Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Validity – Challenge against compulsory retirement of respondent, a Head Constable in the CRPF, following proven charges of assault and abuse against a colleague – Supreme Court upholds validity of compulsory retirement under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955, even though not explicitly listed under CRPF Act, Section 11 – Held, rule-making power under Section 18 broad enough to include compulsory retirement as a form of control over the force – Punishment intra vires of the CRPF Act, justified by respondent’s conduct and consistent with the principles of maintaining discipline in a force – Punishment deemed neither procedurally infirm nor disproportionate to the misconduct proven – High Court’s decision reversed – Appeal allowed – Compulsory retirement affirmed [Paras 1-36].

Imposition of Compulsory Retirement – Analysis of CRPF Act and Rules – Held – Compulsory retirement as punishment is valid under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. Supreme Court finds it a necessary measure for maintaining discipline within CRPF ranks, aligned with the powers granted under the CRPF Act for rule-making by the Central Government. Determines Rule 27 is intra vires, thus dismissing High Court’s misinterpretation of the same. [Paras 14-33]

Legality and Proportionality of Punishment – Discussion on procedural and substantive aspects – Held – Evidence supports the disciplinary action taken, with confirmed misconduct through multiple witnesses and medical reports. Supreme Court deems compulsory retirement proportionate to the misconduct proven, upholding the punitive measure as neither arbitrary nor excessive. [Paras 34-36]

Decision – Upholding of Compulsory Retirement – Civil Appeal allowed – Supreme Court sets aside the High Court order, reinstating the punishment of compulsory retirement for the respondent. Concludes the punitive action fits within the legal framework of the CRPF Rules and is essential for maintaining discipline. [Para 36]

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Allegations of shooting by appellant and co-accused from a roof, resulting in death – Main issues include reliability of eyewitness testimonies and feasibility of their claimed observations from their respective positions – Eyewitness testimonies questioned due to physical impossibilities and inconsistencies in observing the event – Testimony contradicted by site inspection and distances involved – Trial court and High Court convictions based on these testimonies – Supreme Court finds the evidence presented does not meet the threshold of reliability, leading to a miscarriage of justice – Acquittal granted due to unreliable eyewitness accounts and doubts in prosecution’s narrative. [Paras 1-40]

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability Questioned – Analysis – Held – Supreme Court finds the testimony of the so-called eyewitnesses Ram Prakash (PW-1), Sultan Singh (PW-2), and Ram Naresh (PW-5) unreliable and conflicting with physical evidence and site inspection records. Eyewitnesses’ presence and ability to witness the incident from their claimed positions found to be improbable. [Paras 10-36]

Analysis – Re-evaluation of Eyewitness Testimony – Supreme Court undertakes a thorough analysis of the testimonies of alleged eyewitnesses and site inspection reports. Concludes that witnesses could not have possibly seen the incident from their claimed locations based on the physical layout and distances involved – Fatal inconsistencies lead to a failure of the prosecution’s case. [Paras 22-35]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellant – The Supreme Court, after noting the inherent improbabilities and discrepancies in the prosecution’s version, grants the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, Jagvir Singh. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC quashed, and appellant acquitted due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and uncorroborated circumstantial evidence. [Para 38-40]

Contract Dispute - Arbitral award on three claims involving adjustments due to increased costs and payment for specific construction works under a contract - Majority ruling in Arbitral Tribunal awarded payments to respondent based on price adjustments and extra costs incurred due to legislative changes in taxes and royalties - Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court upheld the Arbitral award - Supreme Court dismissed appeals affirming lower courts and Arbitral Tribunal’s decisions. [Paras 1-15]

Arbitration Act - Application under Section 34 challenged Arbitral award; appeal under Section 37 dismissed by High Court - Supreme Court emphasized limited interference with Arbitral awards as per the Arbitration Act, agreeing with concurrent findings across judicial levels on contract interpretation and factual evidence presented. [Paras 3, 13-14]

Contract Interpretation - Discussion on contractual clauses and adjustment for increased costs - Supreme Court upheld the interpretation favoring separate compensation for costs arising from statutory changes, distinct from general price adjustment mechanisms under contract clauses [Paras 11, 12, 26].

