Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Neighbourhood Quarrels – Conviction Set Aside – Deceased, a 25-year-old woman, committed suicide by setting herself on fire following constant quarrels with neighbour (appellant) – Trial Court convicted under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act; High Court confirmed conviction under Section 306 but acquitted under SC/ST Act – Held: Mere quarrels, abuses and physical scuffles between neighbours, without evidence of intention to incite suicide, do not amount to “instigation” under Section 107 IPC – Casual or heated words, even physical altercations, cannot be equated with deliberate abetment – Conviction under Section 306 unsustainable [Paras 13–18, 23].

Mens Rea and Instigation – Requirement under Section 306 IPC – The prosecution must prove a clear mens rea and active act intended to drive deceased to suicide – Utterances in anger like “go and die” not sufficient unless circumstances show intent to push deceased into position of no alternative – Reiterated principles from Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438); Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618; M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 – Applied here to acquit appellant [Paras 18–21].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Statement of deceased (Ex. P-8) recounted harassment and insults by appellant – Corroborated partly by relatives and neighbours – However, testimony was omnibus and lacked specific acts of instigation; most neighbours did not support allegation of caste abuses – High Court rightly acquitted under SC/ST Act; remaining evidence insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 306 IPC [Paras 6–12, 16–17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 23–24].

Tenancy Law  – Karnataka Rent Act – Eviction – Landlord-Tenant Relationship Dispute – Sections 27(2)(a),(e),(g),(o) and 43 – Appeal Allowed – Landlord filed eviction; Rent Controller allowed based on rent receipts; HC reversed citing lack of proof of ownership – Held: Rent Controller rightly proceeded once rent receipts acknowledged; title dispute outside Rent Controller’s scope – HC exceeded revisional jurisdiction – Order of Rent Controller restored – [Paras 3–11].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Prima Facie Proof – Section 43 – Rent receipts signed by landlord serve as prima facie evidence of relationship – Once produced, Rent Controller must proceed with hearing – Only when no receipts/lease or documents are doubtful, parties must be relegated to civil court – [Paras 6–8].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court’s Interference Improper – Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or embark on fact-finding – High Court erred in rejecting jural relationship by questioning landlord’s lineage/title – [Paras 9–11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment of Karnataka High Court dated 31.03.2021 set aside – Order of Rent Controller dated 01.09.2017 directing eviction restored – Pending applications dismissed – [Para 11].

Tender Law – NIT Clauses 5(D) & 5(B) – JV Agreement – Appeal Partly Allowed – Appellant disqualified for not submitting JV agreement though submitted work execution certificate confirming 45% share in prior consortium – High Court upheld disqualification and also held appellant lacked spare washery capacity – Held: Clause 5(D) did not mandate JV agreement itself; certificate sufficed; rejection contrary to NIT terms – However, spare capacity issue under Clause 5(B) requires reconsideration – Matter remanded – [Paras 14–21, 22–25].

NIT Clause 5(D) – Past Experience – Proof of Proportionate Share – Certificate vs. JV Agreement – Work execution certificate from MSMC confirming 45% JV share and completed works satisfied Clause 5(D) – Absence of JV agreement not fatal where NIT did not expressly require it – Tender authority erred in disqualifying bid – [Paras 15–20].

Scope of Judicial Review – High Court’s Overreach – Revisional Court cannot travel beyond reasons given by Tender Committee – High Court erred in disqualifying appellant on spare capacity (Clause 5(B)) without issue being raised or tested – [Paras 22–24].

Decision – Impugned judgment and Committee decision set aside insofar as Clause 5(D) disqualification – Issue of spare washery capacity under Clause 5(B) remanded to High Court for fresh determination – Appeal partly allowed – [Paras 25–26].

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].

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].

Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) – Homebuyers’ Claims – Resolution Plan – Appeal Allowed – Appellants booked flat in 2010, paid nearly entire consideration; Corporate Debtor (IREO) went into CIRP; claim submitted and admitted by Resolution Professional – NCLT and NCLAT held claim was belated, granted only 50% refund – Held: Once claim is verified and reflected in creditors’ list, cannot be relegated to residual category – Appellants entitled to possession – [Paras 28–37, 39–42].

Homebuyers – Verified Claims – Binding Effect – Once a claim is verified, admitted, and published in creditors’ list, it acquires full legal recognition – To disregard such claims undermines CIRP fairness – Clause 18.4(ii) read with (vi)(a) governs; Clause 18.4(xi) applies only to unverified or uninformed claims – [Paras 32–36].

Resolution Plan – Distinction Between Verified and Belated Claims – Clause 18.4 draws clear lines – Verified claims must be honoured; only unverified/belated ones fall to refund – Misapplication by NCLT/NCLAT corrected – [Paras 34–37].

Equitable Consideration – Protection of Homebuyers – Court emphasised hardships of individual buyers investing life savings – Relegating them to refund despite admitted claims runs contrary to IBC framework – [Para 38].

Decision – Judgment of NCLAT (10.01.2025) and NCLT (26.07.2023) set aside – Respondents directed to execute conveyance deed and hand over possession of Apartment No. GBD-00-001, Block D, IREO Rise (Gardenia), Mohali, within two months – Appeal allowed – No order as to costs – [Paras 39–42].

Railway Service Law - Railways Recruitment & Training – SSE – Master Circular No.29 – Training-end Written Test Mandatory – Appeal Allowed in Part – RRB Employment Notice required training; Master Circular/Manual mandated qualifying written test at the end of initial training and warned retention depends on passing the test – Respondent completed 46 of 52 weeks but twice failed the G&SR course examination; CAT upheld termination; High Court set aside termination holding no “departmental examination” – Held: “Departmental examination” (promotion) is distinct from “training examination” (recruitment stage); Master Circular governs, and passing the written test post-training is a prerequisite for absorption – Termination upheld; however, recovery of stipend erroneously paid for second attempt not justified – Appeal allowed; HC judgment set aside; writ dismissed; stipend recovery quashed [Paras 3, 4, 5, 6–8, 12, 18.1–18.7, 19–21, 23–24].

Recruitment vs. Appointment – Distinction Clarified – Legal Effect – The Court reiterates that “recruitment” signifies selection/approval and not actual posting; “appointment” is the act of posting to office – Provisional appointment as Trainee SSE did not confer permanent status absent successful completion of training and test – Applied precedents: Prafulla Kumar Swain and Ashok Ram Parhad [Para 21].

Alleged Discrimination – Similarly Placed Trainees – No Unequal Treatment – Claim that peers were appointed after only 46 weeks and without G&SR training rejected – Record (including RTI responses) showed the named trainees completed the 52-week training; many others took and passed the G&SR test when respondent failed – No arbitrariness; Articles 14/16 not violated [Paras 8.1–8.3, 18.6, 22].

Governing Instrument – Master Circular vs. Revised Training Module – Hierarchy & Scope – Revised Training Module (RBE 11/2010) fixes duration/content but does not supersede the Master Circular requirement of a qualifying written test – Absent a test, adequacy of training cannot be ascertained – High Court erred in concluding no examination prescribed for conferring permanent status [Paras 18.1, 19–20].

Recovery of Stipend – Administrative Inadvertence – No Misrepresentation – Recovery of stipend paid for the second training attempt impermissible where payment occurred due to department’s inadvertence and not the trainee’s fraud/misrepresentation – Demand set aside [Para 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court dated 06.02.2023 set aside; Writ Petition dismissed; termination order dated 04.01.2019 upheld; recovery notice dated 26.02.2019 for stipend quashed; parties to bear their own costs [Paras 23–25].

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].

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].