Army Act, 1950 - Sections 39(b), 71, 72, 73, and 120 - Defence Service Regulations, 1987, Regulation 448 - Punishment for absence without leave or overstaying leave - Dismissal from service. (Para 1)

Disciplinary history of the appellant - Habitual defaulter - Analysis of past punishments for unauthorized absence - Court noted several instances of indiscipline prior to the present incident - Appellant had a record of being repeatedly absent without leave. (Para 9)

Discretion of Summary Court Martial (SCM) - Authority to impose appropriate punishment - SCM empowered to pass any legal sentence depending on the nature and degree of the offense - Acknowledgment of sufficient discretion vested in SCM to award a higher punishment. (Para 12)

Interpretation of Army Act provisions - Section 39(b), 71, 72, 73, and 120 - Section 39(b) deals with offenses related to absence without leave - Section 71 lists punishments on conviction by Court Martial in a sliding scale - Section 72 and 73 allow Court Martial discretion to determine appropriate punishment for a specific offense. (Para 13)

Compliance with procedure - Appellant's contention on the Court of Inquiry's conduct - Absence of prescribed procedure for reporting directly to the higher authority refuted - No merit in appellant's plea of unfair procedure. (Para 6)

Proportionality of punishment - Court Martial's right to award a suitable sentence - Dismissal from service held to be an acceptable punishment, considering appellant's history of indiscipline and repeated unauthorized absence. (Para 10)

Dismissal upheld - Appeal dismissed - The punishment of dismissal from service affirmed as reasonable and proportionate considering the appellant's conduct and disciplinary record. (Para 17)

Section 302 IPC - Appeal against conviction – Murder – Evidence based on circumstantial and hearsay evidence – Failure to establish motive – Inconsistent testimony of witnesses – Medical evidence not supporting prosecution’s case – Possibility of false implication – Acquittal ordered. [Para 37]

Eye-witness testimony – No direct evidence of the accused assaulting the deceased – Testimony of witnesses inconsistent and unreliable – Lack of credibility in the prosecution’s case. [Para 32]

Motive – Prosecution fails to establish a motive for the accused to commit the crime – No enmity or dispute between the appellant and the deceased – Motive plays an important role in the absence of direct eyewitnesses. [Para 34]

Influence of Sarpanch – Allegations of false implication due to the influence of Sarpanch – Sarpanch had a grudge against the accused – Possibility of the appellant being falsely implicated. [Para 34]

Medical evidence – Weapon of assault does not match the injury observed in the post-mortem report – Suggestion that the injury could have been caused by the deceased falling on a sharp object – Probability of the deceased being heavily drunk. [Para 34]

Delayed lodging of FIR – Unsatisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the FIR. [Para 35]

Prosecution fails to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant entitled to acquittal – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant to be released if not wanted in any other case. [Para 37]

Criminal Law – Distinction between Culpable Homicide and Murder – Elements of Intention and Knowledge – Determination of Guilty Intention – Single Injury Resulting in Death – Inference of Guilty Knowledge – Application of Statutory Exceptions – Assessment of Factual Circumstances – Intent to Cause Bodily Injury Likely to Cause Death – Inference of Absence of Intention to Cause Injury Sufficient to Cause Death. (Para 62)

Criminal Law – Interpretation of Statutory Provisions – Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 299, 300, 302, and 304 – Scope and Application – Requirements for Establishing Murder and Exceptions – Offense under Section 304 Part I and Part II – Failure to Establish Clauses of Section 300 – Charge of Murder Not Sustained – Consideration of Four Clauses of Section 300 for Murder Conviction. (Para 63)

Criminal Law – Assessment of Guilty Intention or Knowledge – Factors to Consider – Nature of Weapon Used – Part of Body Injured – Extent of Injury – Degree of Force Applied – Manner of Attack – Circumstances Preceding and Attending the Attack – Inference of Guilty Knowledge from Proven Circumstances. (Para 8)

Criminal Law – Intent to Cause Death or Injury Sufficient to Cause Death – Distinction in Establishing Murder – Intention Not Limited to Killing – Intent to Cause Injury Sufficient in Ordinary Course of Nature to Cause Death – Inference of Intent from Act or Acts Resulting in Injury or Injuries – Determination Based on Factual Findings of Each Case. (Para 9, 10, 11)

Criminal Law – Single Injury Resulting in Death – Evaluation of Intent – Absence of Premeditation or Intentional Killing – Consideration of Sudden Fight, Quarrel, or Accidental Circumstances – Inference of Guilty Knowledge – Offense Under Section 304 Part II IPC – Application of Section 304 Rather than Section 300. (Para 12)

Criminal Law – Head Injury Causing Death – Assessment of Intent – Common Agricultural Tool as Weapon – Knowledge of Likelihood of Causing Injury Likely to Cause Death – Inference of Absence of Intention to Cause Injury Sufficient to Cause Death – Reliance on Post Mortem Report – Inference of Intent to Cause Injury Likely to Cause Death. (Para 62)

Constitutional Validity - Challenge to Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance 2023 [“NCT Ordinance”] - Scope of Legislative and Executive Powers - The petitioner, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), challenges the NCT Ordinance, promulgated under Article 123 of the Constitution, which amends the GNCTD Act 1991. The NCT Ordinance introduces Section 3A, excluding Entry 41 of List II from GNCTD's legislative competence, and establishes a new scheme for executive power distribution between Union of India and GNCTD.