Decision: Appeals dismissed - No orders as to costs - The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Arbitral Tribunal and the lower courts, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Privacy and Dignity of Individuals in Police Records – Challenge against police practices of recording details of family members of history sheeters in surveillance documents – Supreme Court finds undue inclusion of minor children in appellant’s History Sheet against principles of juvenile protection and privacy – Amended standing orders introduced to safeguard privacy and dignity of individuals not directly involved in criminal activities, focusing on connections who could actually harbor the criminal when sought by police – Directs the enforcement of amended provisions and careful scrutiny by senior police officers. [Paras 2-12]

Protection of Minors – Emphasis on adherence to Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, ensuring non-disclosure of minors’ identities unless proven they harbored the offender – Orders the deletion of names of innocent individuals wrongfully included in police History Sheets, directing ongoing audits. [Paras 5-8]

Expansion of Protective Measures Nationally – Directions issued for all states and Union Territories to reevaluate and potentially amend police recording practices to avoid biased entries, specifically targeting vulnerable communities – Follow-up mandated for adoption of the ‘Delhi Model’ for better protection of human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. [Paras 14-17]

Decision: The appeal is allowed in part with directions to ensure the non-disclosure of identities of minors and innocent family members in police History Sheets as per amended Standing Orders. States and UTs directed to consider implementing similar protective measures. [Para 13]

Land Acquisition – Enhancement of compensation – Civil Appeal for increased compensation for lands acquired for canal construction under the Hippargi Barrage project – Initial compensation awarded at Rs. 1,31,263 per acre by S.L.A.O. – Reference Court increased it to Rs. 3,00,000 per acre – Appeals and cross-objections led to fixing market value at Rs. 3,69,000 per acre, confirmed by this Court in another related case [Para 1-6].

Market Value Determination – Comparable sales method – Appellants sought compensation at Rs. 5,00,000 per acre citing a High Court order for similar lands under the same project – Supreme Court sets compensation at Rs. 4,50,000 per acre for lands acquired in 2007, considering a 5% annual escalation from the 2004-2005 market value [Para 7-13].

Equitable Relief – Compensation determined based on fairness and consistency with earlier judicial determinations for similar acquisitions – All statutory benefits, including interest and costs, awarded, except interest for delay in filing cross-objections – Specific order not to serve as a precedent [Para 14-15].

Decision: Appeals allowed in terms of enhanced compensation at Rs. 4,50,000 per acre with statutory benefits, interest, and costs, excluding interest for delay in filing cross-objections – Other connected appeals disposed of accordingly.

Juvenile Justice – Trial as Adult vs. Juvenile – Initial disagreement among Juvenile Justice Board members on whether the appellant should be tried as an adult – Majority opinion by Principal Magistrate held on 05.04.2022 to try as an adult based on preliminary assessment and social investigation report, despite dissent from one member – High Court set aside Board’s subsequent decision to try as juvenile, reinstating the trial as adult – Supreme Court held, dissent without detailed reasoning does not invalidate the decision of Principal Magistrate whose decision prevails – [Paras 15-15.5].

Procedural Anomalies – Importance of proper documentation and clarity in Juvenile Justice Board orders emphasized – Instructions for noting names and IDs of members in orders to enhance transparency and accountability – Recommendations for better recording of adjournments and party representations in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings – [Paras 17-19].

Appeal and Revision – Clarification on applicability of Children’s Court and Court of Sessions interchangeably, subject to availability – Set norms for timely filing and disposal of appeals, including extensions and condonation of delay – Reaffirmed High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 102 of the JJ Act – [Paras 11-12.2, 18(iv-vi)].

Directions Issued – The Supreme Court issued specific directions regarding procedural conduct within juvenile justice proceedings:

• Words ‘Children’s Court’ and ‘Court of Sessions’ in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the 2016 Rules shall be read interchangeably, primarily jurisdiction vests in the Children’s Court, however, in the absence of constitution of such Children’s Court in the district, the power to be exercised under the Act is vested with the Court of Sessions.

• Appeal under Section 101(2) of the Act against an order of the Board passed under Section 15 of the Act can be filed within a period of 30 days, with provision for condonation of delay.

• The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction upheld as per Section 102 of the JJ Act.

• The Presiding Officers and/or Members while passing the order shall properly record presence of the parties and/or their counsels, the purpose for which the matter is being adjourned, and the party on whose behalf the adjournment has been sought and granted.

• Names of the Presiding Officer and/or Members who sign the orders shall be mentioned along with any identification number if available. [Paras 18-19].

