Civil Appeal – Workmen Compensation Act – Appeal against High Court’s decision to set aside the Commissioner’s award of compensation to the legal representatives of a deceased employee – Appellants are the mother and wife of the deceased. [Para 1-2]

Employment Status – Deceased was allegedly an employee of Kutch Carrier, drawing a salary of ₹4000 per month – Employment denied by insurer due to lack of documentation. [Para 3-4]

Commissioner’s Order – Eight issues framed, including the employment status, liability for compensation, and penalty – Commissioner awarded ₹3,94,120 as compensation, 9% interest, and a 50% penalty amounting to ₹1,97,060 against the employer. [Para 6-7]

First Appeal – High Court set aside Commissioner’s order, concluding that the deceased was not an employee at the time of the accident. [Para 10-11]

Jurisdiction and Law – Discussion on Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, which allows appeals only on substantial questions of law – High Court failed to frame any such question. [Para 14-19]

Perversity in Findings – High Court did not indicate that the Commissioner’s findings were perverse – Difference between the two judgments was on the point of establishing the employer-employee relationship. [Para 21-22]

Merits of the Case – Supreme Court finds that the Commissioner’s conclusions were “a possible view,” thereby negating any perversity – Act being a social welfare legislation should be given a beneficial construction. [Para 25-30]

Decision – High Court’s judgment set aside – Commissioner’s order restored – Appeal allowed. [Para 32-33]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Accused convicted by Judicial Magistrate for cheque dishonour – Sentenced to pay cheque amount with interest – Appeals filed against conviction. [Para 3]

Appeals – Suspension of Sentence – Sessions Court grants relief subject to 20% deposit of compensation amount under Section 148 of N.I. Act and Section 389 of Cr.P.C. – High Court confirms Sessions Court's order. [Para 3-4]

Interpretation of Law – High Court relies on Surinder Singh Deswal case to interpret word "may" in Section 148 of N.I. Act as "shall" – Obligation to deposit a minimum of 20% of compensation amount deemed mandatory. [Para 4-5]

Judicial Discretion – Supreme Court notes that appellate courts have discretion to waive 20% deposit requirement in exceptional cases – Reasons for such exception must be recorded. [Para 6-7]

Failure to Plead Exception – Appellants did not plead for an exception to the 20% deposit requirement – Supreme Court disagrees with contention that courts had no reason to consider plea. [Para 8-9]

Erroneous Presumption – Both lower courts assumed 20% deposit was an absolute rule with no room for exceptions. [Para 10]

Appeals Allowed – Supreme Court sets aside High Court orders – Restores revision petitions for reconsideration – Directs High Court to re-examine in light of this judgment. [Para 12-13]

Criminal Appeal – Rape and Murder – Allegations of rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl – Appellant lured the victim to his house to watch TV – Victim went missing, and her dead body was later found in the appellant's room – Co-accused also involved – High Court convicted the appellant  – Appeal against the judgment of the High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence – Submission that the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence – Failure to conduct a medical examination of the accused under Section 53A of CrPC – Alleged confession of a co-accused made in the presence of police officers – Inadequate 313 examination of the accused – Flaws in the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court – Mitigating circumstances – Court's analysis of the submissions and arguments. [Para 13-17]

Investigation Lapses – Serious lapses in the investigation – Failure to obtain a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report – Failure to conduct a medical examination of the accused – Lapses in the examination of physical evidence – Examination of accused by a registered medical practitioner under Section 53 of the CrPC – Failure to obtain DNA profiling evidence – Adverse inference – Importance of DNA evidence in cases of rape.

High Court's Approach – High Court proceeded on the assumption that the appellant alone committed the crime – Neglected the presence of a co-accused – Lack of consideration for the entire evidentiary landscape.