Grounds of Challenge - The petitioner raises several grounds of challenge, including the amendment of a constitutional provision (Article 239-AA(3)(a)), abrogation of principles of governance for NCTD, and validity of Parliament's power exercised under Article 239-AA(7).

Substantial Questions of Law Referred - The Court refers two substantial questions of law to a Constitution Bench: (i) The extent of Parliament's power to enact a law under Article 239-AA(7); and (ii) Whether Parliament, under Article 239-AA(7), can abrogate the constitutional principles of governance for NCTD.

Constitution Bench Direction - The Constitution Bench is directed to dispose of the writ petition and answer the questions mentioned above. The Court also dismisses IA No. 130505 of 2023 seeking a stay of the NCT Ordinance.

Anticipatory Bail – FIR registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 423 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Appellant’s plea for anticipatory bail – Complainant’s year of birth mentioned in FIR as 1967, while appellant much younger and not previously married – Complainant’s second marriage with the appellant – Complainant claims appellant has adopted her child from the first marriage – Appellant filed Summary Suit/Petition for recovery of money against the complainant before the registration of FIR – Grant of anticipatory bail considered – No firm opinion on conflicting assertions and claims given – Appellant’s case for anticipatory bail accepted – Appellant directed to be released on bail by arresting/investigating officer/trial court on terms and conditions to be fixed by trial court – Appellant to comply with conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Appellant to appear before the Investigating Officer on a specified date – Failure to comply may lead to cancellation of anticipatory bail – Directions clarified not to be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits – Impugned order set aside – Appeal allowed accordingly.

CRIMINAL APPEAL – Murder – Acquittal -Benefit of Doubt – Credibility of Prosecution Case – Sufficiency of Evidence – Examination of Witnesses – Discrepancies in Witness Statements – Absence of Key Witnesses – Lack of Weapon Recovery – False Implication – Indian Penal Code – Murder – Assault – Criminal Conspiracy – Principles of Justice and Fairness – Relatives of the deceased accused of the crime – Dispute over land ownership – Failure to examine crucial witnesses mentioned in the FIR – No recovery of weapons used in the crime – Accused’s assertion of false implication – Conduct of witnesses during the assault – Failure of other residents to support the prosecution – Delay in lodging FIR – Appeal allowed – Appellants acquitted – Conviction and sentence set aside.

Evacuee Property Act, 1950 – Declaration of Evacuee Property – Admitted Position – Adverse Consequence of Non-Evacuation – Clarification: The appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh claimed that the property held by Sultan Mohammad, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents, fell under the purview of Section 2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (“the 1950 Act”), asserting that Sultan Mohammad was an evacuee under Section 2(d) of the same Act. However, the Court noted that it was an admitted position, as observed by the learned Single Judge, that Sultan Mohammad never left India and was not an evacuee within the meaning of the 1950 Act. [Para 3, 4]

High Court Appeal – Inconclusive Grounds – Disapprobation of State’s Action: Despite the unequivocal admission by the State and a concession made by the learned Additional Advocate General regarding Sultan Mohammad’s non-evacuation, the appellant-State chose to appeal against the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court expressed disapproval of the State’s decision to contest the matter further, even in light of the clear facts. [Para 5]

Evacuee Property Status – Upholding Lower Court Findings: In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, affirming that the property held by Sultan Mohammad was not an evacuee property under the 1950 Act due to his continued residence in India until his demise. [Para 6]

Costs Imposed: As a consequence of the State’s unwarranted appeal, the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh was directed to pay costs amounting to Rs. 25,000/- to the Writ Petitioners before the High Court within two months from the date of the judgment. [Para 7]

Evacuee Property Act, 1950 – Declaration of Evacuee Property – Admitted Position – Adverse Consequence of Non-Evacuation – Clarification: The appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh claimed that the property held by Sultan Mohammad, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents, fell under the purview of Section 2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (“the 1950 Act”), asserting that Sultan Mohammad was an evacuee under Section 2(d) of the same Act. However, the Court noted that it was an admitted position, as observed by the learned Single Judge, that Sultan Mohammad never left India and was not an evacuee within the meaning of the 1950 Act. [Para 3, 4]

High Court Appeal – Inconclusive Grounds – Disapprobation of State’s Action: Despite the unequivocal admission by the State and a concession made by the learned Additional Advocate General regarding Sultan Mohammad’s non-evacuation, the appellant-State chose to appeal against the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court expressed disapproval of the State’s decision to contest the matter further, even in light of the clear facts. [Para 5]

Evacuee Property Status – Upholding Lower Court Findings: In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, affirming that the property held by Sultan Mohammad was not an evacuee property under the 1950 Act due to his continued residence in India until his demise. [Para 6]

Costs Imposed: As a consequence of the State’s unwarranted appeal, the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh was directed to pay costs amounting to Rs. 25,000/- to the Writ Petitioners before the High Court within two months from the date of the judgment. [Para 7]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Anticipatory Bail - Interim Protection - Contradictory Orders - Self-contradictory order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court - Grant of anticipatory bail rejected while simultaneously providing interim protection to the respondents for two months - Appeal against such order - Held, the High Court erred in granting interim protection after denying anticipatory bail - Interim protection quashed and set aside. [Para 6 to 11]

Bench observed that the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was self-contradictory as it rejected the application for anticipatory bail but granted interim protection to the respondents for a period of two months.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the part of the order that granted interim protection to the respondents for two months.