Writ Petition under Article 32 – Petitioner serving life sentence seeks premature release after 24 years of actual imprisonment without remission or parole – Writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Conviction Background – Petitioner convicted for triple murder, including two police personnel – Conviction affirmed by High Court in 2005 – Application for premature release rejected by Remission Board despite favourable reports [Para 2-5].

Legal Framework – Discussion on Section 432(1) of the CrPC and discretionary nature of executive power for granting remission – Emphasis on fair and reasonable exercise of discretion [Para 7, 10].

Judicial Critique of Remission Board – Over-reliance on presiding judge's opinion criticized – Failure to consider other authorities like Probation Officer and Jail Superintendent noted [Para 15-16].

Holistic Approach for Remission – Court emphasizes need for balanced consideration of various factors including convict's post-conviction conduct, age, and health – Suggests inclusion of psychologist's report [Para 17-21].

Police Bias – Caution against potential biases in police reports, especially when victims are police personnel – Such biases should not be determinative [Para 20].

Reconsideration Directed – Remission Board and presiding judge directed to reconsider petitioner's application for premature release – Various factors to be considered including age, health, and post-conviction conduct [Para 25].

Final Decision – Writ petition allowed – Remission Board advised to make its decision within three months – Presiding judge to provide new opinion within one month [Para 25-26].

Appeal – State of Punjab Against High Court's Directions  - State of Punjab appeals against the High Court's order directing the initiation of criminal proceedings against an Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (AETC) for allegedly taking a false defense in a case related to the sealing of a shop. The Supreme Court scrutinizes the basis of the High Court's directions. [Para 1, 2]

Natural Justice – Opportunity to Defend - Supreme Court questions the High Court's failure to afford the AETC an opportunity to defend himself, thereby violating principles of natural justice. [Para 7, 11]

Judicial Conduct – Principles for Adverse Remarks - judgment elaborates on the principles that should guide a court in passing adverse remarks against an individual. The Court emphasizes the need for caution, evidence, and necessity for the case at hand. [Para 14-19]

Expunction – Removal of Adverse Remarks and Directions - Supreme Court expunges the High Court's adverse remarks and directions against the AETC, citing them as against settled principles of law. Proceedings initiated pursuant to the High Court's directions, including the FIR, are ordered to be closed with immediate effect. [Para 21, 22]

Decision – Appeal Allowed, High Court's Directions Expunged - Supreme Court allows the appeal of the State of Punjab and expunges the adverse remarks and directions issued by the High Court. Any proceedings initiated, including the FIR, are ordered to stand closed with immediate effect. [Para 21, 22, 23]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction and Sentence – Appeal against conviction under Sections 302, 392, 394, and 397 read with Section 34 of the IPC – Appellant challenging the judgment and order of the High Court affirming the Trial Court’s decision – Appellant convicted along with co-accused for robbery and causing injuries resulting in the death of one person – Appeal dismissed by the High Court – Special leave granted by the Supreme Court. [Para 1-13]

Identification Procedure – Role of Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Whether an accused can decline to submit himself to the TIP on the ground that it violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution – Interpretation of Section 54A of the CrPC – Importance and Evidentiary Value of TIP.

Identification Procedure – Article 20(3) of the Constitution – Compulsion for Test Identification Parade (TIP) – An accused cannot resist subjecting himself to the TIP on the ground that he cannot be forced or coerced for the same – Coercion sought for getting evidence through positive volitional act is prohibited by Article 20(3) – TIP involves compelled attendance, but not a positive volitional evidentiary act by the accused – An accused may have legitimate grounds to challenge TIP's legitimacy, but cannot decline to participate. [Para 22-36]

Section 54A of the CrPC – Identification of Arrested Person – Introduction of Section 54A in the CrPC empowers the Court, on the request of the police, to direct an arrested person to undergo identification by others – First proviso mandates supervision by a Judicial Magistrate when the identifier is mentally or physically disabled – Second proviso requires videography if the suspect is mentally or physically disabled – Section 54A does not apply to identification of articles – Accused's obligation to stand for TIP under Section 54A – Accused cannot decline TIP based solely on the fact that witnesses saw him before – Accused can raise legal objections regarding TIP's legitimacy or evidentiary value during the trial. [Para 29-36]