Decision:

Appeal disposed with directives on procedural enhancements for Juvenile Justice Boards and clarification on jurisdictional aspects of appeals within the juvenile justice system – Appellant granted liberty to appeal the decision of being tried as an adult, with specified timeframe for filing and resolution of the appeal.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Appellant convicted for the murder of his wife, Usha, under Section 302 IPC – Wife found dead from manual strangulation at their residence in Delhi – Circumstantial evidence included a confessional note allegedly in the appellant’s handwriting, last seen theory, abscondence, and motive based on marital discord [Para 1-52]

Evidence – Admissibility – Reliability of handwriting expert’s testimony affirmed – Confessional note written by appellant confirmed through handwriting analysis matching the note with other admitted documents – Witness testimony corroborated the presence and conflict between appellant and deceased before the murder [Para 44, 48]

Procedural Issues – Use of statements under Section 299 CrPC – Trial court justified in admitting the testimony of key witness recorded under Section 299 CrPC in appellant’s absence, due to his prolonged abscondence – Legal principles upheld regarding procedural compliance and evidence reliability [Para 29-41]

Defence – Claims of evidence fabrication and procedural irregularities dismissed – Court finds prosecution established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence leading to appellant’s guilt [Para 49]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld based on cogent, convincing circumstantial evidence, and procedural validity – Appellant to surrender and serve the remainder of his sentence [Para 52].

Taxation - Income Tax on Perquisites - Challenging Sections 17(2)(viii) and Rule 3(7)(i) of Income Tax Act and Rules regarding taxability of fringe benefits provided as concessional loans to bank employees - Bench upholds constitutionality of Section 17(2)(viii) and Rule 3(7)(i), dismissing the appeal - Held that the legislative intent was clear, and the rules did not constitute excessive delegation or violate Article 14 - The Prime Lending Rate (PLR) of the State Bank of India (SBI) used as a uniform benchmark for all banks was found to be neither arbitrary nor discriminatory - Ensures consistency, clarity, and tax efficiency - Appeals dismissed, affirming High Courts' judgments [Paras 1-35].

Income Tax Act, Section 17(2)(viii) and Rule 3(7)(i) – Legal Challenge – Held – The appeals challenge the vires of Section 17(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The provisions relate to the taxation of fringe benefits, specifically the valuation of interest-free or concessional loans provided to bank employees. The appellants argued these provisions result in excessive delegation of legislative power and are arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution. [Paras 1-3, 20]

Taxation of Interest-Free/Concessional Loans to Bank Employees – Held – The Supreme Court upheld the legislative competence and constitutionality of Section 17(2)(viii) and Rule 3(7)(i). It held that these provisions do not constitute excessive delegation of legislative function as they fall within the framework laid down by the legislature. The Court further held that using the State Bank of India’s Prime Lending Rate as a benchmark for valuation is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, thus aligning with Article 14. [Paras 21-34]

Judicial Review and Legislative Policy – Analysis – Held – Detailed analysis of legislative intent and judicial precedent affirming that while enacting laws, the legislature can delegate certain powers to administrative or executive branches, provided that the legislative policy is clearly outlined and the standards for its execution are set. The Court found that both Section 17(2)(viii) and Rule 3(7)(i) are sufficiently guided by the legislative policy on the taxation of perquisites. [Paras 21-30]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Held – The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the decisions of the High Courts of Madras and Madhya Pradesh, and upheld the constitutionality and application of Section 17(2)(viii) and Rule 3(7)(i). No order as to costs. [Para 35]

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of his wife with a knife, sustaining multiple stab wounds – Trial court’s judgment affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court rejects appeal, highlighting issues of witness reliability, particularly the testimony of the appellant’s minor daughter, who was declared hostile – The court emphasizes the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, stressing the burden on the appellant to explain circumstances peculiarly within his knowledge [Paras 1-88].

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Hostility – Sole eyewitness, the appellant’s daughter, initially supports prosecution but later declared hostile during trial – Supreme Court criticizes the prosecution’s handling of hostile witnesses, indicating procedural deficiencies in dealing with key testimonies – Underlines the importance of meticulous cross-examination to uncover the truth [Paras 62-70].

Discovery of Weapon – Application of Sections 27 and 8 of the Evidence Act – Court notes weapon discovery led by appellant, considered under Section 8 for conduct, despite hostile panch witnesses – Reinforces that conduct alone cannot convict but is a significant corroborative factor [Paras 57-61].

Section 106 of the Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – Discusses when Section 106 applies, requiring the accused to explain facts specifically within his knowledge – Court finds Section 106 properly invoked given the circumstances of the case where facts surrounding the murder were within the appellant’s knowledge [Paras 34-48].

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Not applicable – Court finds no evidence of sudden fight or absence of cruelty; appellant used a deadly weapon, inflicting fatal injuries disproportionately – Emphasizes that all elements of the exception must be satisfied, which were not in this case [Paras 75-82].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Court grants liberty to appellant to seek state government remission of sentence considering mitigating factors and time already served.