Murder – Non-recovery of Weapons – Non-recovery of weapons does not discard the evidence of injured eye witnesses – Conviction under Sections 302 and 149 IPC upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-22].

Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Ten individuals assembled with firearms and lethal weapons – Violence and the ultimate act leading to murder indicates a common object to commit murder – Evidence from injured witnesses supported by medical reports [Paras 20-21].

Section 302 vs. Section 304 IPC – Contentions for altering conviction to Section 304 IPC rejected – No evidence to bring the act within exceptions to Section 300 IPC – Conviction under Section 302 IPC maintained [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302 and 149 IPC upheld – No merit in contentions for altering conviction to Section 304 IPC [Para 22].

Murder – Acquittal – Absence of weapon recovery not a ground for acquittal – Eye witness testimony sufficient to convict – Contradictions in FIR timing not substantial – High Court's acquittal quashed and Trial Court's conviction restored – Respondents directed to surrender [Paras 1-10].

Eyewitness Testimony – Sole reliance on credible and reliable eyewitness testimony sufficient for conviction – No need for recovery of weapon if eyewitness accounts are trustworthy – Conviction can be based solely on reliable eyewitness evidence [Paras 6-8].

Contradictions in FIR – Minor contradictions regarding FIR timing and place not sufficient to acquit – Prosecution's case supported by consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony – High Court's reasons for acquittal not sustainable [Para 7].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment acquitting the accused set aside – Trial Court's conviction and sentence restored – Accused to surrender within six weeks or be taken into custody [Paras 9-10].

Second Appeal – Execution of Pronote – High Court interfered with concurrent findings of lower courts on execution of pronote – High Court set aside decrees on the ground of non-examination of attesting witness – Supreme Court found signature on pronote established by handwriting expert and execution by deed writer – High Court's interference unwarranted – Presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act upheld – High Court's decision quashed, decrees restored [Paras 5-7].

Presumption of Consideration – Section 118 NI Act – Execution of pronote by defendant established – Minor contradictions in witness depositions not sufficient to rebut presumption of consideration – Defendant failed to provide contrary evidence – High Court erred in allowing second appeal [Paras 6-6.1].

Non-examination of Witness – Non-examination of attesting witness to pronote not fatal to plaintiff's case – Execution and consideration sufficiently proved by other evidence – High Court's reasoning flawed [Paras 6-6.1].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and order set aside – Trial Court and First Appellate Court's judgment and decree restored – No costs [Paras 7].

Land Acquisition – Section 17 Urgency Provisions – Compliance with Section 17(3A) mandatory for absolute vesting – Non-compliance with Section 17(3A) leads to lapsing of acquisition if award not made within two years – Compliance with Section 17(3A) and taking possession ensures vesting and avoids lapsing under Section 11A – Acquisition in present case deemed not to have lapsed due to development on land and partial compliance [Paras 1-26].

Section 11A Applicability – Period within which award must be made applicable to acquisitions under Section 17 – Requirement of tendering and paying 80% of compensation before possession essential – Non-compliance leads to lapsing unless landowner consents – In present case, retrospective application not feasible due to completed development and partial compliance [Paras 8-17].

Relief and Remedy – Market value to be determined as on 09.06.2008 – Statutory benefits calculated from date of original notification – Award to be passed afresh with opportunity for appellant to seek enhancement – Relief molded considering development on land and procedural delays [Paras 23-26].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – High Court's judgment set aside – Directed respondents to determine market value as on 09.06.2008 and calculate benefits from original notification date – Compensation to be paid accordingly – No cause of action for other land losers to seek re-determination [Paras 26-28].

Family Pension – Work-Charged Employee – Appellant's deceased husband was engaged as a Muster Roll employee and later appointed to the work-charged establishment – Deceased remained a work-charged employee until his demise – Work-charged employees not covered under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 – Board had adopted National Pension Scheme for work-charged employees, which the deceased did not opt for – High Court's denial of family pension upheld [Paras 1-15].

Regulation and Rules – Applicability – M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 explicitly exclude work-charged employees – M.P. Housing Board had not adopted relevant pension rules for work-charged employees – National Pension Scheme extended to work-charged employees in 2015 – Deceased did not exercise option for NPS [Paras 6-14].