High Court's failure to consider the presence of a co-accused and the lapses in the investigation cast doubt on the conviction – Serious flaws in the investigation and failure to procure crucial evidence require reconsideration of the appellant's guilt – Appeal allowed, and the matter remitted for a fresh trial. [Para 18-29]

Criminal Procedure - statement under Section 313 CrPC recorded - Appellant's response to incriminating circumstances - Additional circumstances relied upon by the Trial Court - Appellant not confronted with these circumstances during examination - Investigation records reveal important contradictions - Failure of defense counsel, public prosecutor, and presiding officer to address these contradictions - Interpretation of Section 162 of the CrPC and Section 145 of the Evidence Act regarding the use of police statements for contradiction - Duty of the Court to ensure proper examination of witnesses regarding contradictory statements - Importance of reviewing police papers to verify witness consistency - Necessity for a fair and just procedure in criminal trials. [Para 30-48]

Criminal Procedure – Role of the High Court in confirmation cases involving the death penalty – Duty to examine the reference comprehensively – Obligation to consider various aspects including the nature of the crime, the convict's intent, the impact on the victim and society, the conduct of the convict, and past history – Importance of ensuring that the decision instills confidence and serves as a deterrent – High Court's responsibility under Sections 366, 367, 368, 370, and 392 of the CrPC – Need for an independent examination and not relying solely on concessions made by counsel – Duty to act in a manner that upholds the principles of justice and fairness. [Para 57-63]

Concept of Fair Trial – deeply rooted in history, enshrined in the Constitution, and embodied in criminal trial statutes - A fair trial is essential for justice to prevail, ensuring that no innocent person is punished and the guilty are held accountable. India follows the accusatorial or adversarial system of common law, where the accused is presumed innocent, and both the prosecution and defense present their cases - Impartiality and fairness of all parties involved, including the judge, defense counsel, and public prosecutor, are fundamental for a fair trial. [Para 64-69]

Role of the Judge – A judge's role in ensuring a fair trial is crucial - must actively participate in proceedings, taking an interest in uncovering the truth and maintaining impartiality - They are not mere spectators or recording machines but play an active role in questioning witnesses, seeking relevant information, and upholding the pursuit of truth and justice - concept of the independence of the judiciary is vital to ensure judges' ability to objectively evaluate and apply the law without external influence. [Para 70-72]

Decision – sets aside the High Court's decision and remits the case for reconsideration - justice is not merely about courtroom proceedings but about the outcome that ensures truth and fairness. It also urges the High Court to expedite the case, considering the appellant's long incarceration, and suggests appointing legal representation for the appellant if necessary. The judgment's essence is captured in the quote, "Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in the courtroom; Justice is what comes out of a courtroom." [Para 73-79]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 307 IPC – Appeal arises from the High Court’s judgment confirming the Trial Court’s conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder – Issue limited to the quantum of sentence. [Para 1-3, 10]

Prosecution Case – Attack on Complainant – Appellant, along with other co-accused, allegedly attacked the complainant, causing injuries – FIR registered under Section 307 IPC – Investigation led to chargesheet against the appellant and co-accused. [Para 4-5]

Evidence – Corroboration of Complainant’s Statement – Testimonies of eye-witnesses and medical reports corroborate the complainant’s statement – Trial Court convicted the appellant based on the evidence. [Para 6-9]

Sentencing Principles – Aggravating and Mitigating Factors – Court emphasizes the need to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors while sentencing – References to previous judgments on the philosophy and objectives behind sentencing. [Para 11-17]

Mitigating Circumstances – No Criminal Antecedents and Old Enmity – Appellant had no prior criminal record and the incident occurred due to old enmity related to land – Co-accused acquitted. [Para 21-22]

Decision – Sentence Reduction – Sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment reduced to 3 years, with a fine of Rs. 50,000 to be paid as compensation to the complainant – Appeal partly allowed. [Para 23-24]

Cooperative Societies – U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 – Challenge to the High Court’s order allowing writ petitions against the cancellation of a sale deed – Society’s failure to provide evidence for allegations – Appeals dismissed. [Para 1, 10, 17]

Bye-Laws – Eligibility for Allotment – Clause 5(1) and 3(10) of the society’s bye-laws – Requirement that a member or their family should not own any building or plot in the area of operation – Society failed to prove violation. [Para 12-14]

Arbitration – Award declaring sale deed null and void – Lack of evidence to support society’s allegations – High Court set aside the award and appellate order. [Para 6-9, 15-16]

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Society failed to furnish evidence before the arbitrator to substantiate its allegations – High Court’s finding in favor of the respondents. [Para 14-16]

Ownership – Definition of ‘Family’ under Bye-Laws – Husband, wife, and dependent minor children – No evidence to prove that Krishna Pal Singh or his successors owned any other property in the area of operation. [Para 3, 13, 16]

