictions in witness testimony, weakens the prosecution's narrative [Paras 12-13].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Rahul (PW-1) and Shivani (PW-2) were key prosecution witnesses – Their testimonies contained contradictions – Rahul's conduct post-incident and inconsistencies regarding whether he and deceased Sachin had consumed alcohol, affected the credibility of his statement – Shivani (PW-2) was an interested witness and her deposition conflicted with her earlier statements, raising further doubts [Paras 11-13].

Unexplained Injuries – Accused’s Injuries – Appellants Sunil @ Sonu and Nitin @ Devender sustained injuries in the same incident – Prosecution failed to explain these injuries – Medical evidence established that the appellants were injured, which supported their defense of a sudden fight and drunken altercation initiated by the deceased and Rahul (PW-1) – Held: The failure to explain these injuries supported the defense's claim and pointed towards a case of culpable homicide in the heat of passion rather than murder [Paras 13-14].

Sudden Fight – Culpable Homicide – Evidence suggested that the incident arose out of a sudden altercation without premeditation – The fight escalated in the heat of passion, leading to the fatal injury – No evidence to show the accused acted in a cruel or unusual manner or took undue advantage – Conviction under Section 302 IPC reduced to Part-I of Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part-I IPC – Sentence reduced to the period already undergone – Appellants to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case [Paras 17-18].

Land Acquisition – Requisition by Ministry of Defence – Acquired Property – Appellants challenged the decision of the High Court, which directed HMT Ltd. and the Union of India to vacate or pay compensation for the unacquired portion of land – High Court awarded rental compensation with interest from 1973 till payment was made – Supreme Court held that the respondents/writ petitioners concealed material facts regarding the sale of part of the land by the original landowner – Held: Writ petition filed after 33 years without any valid explanation and concealment of facts amounted to an abuse of process [Paras 2, 4, 10, 11, 12].

Delay and Laches – Writ Petition filed after 33 years – The writ petitioners failed to justify the delay of over three decades in filing the writ petition – Supreme Court emphasized that delay can be fatal, especially when facts and evidence become difficult to ascertain over time – Held: Writ petition dismissed due to inordinate delay and laches [Paras 13, 14, 15].

Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioners' Duty to Disclose – Petitioners failed to disclose the sale of part of the land by their predecessor-in-interest – The land sold by the petitioners' predecessor had already been acquired by HMT Ltd. for expansion purposes – This fact was deliberately suppressed by the petitioners – Supreme Court reiterated that a petitioner must come with clean hands, especially in extraordinary writ jurisdiction – Held: The writ petition was liable to be dismissed for concealment and lack of bonafides [Paras 10, 11, 12].

Disputed Questions of Fact – Jurisdiction of High Court – The case involved several disputed questions of fact that were not suitable for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution – Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition given the complex factual matrix requiring thorough examination of evidence – Held: High Court judgment set aside; writ petition dismissed [Paras 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment and order dated 05.09.2019 and 13.09.2019 set aside – Writ Petition No. 16553 of 2006 dismissed – No costs imposed on respondents/writ petitioners despite their conduct [Paras 18].