Criminal Law – Rape Conviction – Downgrade to Outraging Modesty – Appellant originally convicted under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act for allegedly sexually assaulting a girl under 12 – Victim’s consistent statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., her deposition during trial, and medical evidence did not establish penetration – Allegations limited to touching of private parts – Held: Ingredients of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(c) POCSO and Section 375 IPC not made out – Conviction under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 POCSO set aside – Conviction modified to Section 354 IPC and Section 10 POCSO [Paras 3–9]

POCSO Act – Nature of Assault – Victim below 12 years – Where allegations and evidence prove non-penetrative touching with sexual intent, offence falls under Section 7 read with Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act – Section 3(c) not attracted in absence of penetration – Held: Alleged act amounts to aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) not penetrative sexual assault [Paras 6–8]

Sentencing – Modification of Sentence – Original sentence of 20 years RI under Section 6 POCSO Act modified to 5 years RI under Section 354 IPC and 7 years RI under Section 10 POCSO Act – Sentences to run concurrently – Fine of ₹50,000 retained as compensation to victim payable within two months [Para 9]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act set aside – Conviction altered to Section 354 IPC and Section 10 POCSO Act – Sentence reduced accordingly.

Homicide – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Sections 302 & 304 Part I IPC – Conviction Modified – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for killing his brother-in-law – Evidence showed prior incidents of harassment of appellant’s sister and parents by the deceased – On the day of incident, deceased allegedly attempted to assault appellant with stone outside hospital, triggering retaliation – Held: act not premeditated; chance encounter and grave provocation proved – Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 16–20].

Grave and Sudden Provocation – Applicability – Test Applied – Court held that seeing the deceased immediately after assaults on sister (leading to her hospitalization) and on parents, coupled with sudden attack attempt, constituted grave and sudden provocation – Appellant’s loss of self-control justified conversion of conviction [Paras 17–19].

Confession and Admissions – Voluntariness – Sections 164 & 313 CrPC – Appellant consistently admitted killing in confessional and examination statements, but explained circumstances – Court relied on admissions along with corroborative evidence to accept provocation defence [Paras 8–9].

Sentencing – Young Age and Custody Undergone – Modification – Appellant had already undergone more than 12 years in custody – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in other cases [Paras 21–22].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Release ordered [Paras 20–23].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Income Assessment – Appeal Allowed – Deceased with diploma in pharmacy engaged in distributorship and cooperative bank activities – Tribunal fixed monthly income at Rs.6,000/-, High Court reduced to Rs.5,500/- without reasons – Held: Unjustified – Considering overall circumstances, monthly income reasonably fixed at Rs.12,000/- – Compensation recalculated at Rs.20,80,000/- – [Paras 2–5, 6–7].

Assessment of Income – Incremental Approach – Following Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. (2011) 13 SCC 236, daily wagers earned Rs.4,500/- in 2004; by 2010 could earn Rs.7,500/- – Deceased with higher qualifications/business reasonably taken at Rs.12,000/- p.m. – [Paras 5–6].

Consortium – Wider Entitlement – As per Somwati, not just spouse but children and parents also entitled to consortium – Rs.40,000/- each awarded – [Para 6].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs.20,80,000/- with 6% interest – Deduction of amounts already paid – To be disbursed as per Tribunal’s apportionment within 3 months – [Paras 7–8].

Industrial Disputes—Section 11A—Scope of interference by Tribunal—Domestic enquiry held fair—Tribunal cannot re-appreciate evidence as an appellate forum – Tribunal and High Court exceeded jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence after the enquiry’s fairness had attained finality – Held: Interference impermissible when Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities’ findings are based on evidence and are not perverse [Paras 12, 39-41]

Service Law—Bank employees—Integrity and probity—Higher standard in banking sector – Supreme Court reiterates that absolute devotion, integrity and honesty are sine qua non for bank employees—Courts should be slow to dilute discipline in such cases [Para 38]

Departmental proceedings vs Criminal trial—Standards of proof—Acquittal in criminal case does not vitiate concluded departmental findings – Standard of proof differs—Subsequent criminal acquittal has no effect on earlier domestic enquiry or the punishment if enquiry was otherwise valid [Para 10]

Evidence in Disciplinary Enquiry—Non-examination of some witnesses—Admissions and documentary material – Where the record (including employee’s statements and contemporaneous bank documents) supports guilt, adequacy/reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before Tribunal—Findings tested on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 16-19, 39]

Punishment—Compulsory retirement—Nature of consequences—Retiral benefits – Compulsory retirement does not deny gratuity and other pensionary benefits—which are denied only on dismissal—Tribunal’s view that reinstatement was necessary for retiral benefits is erroneous [Paras 40-41]

Decision Appeal Allowed – Orders of Tribunal and High Court set aside—Order of Disciplinary Authority imposing compulsory retirement affirmed—Respondent entitled to gratuity and other pensionary benefits as per law—Appeal disposed of [Paras 41-43]

Property Law – Declaratory Relief – Section 34 Specific Relief Act – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff relied on sale deed (150 sq.m); trial and first appellate courts dismissed suit citing discrepancies in revenue records (109.70 sq.m) and manure/waste presence – High Court reversed, holding findings perverse – SC upheld High Court: mere dumping waste cannot establish possession; corrected revenue records support plaintiff’s title and possession – Appeal dismissed – [Paras 2–12, 14].