Importance and Evidentiary Value of TIP – Identification as Relevant Evidence – Identification is relevant evidence to establish the identity of a person or thing – Identification has no independent value and is used to prove that the witness identified the accused at the time of the incident – TIP is an act of the mind and usually involves the witness's belief or opinion – Primary purpose of TIP is to establish the credibility of the witness's identification. [Para 37-42]

Identification Process – Refusal of Accused to Participate in TIP – Impact on In-Court Identification – Weight of In-Court Identification – Evaluation of Witness Credibility – Assessment of Identification Factors – Opportunity to Observe Accused – Degree of Witness Attention – Prior Descriptions and Recognition – Reliability of Witness Testimony – Consideration of Time Gap between Crime and Identification. [Para 67-71]

Discovery of Evidence – Conduct of Accused – Relevance of Conduct as Evidence – Interpretation of Section 8 of the Evidence Act – Role of Conduct in Establishing Circumstantial Corroboration – Connection between Discovery and Identification – Application of Conduct Evidence in Determining Accused's Guilt. [Para 76-78]

Prejudicial Refusal to Participate in TIP – Impact on Accused's Credibility – Analysis of Conduct Leading to Refusal – Absence of Sufficient Foundation for Refusal – Consideration of Preponderance of Probability – Necessity for Credible Explanation for Refusal – Refusal and its Implications in Criminal Trials. [Para 75]

Reliability of In-Court Identification – Weight Given to Identification by Injured Eye Witness – Factors Influencing Trustworthiness of In-Court Identification – Clear Opportunity of Witness to View Assailants – Witness's Degree of Attention during Incident – Significance of Accurate Prior Descriptions – Relationship between Time of Crime and In-Court Identification – Application of American Supreme Court Factors in Assessment of Reliability. [Para 70]

Refusal to Participate in TIP and Discovery of Evidence – Connection between Refusal, Discovery, and Identification – Conduct Leading to Discovery as Indicator of Guilt – Role of Relevant Conduct in Establishing Accused's Involvement – Interpretation of Conduct Evidence as Per Section 8 of the Evidence Act – Corroboration of Witness Testimony through Conduct. [Para 78]

Conviction Upheld – Adequate Evaluation of Identification Evidence – Examination of Multiple Factors Influencing Identification Reliability – Consideration of Witness Testimony and Conduct Evidence – Conclusive Consequences of Reliable Identification – Decision in Favor of Prosecution's Case – Appellant's Refusal to Participate in TIP as Inconsequential – Reliability of In-Court Identification and Discovery of Evidence. [Para 79]

Judicial Review - Scope and Limitations in Departmental Inquiries – Emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review against departmental inquiry proceedings – Court's role is not to act as an appellate body or to re-appreciate evidence but to ensure that the findings of the inquiry are based on some evidence – The Court should not transgress the limits of judicial review, as established in a long line of judgments. [Para 36]

Departmental Inquiry - Findings and Conclusions by the Learned Single Judge – The learned Single Judge was found to be justified in specific aspects of the departmental inquiry, particularly concerning the non-submission of control forms and the area of operation – The Court expressed satisfaction with the Enquiry Report, which fortified the conclusions of the learned Single Judge. [Para 15-17]

Administrative Law - Severability of Charges and Penalties in Disciplinary Proceedings – The Court clarified that if the penalty can be imposed based on the charges that are proved and if such a penalty is lawfully sustainable, then it is not for the Court to consider whether those grounds alone would have weighed with the disciplinary authority in imposing the punishment. [Para 38-39]

 Final Decision - set aside the orders of both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, thereby dismissing Writ Petition No. 29547 of 1997 filed by the respondent – The Court allowed the appeal and clarified that there would be no order as to costs. [Para 41,]

