Criminal Appeal – Reversal of Acquittal – The Supreme Court examines the legality of the High Court's decision to reverse the Trial Court's acquittal of the appellant-accused under Section 302 of IPC and sentence him to life imprisonment. The appeal questions whether the reversal is valid given that the Trial Court had acquitted the appellant based on his plea of insanity. [Para 1-4]

Prosecution Case – Homicide of Grandfather – The prosecution alleges that the appellant killed his 81-year-old grandfather, Krishna Bahadur Rai, using a sharp-edged weapon. The FIR was lodged by the deceased's daughter, Reeta Rai (PW-1). [Para 2]

High Court's Rejection of Insanity Plea – The respondent argues that the High Court rightly rejected the plea of insanity, after thoroughly examining medical records and other evidence. [Para 7]

Central Issue – The Supreme Court focuses on whether the case falls within the exceptions laid down under Section 84 of IPC. [Para 8]

Eyewitness Accounts – Testimonies of Reeta Rai (PW-1) and Geeta Chettri (PW-13) confirm the appellant-accused's involvement in the crime. Medical Evidence – Autopsy reports and medical examinations corroborate the violent nature of the crime and the cause of death of the deceased [Para 10-14]

Insanity Defense – Plea of insanity raised by the appellant-accused supported by the testimony of the mother and corroborated by medical evidence – Appellant's abnormal behavior at the time of the incident and thereafter cited. [Para 15-18]

Medical Evidence – Central Referral (Manipal) Hospital records and the testimony of Dr. Netra Thapa confirm the appellant-accused had been treated for acute and transient psychotic disorder and major depressive disorder with psychotic feature – The possibility of relapse acknowledged. [Para 16, 20]

Legal Precedents – Reference to previous Supreme Court judgments outlining the standards for proving insanity under Section 84 of the IPC – Distinction made between legal insanity and medical insanity – Burden of proof lies on the accused to a level of 'reasonable doubt.' [Para 19-23]

Judgment Reversal – High Court reversed the Trial Court’s acquittal without finding perversity – Question on the legality of the High Court's approach in overturning the acquittal based on reappreciation of evidence rather than finding perversity. [Para 24-25]

Section 84 IPC – Scope and interpretation of Section 84 of the IPC which deals with the act of a person of unsound mind – Emphasis on the need for the court to adopt a remedial approach in such cases, as outlined in previous Supreme Court judgments. [Para 19, 23]

Appellate Review – Principles governing the reversal of an acquittal judgment by the Appellate Court outlined – Emphasis on the need for finding perversity rather than reappreciation of evidence for reversing an acquittal. [Para 24-26]

Civil Appeal – Restoration of Miscellaneous Civil Applications – Appellants challenge the High Court's decision allowing the restoration of a dismissed MCA – History of repeated dismissals for non-prosecution in the High Court – Appellants argue against the casual approach of the High Court in allowing the restoration. [Para 1, 6-8]

Employment and Property Rights – Respondent was an employee with the Appellants and claimed irrevocable license over property – Varied judgments through multiple courts, culminating in the Second Appeal No. 84 of 1997 where Appellants were favored. [Para 2-3]

Review Applications – History of multiple review applications filed by the Respondents and dismissed by the High Court for non-prosecution – Contention that High Court's permission was not specific, yet review applications continued to be filed. [Para 4-5, 8]

Judicial Discretion and Misuse of Legal Processes – Critique of High Court's casual and unexplained approach in allowing vexatious applications, despite a series of dismissals – Emphasis on litigants not being permitted to misuse the legal process. [Para 8]

Decision – High Court's order set aside, noting its casual and unjustified approach in allowing the restoration of MCA No. 03 of 2019 – Appeal allowed; respondents directed to deposit cost as previously decided by the High Court. [Para 9]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code – Appellant acquitted by the Trial Court, convicted by the High Court – Eyewitness account of the appellant's involvement in a stabbing incident – Contradictions and discrepancies in witness statements – Importance of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases – Medical evidence and opinion of the autopsy surgeon – Discrepancies in the number of injuries – Corroboration of eyewitness accounts – Inconsistent position of the deceased after collapsing – Principles regarding discrepancies in witness testimonies – Ocular evidence vs. medical expert opinion – Benefit of doubt to accused co-accused persons – Dismissal of the appeal – Cancellation of bail and directive for appellant's surrender within four weeks. [Para 1-

Special Leave Petition – Pre-arrest Bail – Petitioner, a practicing lawyer, seeks pre-arrest bail against FIR No. 19 of 2022 lodged by his wife – Both sides adequately represented by counsel – Special Leave Petition heard and disposed of. [Para 1, 6] 

Dowry Articles – Contested Claims – Respondent No. 2 alleges the dowry articles have not been returned, a claim contested by the petitioner. [Para 3] 

Cooperation with Investigation – The State confirms that the petitioner has joined the investigation – The Court mandates continued cooperation as a condition for bail. [Para 4, 5] 

