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]

Writ Petition – Eligibility for admission to a Post Graduate medical seat – Petitioner aggrieved by the rejection of candidature – Challenging the change of her status from OCI candidate to Indian national – Relief sought under Article 32 of the Constitution – Judgment addressing the issue of eligibility based on OCI status. [Para 1-18]

Notification – Ministry of Home Affairs Notification dated 04.03.2021 – Withdrawal of eligibility or privileges conferred upon OCI Card holders – Notification altering the rights of OCI Card holders regarding parity with Indian nationals for appearing in All India entrance tests such as NEET. [Para 13-14]

Retroactivity – Analysis of whether the notification had retroactive application – Court concluding that the notification retroactively withdrew the rights which were available – Examination of the fairness and application of mind in implementing the notification. [Para 15-16]

Anushka Rengunthwar Case – Reference to the judgment in Anushka Rengunthwar & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. – Court’s interpretation of the effect of the notification and its retroactive application – Ruling on the notification’s applicability to OCI Card holders born prior to its issuance date. [Para 10-16]

Eligibility Criteria – Examination of the petitioner’s eligibility based on her OCI status – OCI Card holder’s entitlement to participate in NEET examination – Change of petitioner’s status to Indian national after initially being treated as an OCI candidate. [Para 2-8, 17-18]

Unfair Treatment – Petitioner’s contention of unfair and arbitrary treatment by AIIMS – Change of her status affecting her chances of admission in PG Medical Course – Examination of whether the change of status was justified and based on valid reasons. [Para 6-8]

Consideration of Eligibility – Directive to consider the petitioner’s eligibility for remaining counselling rounds for PG Medical seats – Clarification that consideration should include unfilled seats reserved for various categories and special candidates – Inclusion of candidates issued OCI cards prior to 04.03.2021. [Para 17-18]

Special Leave Petition (Criminal) – Delay Condonation and Permission – The Supreme Court granted permission to file a special leave petition without a certified/plain copy of the impugned order and condoned the delay in refiling. [Para 1]

Time to Surrender – Regular Bail – Petitioner granted four weeks to surrender and apply for regular bail, which will be considered in accordance with the law. [Para 2]

Serious Irregularity – Unavailability of Order – Court noted a serious irregularity regarding the non-availability of the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 to the aggrieved party. The issue was attributed to technical glitches and administrative issues at the High Court of Patna. [Para 3-4]

Directive to High Court – Investigation – The Supreme Court directed the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court to investigate the matter and take necessary steps to rectify the issue related to the unavailability of orders. [Para 5-6]

Disposition – Petition Disposed of – All pending applications, including the special leave petition, were disposed of in accordance with the directives issued. [Para 7]

Challenge to High Court’s directions in Writ Petition (C) No. 7080 of 2005 – Appellants challenge validity of High Court’s directions issued superseding CAT’s order – Respondent seeking promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme – Original application before CAT disposed with direction to clarify promotion guidelines – Appellants aggrieved by High Court’s judgment, contest its validity. [Para 1-2]

Validity of Rule 4(b) of Ministry of Information Technology (In-situ Promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules, 1998 – Rule 4(b) challenged as ultra vires – Respondent’s pleading lacks grounds to challenge rule’s validity – High Court’s declaration of Rule 4(b) as ultra vires not justified – Proper pleading and relief needed to challenge rule’s validity. [Para 8-9]

Challenge to denial of promotion – Rule 4(b)’s validity set aside – Denial of promotion based on rule’s validity – Respondent’s grievance about promotion denial doesn’t hold – No unjustified denial of promotion for respondent – Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme in place – Respondent’s promotion during writ petition and superannuation rendered issue moot – Validity of promotion of juniors also not relevant. [Para 10-11]

Intervenors impleaded – Allowed to support High Court’s order – Lack of challenge and appropriate pleading – Impleaded parties’ grounds not considered – Parties have liberty to pursue their claims through appropriate proceedings – No express view on validity of Rules. [Para 12]

Appeal allowed – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 13]