Execution of Decree – Possession of Immoveable Property – Interpretation of Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of CPC – Appellant sought execution of decree for possession of immoveable property against respondent-Corporation – Respondent claimed encroachment on suit land by third parties – Executing Court dismissed execution petition stating decree was inexecutable due to encroachment – High Court upheld dismissal – Legal position clarified that Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 provide remedy for adjudicating resistance or obstruction to execution by any person, including strangers to the decree – Executing Court has jurisdiction to determine such claims and cannot summarily dismiss execution petition – Decree for possession to be executed by delivering physical vacant possession in accordance with CPC provisions. [Para 7-16]

Criminal Appeal – Bail – Grant of bail to accused in Sections 376(D), 228A, 506, 120B IPC – Appellant challenges bail granted to co-accused – High Court's decision based on parity – Validity of the bail orders questioned – Supreme Court examines the grounds of granting bail and parameters to consider – Proper application of principles for grant of bail emphasized. [Para 1-3, 9-10]

Consideration of Evidence – High Court's approach in not discussing evidence in detail – Concerns raised about influencing trial and prejudicing accused or prosecution – Supreme Court observes inadequacy of reasons in High Court's order – High Court's duty to consider relevant factors while granting bail. [Para 3]

Conditions for Bail – Conditions imposed by High Court while granting bail – Appropriate conditions to prevent interference with trial and witnesses – Variation of certain conditions by Supreme Court – Onus on accused to cooperate and adhere to conditions – Violation of conditions leading to cancellation of bail. [Para 4, 12]

Safety of Petitioner – Concerns raised about safety of petitioner and her family – Onus of ensuring safety placed on Union Territory Administration – Director-General of Police directed to address complaints and take appropriate action – Liberty granted to parties to apply in case of difficulty. [Para 13]

Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Pending applications disposed of – Supreme Court's decision on bail upheld, subject to modified conditions – Observations in judgment not to favor accused or impede trial. [Para 14-15]

Cancellation of Bail – Rape - appellant registered an FIR alleging gang rape, threat, and extortion against the respondents - gang rape of a minor girl, who was also threatened by the accused -appeals arising from the High Court's order granting bail to the first respondent under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. – aggrieved appellant preferred appeals against bail order by special leave. [Para 2, 3, 4, 8]

Principles for Grant of Bail – The Court delves into the principles governing the grant of bail, emphasizing that factors like the nature of accusations, punishment severity, and credibility of the prosecution are key elements to consider. [Para 12-17]

Cancellation of Bail – The Court stresses that cancelling bail necessitates compelling circumstances. It underscores the societal impact and the role of the Superior Court in certain situations. [Para 18]

Analysis of High Court's Decision – The Court scrutinizes the High Court's decision to grant bail, taking into account the background, contentions, and relevant considerations. The Court finds flaws in the High Court's approach. [Para 19-27]

Delay in Filing Complaint – The Court discusses the significance of the delay in filing the complaint and argues that such delay is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case. Factors like threats, societal circumstances, and the victim's age are presented as valid reasons for the delay. [Para 20-21]

Accused's Non-Cooperation and Influence – The Court examines the accused's behavior, highlighting that the first respondent did not initially surrender or cooperate with the investigation. The accused's position as the son of an MLA is noted, raising concerns about his potential influence on the proceedings. [Para 22-23]

Evidence and Witness Intimidation – The Court considers the threat to witnesses and the prosecutrix's claims. Lack of witness cooperation, despite multiple hearing dates, lends credence to the complainant's apprehensions. [Para 24-25]

High Court's Error in Granting Bail – The Court criticizes the High Court's decision to grant bail, citing the omission of crucial facts and established judicial precedents in the decision-making process. The High Court's focus on delay and missing evidence is found inadequate. [Para 26-27]

Bail Order Set Aside – The Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's bail order and directs the accused to surrender within two weeks. The accused are permitted to seek bail after the completion of witness depositions. The jurisdictional court's role is clarified, and its decision should not be influenced by prior observations. The appeals are allowed. [Para 28]