Bail Conditions – Pre-arrest bail granted under the condition of furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 – Petitioner must continue cooperating with the investigation and must not misuse the liberty granted. [Para 5] 

Family Circumstances – The Court takes into consideration the family circumstances involving three children (one adopted) in its decision to grant pre-arrest bail. [Para 5] 

Civil Appeal – Termination from service of probationary Judicial Officer – Lack of confirmation in service – Initiation of departmental inquiries – High Court’s decision not to proceed with inquiries and discharge the appellant – No provision for deemed confirmation – Dismissal of Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution upheld. [Para 1-4]

Civil Appeal – Suit for Specific Performance – Limitation – Agreement to sell land – Payment of advance amount – Refusal by the seller to perform the contract – Notice of refusal – Commencement of limitation period – Second part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Whether notice of refusal given – Suit filed beyond limitation period – Suit for specific performance barred by limitation – Decree set aside. [Para 20-27]

Civil Procedure – Constructive Res Judicata – Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Whether principles of constructive res judicata or Order II Rule 2 applicable – Not decided – Suit barred by limitation – Decision based on limitation – Setting aside of decree for specific performance. [Para 19]

Contract Act – Promise to extend time for performance – Section 63 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Refusal and forbearance – Opposites – Refusal to perform contract – Notice of refusal – Commencement of limitation period – Suit filed beyond limitation period – Suit for specific performance barred by limitation – Decree set aside. [Para 24]

Civil Procedure – Specific Performance – Allotment of Trust property eastwards – Bearing on performance of contract – No bearing – Suit for specific performance not conditional on disposal of partition suit – Suit for specific performance not barred. [Para 25-26]

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Exercise of powers to do substantial justice – Settlement between parties – Direction for payment of Rs. 50,00,000 as settlement amount – Directions for payment of interest in case of non-compliance – Exercise of power under Article 142. Appeal Allowed.  [Para 29]

Conviction and Appeal – Original Conviction and Subsequent Appeals

The appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 341, 302 read with 34 of IPC for the murder of Smt. Keshari Mahato. The High Court affirmed the decision. Special Leave Petition was filed, and leave was granted for A-1 (Bhaktu Gorain) and A-3 (Bandhu Gorain). [Para 2-3]

Circumstances of Offense – Factual Background and Witnesses

On the morning of September 27, 1993, five accused persons allegedly surrounded and assaulted the deceased, Smt. Keshari Mahato, resulting in her death. Multiple family members witnessed the event and subsequently testified. [Para 4-5]

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility and Consistency

The testimonies of Lakshmi Mahato (PW-1), Sudhir Mahato (PW-2), Rampada Mahato (PW-3), and Bijali Mahato (PW-4) were deemed credible, consistent, and corroborative of each other. All these witnesses survived cross-examination without significant discredit. [Para 6-11]

Additional Witnesses – Post-Occurrence and Chance Witnesses

Raghu Mahato (PW-6) as a post-occurrence witness, and Dr. A.K. Hazari (PW-9) as the medical examiner, provided additional corroborative evidence that supported the case of the prosecution. [Para 12, 13]

Forensic Evidence – Post-mortem Examination and Injuries

Dr. A.K. Hazari (PW-9) detailed the severe injuries on the deceased, confirming they were consistent with the weapons described and were sufficient to cause death. [Para 14]

Common Intention – Appellants’ Pre-planned Act

The accused had a common intention to commit the crime, rejecting the submission that they simply wanted to 'teach a lesson' to the deceased for her alleged witchcraft activities. The presence of deadly weapons and the nature of the injuries caused confirmed this common intention. [Para 16-18]

Decision – The argument that the appellants lacked a common intention to kill the deceased was rejected. Their prior altercation and the severe nature of the inflicted injuries showed premeditation and common intent. The convictions were thus upheld. [Para 17-18]

Territorial Jurisdiction Dispute – Section 138, 142(2)(a)N.I. Act -  The case involves a jurisdictional dispute regarding dishonoured cheques. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, erroneously held no territorial jurisdiction, denying the appellant a chance to remedy the situation. Procedural defects should not obstruct substantial justice.

Exercise of Constitutional Powers – The Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Section 406 of the Code to rectify the jurisdictional error. The Court recognized the lapse in providing proper legal guidance to the appellant and ordered the trial to continue in Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.

Non-Precedential Nature – The order was passed in consideration of the unique circumstances of the case and is not to be treated as a precedent.

Limitation Period – Controversy arises concerning the effective date of service of summons for computing the limitation period for filing a written statement in the Delhi High Court’s Commercial Division. Examination of two different modes of service. [Para 1-5]

Service of Summons – Code of Civil Procedure, Order V Rule 2 – Service of summons should include a copy of the plaint, as contended by the petitioner. The Court agrees with this legal interpretation. [Para 6-9]

Fact and Law – The High Court’s disbelief in incomplete service of the plaint is maintained by the Supreme Court, stating it is a question of fact that they do not wish to reappreciate at this stage. [Para 10-12]

Decision – The petition is dismissed, and pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. [Para 13]