Declaratory Relief – Scope under Section 34 SRA – Even without explicit recovery claim, declaration maintainable where defendant fails to prove possession – Defendant’s oral partition claim unsupported by evidence – [Paras 6–12].

Revenue Records – Evidentiary Value – Corrections made before suit maintain sanctity unless disproved – Trial Court erred in doubting correction without evidence – [Paras 10–11].

Possession – Dumping Manure/Waste – Not Equivalent to Lawful Possession – Plaintiff’s title deed and evidence of vendor’s possession prevail over defendant’s assertions – [Paras 8–9, 12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment affirming plaintiff’s ownership and possession upheld – Pending applications disposed of – [Paras 14–15].

Consumer Law - Medical Negligence – Scope of Pleadings – Consumer Fora Jurisdiction – Complaint alleged negligence only in post-delivery treatment – NCDRC held negligence in antenatal care despite no such pleading – Held: Fora cannot build a new case for complainant; decision must rest within pleadings [Paras 26-30].

Medical Negligence – Expert Opinion – Reports of five independent Medical Boards – All concluded no gross negligence in treatment of deceased mother and newborn – Findings entitled to weight; Courts and Fora not to substitute themselves as medical experts [Paras 17-22, 23-24].

Medical Negligence – Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur – Not applicable merely because patient died – Death due to atonic postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), a known complication with high mortality, does not by itself prove negligence – Failure of treatment ≠ negligence unless supported by cogent evidence [Paras 22-23].

Consumer Protection – Jurisdiction – Fora must adjudicate on pleaded case – NCDRC erred in introducing new ground of liability based on antenatal care, contrary to complainant’s pleadings – Such approach beyond its power and unsustainable [Paras 26-30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of SCDRC (2007) and NCDRC (2012) set aside – Complaint dismissed – Respondent directed to refund ₹10,00,000 received in interim, in monthly instalments of ₹1,00,000, apportioned between insurer and doctors – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 30-31].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC – Issue of Sanction Deferred – High Court rightly held trial can proceed despite absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC for IPC offences – Supreme Court upheld this view – Held: Question of sanction under Section 197 CrPC can be examined by the Trial Court depending on evidence led during trial [Paras 5–7].

Framing of Charges – PC Act vs IPC – Challenge Limited to IPC Offences – Petitioner accepted framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act but contested IPC charges for want of sanction – Court permitted challenge before Trial Court and refused to interfere at SLP stage [Paras 3, 5, 7].

Trial Court Jurisdiction – Application for Exemption – Liberty Reserved – Supreme Court granted liberty to petitioner to approach Trial Court under Sections 205 and 317 CrPC (now Sections 228 and 355 BNSS) for exemption from personal appearance [Para 9].

Final Decision – Special Leave Petitions Disposed – High Court Order Not Interfered With – Liberty reserved to raise sanction and exemption issues before Trial Court – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 8–11].

Bail in UAPA Case – Continued Incarceration – Bail Granted – Accused facing charges under UAPA and IPC for alleged association with banned organization and money transactions – Appellant incarcerated for over 2 years and 7 months – Only 3 witnesses examined so far – Trial likely to be prolonged – Some co-accused already granted bail – Court finds overt act attributable to appellant not so grave to deny bail – Held: Bail granted with conditions imposed by Trial Court [Paras 3–8].

Trial Expeditiousness – Direction to Trial Court – Supreme Court directs Trial Court to conclude trial within one year considering prolonged incarceration and slow pace of trial [Para 10].

Consequences of Non-Cooperation – Conditions for Cancellation of Bail – Court grants liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation of bail if the appellant is involved in future illegal activity or does not cooperate in trial – Preventive safeguards added to balance liberty and security [Para 9].

Decision – Impugned order denying bail set aside – Appeal allowed – Bail granted to appellant subject to trial court’s terms and conditions [Paras 8, 11].

Criminal Appeal – Conviction for Trespass and Assault – IPC Ss. 447 & 323 – Acquittal – Appellants convicted by Trial Court and affirmed by High Court despite closure report finding land belonged to State – Complainant admitted prior enmity and gave only self-serving testimony corroborated by interested witnesses – Held: Prosecution evidence weak, no proof of ownership or possession by complainant, complaint a counterblast to proceedings under S.107 CrPC – Conviction unsustainable – Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted [Paras 6–10].

Probation of Offenders Act – Trial Court had granted probation under S.4 despite conviction – However, since conviction itself found unsustainable by Supreme Court, benefit of probation became redundant [Paras 2, 5, 10].

Appellate Scrutiny – High Court erred in mechanically affirming trial court findings without appreciating lack of independent corroboration and ignoring Investigating Officer’s closure report – Supreme Court intervened to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 7–8].

Decision – Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted; bail bonds discharged [Para 10].