Decision – Appeals lack merit due to society’s failure to substantiate allegations – High Court’s judgment upheld – Appeals dismissed with no orders as to costs. [Para 17]

Civil Appeal – Recruitment to Ministerial Group “C” Posts – Appellants aggrieved by denial of promotion despite seniority – Case revolves around the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group “C” Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001. [Para 1-3]

Promotion Criteria – Rule 5 of the said Rules – Specifies that 20% of vacancies shall be filled by promotion from Group “D” employees, with 15% from those who have passed High School and 5% from those who have passed Intermediate examinations. [Para 2, 4]

High Court’s Decision – Dismissal of writ petition – High Court held that Rule 5 only prescribes the source of recruitment, and those who obtained higher marks were promoted. [Para 3]

Supreme Court’s Observation – Lack of promotions since 2015 – Despite vacancies, no promotions conducted in line with Rule 5 of the said Rules, affecting appellants and others similarly situated. [Para 6-8]

Article 142 – Special Direction – Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 142 to direct promotion of four candidates immediately below those promoted in 2014, specifying that this shall not be treated as a precedent. [Para 9-11]

Time Frame – State of Uttar Pradesh directed to take necessary action within two months. [Para 10]

Writ Petition – Petitioner seeks the setting aside of the termination order that removed him from the strength of the respondent-BSF after a post-recruitment medical diagnosis of bone tuberculosis (TB). [Para 1]

Medical Examination – Conflict between the petitioner’s fitness assessment by PGI, Chandigarh, and the respondent’s medical board, with the latter declaring the petitioner unfit for basic training. [Para 2-4]

Recruitment Eligibility – Respondents concede that the petitioner did not suffer from the diagnosed ailment at the time of recruitment, but contracted it after joining service. [Para 6]

Legal Precedents – Petitioner relies on various Supreme Court judgments to argue against the unfairness of being terminated for a condition contracted after joining service. [Para 3, 7]

Unfair Treatment – Court finds it unjust to terminate an employee who met all the recruitment criteria but contracted a disease after joining service. [Para 7]

Direction – Court orders the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s employment for a post other than that of Constable and to issue a speaking order after an opportunity for a hearing is provided – The court directs the reconsideration process to be completed within 06 months from the date of judgment.   [Para 8]

Mitakshara Coparcenary – Succession – Examination of the intricate issue of inheritance of Mitakshara coparcenary property – Parties Involved – Kesar Bai's demand for partition – Appellant, Derha Ram, succeeding to her estate – Civil Suit No. 146A of 1991 initiated. [Para 3-4]

Court Findings – Trial Court decreeing 1/3rd share for appellant in agricultural land and house properties – Appeal dismissed by Appellate Court. [Para 4-5]

High Court Decision – Reduction of appellant's share to 1/6th – Special leave appeal filed. [Para 6]

Arguments Rejected – Appellant's claim that properties are not coparcenary properties dismissed – Stand inconsistent with original plaintiff’s pleadings. Legal Framework – Application of Section 6 and Section 8 of the Act of 1956 to determine succession – Provisions and their implications detailed. [Para 8, 9, 10]

Final Determination – Share division consistent with legal provisions and High Court directions – Civil appeal devoid of merit. [Para 13-14]

Reversal of Acquittal – Conviction under Section 302 and 307 IPC: The acquittal of respondent no.2 by the Trial Court and High Court was overturned, leading to his conviction under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC. [Para 1]

Virtual Appearance – Health Conditions: Due to health conditions and an ongoing life sentence in another case, permission was granted for respondent no.2 to appear virtually. [Para 2]

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment and Fines: Given the facts and age of the case, life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 7 years under Section 307 IPC were awarded, along with fines. [Para 4]

Distribution of Fine – Section 357 CrPC: Fine to be used for compensating the victim’s family and the legal heirs of the deceased, as per clause (c) of Section 357 of the CrPC. [Para 6]

Additional Compensation – Section 357-A CrPC: Due to the State’s inadequate prosecution and the victim family’s trauma, additional compensation is mandated. [Para 7]

Compliance and Time Frame: Fine and compensation must be deposited within two months, with a compliance report due in four months. [Para 8-9]

Appeal Disposed: The appeal was disposed of as per the guidelines. [Para 8]