Legal Precedent – Prem Singh Case – Not applicable to present case as it dealt with regularized employees' pension eligibility – Deceased in present case not regularized [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Deceased not regularized and did not opt for NPS – Appellant not entitled to family pension – No interference with High Court's judgment [Paras 15-16].

Adverse Possession – Title Suit – Plaintiffs not found to be owners – Plaintiffs' claim of title by adverse possession and ownership through sale deed contradictory – High Court erred in granting permanent injunction – Appeal allowed, lower courts' judgments quashed, Trial Court judgment restored dismissing suit [Paras 1-6].

Contradictory Claims – Plaintiffs' ownership claim via sale deed and adverse possession are mutually exclusive – High Court's recognition of contradiction but failure to reverse injunction decree incorrect – Substantial question of law on adverse possession decided in favor of appellant – Injunction for possession as encroacher untenable [Paras 3-5].

Legal Misinterpretation – Courts below misunderstood legal implications of adverse possession claim when ownership not proven – Injunction without ownership validation improper – Plaintiffs' possession considered encroachment [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and First Appellate Court judgments set aside – Trial Court judgment dismissing suit restored – No order as to costs [Paras 5-6].

Stamp Duty Remission – Cooperative Societies – High Court held remission under Section 40(1)(a) of Kerala Act 1969 limited to instruments executed by or on behalf of society or by an officer/member for society business – SRO 75/60 broader remission scope inconsistent with Section 40(1)(a) and not saved under Section 110(2) – Appeal against limited remission dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 40(1)(a) limits remission to specific circumstances – Instruments by members in personal capacity excluded – SRO 75/60's broader scope inconsistent with Section 40(1)(a) – SRO 75/60 not saved under repealed Act provisions [Paras 7-9].

Remission Scope – Instruments must be for society business by eligible parties – Personal capacity instruments by members/guardians not covered – Consistency required with Kerala Act 1969 [Para 8].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Full Bench High Court's interpretation upheld – Appellants not entitled to remission under broader SRO 75/60 terms – No order as to costs [Paras 9-10].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Motor accident resulting in the death of the deceased, Hari Ram – Appellants, the claimants (wife, son, and mother of the deceased), challenged the initial compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – High Court increased the compensation from Rs. 433,000 to Rs. 655,000, correcting the age of the deceased from 60 to 50 years and adjusting the multiplier accordingly – High Court also increased the interest rate from 7% to 7.5% – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, finding no ground for interference [Paras 1-5].

Determination of Age – Scientific Evidence – High Court revised the deceased’s age based on scientific evidence, impacting the multiplier used for calculating compensation – Change from 60 to 50 years resulted in the application of a higher multiplier, increasing the compensation amount – Court emphasized the importance of accurate age determination for fair compensation [Paras 3-4].

Interest Rate Adjustment – High Court justified the increase in interest rate from 7% to 7.5%, aligning with prevailing standards and ensuring adequate compensation for the appellants – Supreme Court found the adjustment reasonable and necessary for equitable relief [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s order of enhanced compensation and revised interest rate affirmed – No order as to costs [Para 5].

Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution – Statutory remedy of appeal under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002 – High Court entertained a writ petition against the Assessment Order denying Input rebate despite availability of statutory appeal – Supreme Court held High Court’s decision unsustainable, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 1-8].

Taxation – Assessment Order – Input Tax Rebate – Assessing Officer denied Input rebate under Section 14 of the MP VAT Act, 2002 – Respondent bypassed statutory appeal and filed writ petition – High Court quashed the Assessment Order and allowed Input rebate – Supreme Court set aside High Court’s decision, directing respondent to pursue statutory appeal [Paras 2-8].

Judicial Precedents – Importance of statutory remedies – Referred to various precedents emphasizing non-entertainment of writ petitions when statutory remedies are available, including decisions in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, and others – Reinforced principle that High Courts should not short-circuit statutory appeal processes [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order quashed – Respondent directed to file statutory appeal within four weeks – Appeal to be entertained without raising limitation issues, subject to compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 7-9].