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 – Compensation Claim – Death of Driver During Employment – Appellants, legal heirs of deceased Sumer Singh, challenged High Court's reversal of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's award of ₹3,26,140 with 12% p.a. interest under the 1923 Act. Supreme Court found merit in the appeal, reinstating the Commissioner's award. [Para 1, 14]

Employment – Causal Connection – Death During Duty – Deceased was employed as a driver and died while on a long-distance assignment. Supreme Court found a causal connection between the death and the nature of employment, relying on precedents like Param Pal Singh's case. [Para 9, 10]

Insurance – Liability of Insurance Company – Respondents argued that the death did not arise out of employment and thus was not covered under the insurance policy. Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that an additional premium was paid to cover such eventualities under the 1923 Act. [Para 4, 7]

Decision – Restoration of Commissioner's Award – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and restoring the Commissioner's award of compensation with no order as to costs. [Para 14]

Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Challenge to judgment of the High Court confirming the appellant's conviction and sentence of death - The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 436, and 326-A of the IPC - Prosecution's case based on circumstantial evidence and dying declarations - Appellant's plea of innocence and false implication - Motive for the crime based on family disputes - Courts below held appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt - Appeal dismissed by the High Court - Issues of circumstantial evidence, dying declarations, and credibility of witnesses raised.

Dying Declarations – Assessment of Evidence – Discrepancies between Dying Declarations and Oral Witnesses – Distrust in the veracity of dying declarations due to inconsistencies with oral witness accounts – Examination of circumstances surrounding the incident and statements – Weight given to dying declarations and oral evidence – Caution against blind reliance on dying declarations – Absence of cross-examination in dying declarations – Need for careful consideration in evaluating dying declarations. [Para 37-53]

Admissibility of Dying Declarations – Historical and Literary Basis – Principle of Necessity – Presumption of Truthfulness – Shakespearean Origin – Importance of Dying Person's Veracity – Sanctity of Declarations Made in Extreme Circumstances – Maxims "nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire" and "a man will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth" – Dispensation of Oath and Cross-Examination – Caution against Tutoring or Prompting. [Para 32-35]

Reliability of Dying Declarations – Weight of Evidence – Sole Basis for Conviction – Safeguarding Against Unreliable Declarations – Evaluation Criteria – Fit State of Mind of Deceased – Clarity of Observation and Identification – Voluntariness – Role of Medical Opinion – Prudence of Corroboration – Circumstantial Considerations. [Para 39-49]

Supreme Court articulated an array of factors that should be taken into account while evaluating the weight and credibility of a dying declaration. These factors are elucidated below:

(i) Whether the person making the statement was in expectation of death?

(ii) Whether the dying declaration was made at the earliest opportunity? “Rule of First Opportunity”

(iii) Whether there is any reasonable suspicion to believe the dying declaration was put in the mouth of the dying person?

(iv) Whether the dying declaration was a product of prompting, tutoring or leading at the instance of police or any interested party? 

(v) Whether the statement was not recorded properly?

(vi) Whether the dying declarant had opportunity to clearly observe the incident?

(vii)Whether the dying declaration has been consistent throughout?

(viii) Whether the dying declaration in itself is a manifestation / fiction of the dying person’s imagination of what he thinks transpired?

(ix) Whether the dying declaration was itself voluntary?

(x) In case of multiple dying declarations, whether, the first one inspires truth and consistent with the other dying declaration?

(xi) Whether, as per the injuries, it would have been impossible for the deceased to make a dying declaration?   (Para No. 62)

Acquittal - Safeguards and Precautions in Admitting Dying Declarations – Principles of Reliability and Truthfulness – Distinction between "Proof beyond Reasonable Doubt" and "Suspicion" – Caution against Conviction based solely on Dying Declaration – Duty of Courts to Evaluate Credibility – Necessity of Clear, Cogent, and Unimpeachable Evidence – Benefit of Doubt in Favor of Accused. Appeal Allowed. [Para 65-69]