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].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Appellants, trustees of a trust, entered into agreements for sale with the respondent and his brother – Subsequent disputes led to civil suits and criminal complaints – Respondent’s complaint alleged conspiracy and fraud by the appellants – Supreme Court examines the validity of the complaint in light of subsequent settlement and withdrawal of the civil suit [Paras 1-18].

Abuse of Process – Settlement and Withdrawal – Court finds that the respondent had withdrawn his claim in the civil suit, acknowledging a settlement – Continuing the criminal complaint was deemed an abuse of the process of law – Complaint quashed [Paras 10-17].

Section 362 CrPC – Scope of Bar – Supreme Court clarifies that while Section 362 bars alteration of judgments in criminal cases, it does not preclude the High Court from entertaining a substantive writ petition under Article 226 to quash a complaint [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Criminal complaint quashed – Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of preventing abuse of the judicial process when a settlement has been reached and acknowledged by both parties [Paras 17-18].

Cinematic Speech – Free Expression vs. Dignity – Supreme Court evaluates the conflict between the filmmaker's right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the rights of persons with disabilities to dignity and non-discrimination under Articles 14, 15, and 21, and the RPwD Act – Emphasizes the need for sensitive portrayal of disabilities in films [Paras 1-70].

Derogatory Portrayal – Stereotypes – Court highlights the historically oppressive representation of persons with disabilities in media – Notes that while humour can be a tool for engagement, it must not reinforce harmful stereotypes – Distinguishes between 'disability humour' and 'disabling humour' [Paras 26-66].

Test of Proportionality – Balancing Rights – Court outlines that disparaging portrayals must be justified by the overall message of the film – If the portrayal of persons with disabilities is stereotypical but serves a broader, positive narrative, it may be permissible – Proportionality test applied to balance filmmaker’s free speech and rights of persons with disabilities [Paras 67-74].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upholds the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition – Emphasizes the importance of considering the overall message of the film and the filmmaker’s intent – Recommends guidelines for sensitive portrayal of disabilities but refrains from judicial interference in certification decisions made by expert bodies [Paras 71-74].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of a 14-year-old girl, supported by circumstantial evidence – High Court upheld the conviction based on the identification of the appellant by witnesses – Supreme Court examines the reliability of the identification and the necessity of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) [Paras 1-16].

Eyewitness Testimony – Identification – Supreme Court finds the identification of the appellant by witnesses unreliable due to the absence of a TIP and the witnesses only seeing the appellant wearing a monkey cap, which obscured his facial features – Highlights the importance of TIP in cases involving strangers [Paras 9-13].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Incriminating Material – Court questions the validity of recoveries made without proper judicial procedures – Finds that the evidence against the appellant does not establish his identity beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 8-10].

Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Necessity and Conduct – Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of TIP in ensuring the reliability of witness identification in cases involving strangers – Criticizes the prosecution for not conducting a TIP and relying solely on dock identification [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released unless required in connection with any other case [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of his roommate over a dispute regarding playing music – Trial court’s judgment upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court examines the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence, including hostile witnesses, extra-judicial confessions, and dying declarations [Paras 1-15].

Eyewitness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Supreme Court finds that the testimonies of hostile witnesses were insufficient to support the prosecution’s case – Highlights inconsistencies and the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime [Paras 4-14].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility and Reliability – Court questions the credibility of the extra-judicial confession made to PW-19, noting the absence of supporting evidence, such as phone records and the non-examination of PSI Mishra, who was allegedly present during the confession [Paras 6-8].

Dying Declaration – Doubtful Credibility – Supreme Court finds the dying declaration made to PW-24 unconvincing due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the deceased's condition at the time of the statement [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released unless required in connection with any other case [Para 15].

Suspension of Sentence – Petitioner’s plea for suspension of sentence rejected by High Court – Petitioner aged seventy and 90% visually impaired – High Court’s failure to consider age, health, and two years already served – Supreme Court emphasizes need for application of correct principles for suspension of fixed-term sentences – Casual and mechanical approach by High Court criticized [Paras 1-6].

Bail Pending Appeal – Petitioner’s health and age significant factors – High Court’s orders lacked reasoning and consideration of exceptional circumstances – Supreme Court orders release on bail pending appeal with conditions as deemed fit by trial court [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Special Leave Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to terms and conditions imposed by the trial court [Para 8].