Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Accused Nos. 1 to 3 convicted by trial court under Sections 148 and 302 IPC, sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court acquitted Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and confirmed the acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11 – Supreme Court re-examined the evidence and testimonies of eye-witnesses and injured witnesses, found High Court erred in acquitting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 [Paras 1-14].

Evaluation of Evidence – Eyewitness Testimonies – Supreme Court held that testimonies of relatives and interested witnesses cannot be discarded solely based on their relationship with the deceased – Eye-witnesses (PW1, PW3) and injured witnesses (PW6, PW7) provided consistent testimonies identifying Accused Nos. 1 to 3 as the main assailants [Paras 9-10].

FIR Timing and Interpolation – High Court's emphasis on alleged interpolation in FIR timing and delay in sending FIR to Magistrate found to be minor issues – Supreme Court held delay of seven hours not fatal to prosecution case, considering consistency in testimonies and injuries sustained by PW6, PW7 [Paras 11-12].

Judicial Reasoning – Acquittal of Other Accused – High Court's reasoning that same grounds for acquitting Accused Nos. 4 to 11 applied to Accused Nos. 1 to 3 was incorrect – Different roles and evidence against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 warranted separate consideration [Para 13].

Decision – Appeals against acquittal of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 allowed – High Court's judgment reversed, trial court's conviction and sentence restored – Accused Nos. 1 to 3 directed to surrender within four weeks – Appeal against acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11 dismissed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Appellant convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act – Trial Court sentenced appellant to one year simple imprisonment and imposed Rs. 7 Lakhs compensation – High Court affirmed conviction and sentence – Appellant challenged the decision on grounds of financial capacity of complainant and loss of signed cheque [Paras 1-6].

Presumption and Probable Defence – Section 139 of N.I. Act mandates presumption of cheque being for discharge of debt or liability – Presumption rebuttable by the accused on preponderance of probabilities – Appellant's defence relied on disproving complainant's financial capacity to lend Rs. 7 Lakhs [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Reasoning – High Court failed to appreciate defence evidence showing complainant's lack of financial capacity – However, absence of complaint about lost cheque to police or bank, and lack of evidence negated the appellant's defence – Consistent findings by three courts upheld the conviction [Paras 9-12].

Modification of Sentence – Conviction upheld – Imprisonment of one year substituted with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- – Additional compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid to respondent – Amount already deposited in Trial Court to be considered [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction affirmed – Sentence of imprisonment substituted with fine – Additional compensation ordered [Para 13].

Criminal Procedure – Abatement of Appeal – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder – High Court confirmed conviction – Appellant died after 12 years in jail – Section 394 CrPC mandates appeal abates on appellant's death unless a near relative applies to continue the appeal within 30 days – No application by near relative filed in this case [Paras 1-2].

Legal Provision Interpretation – Role of Amicus Curiae – Amicus Curiae cannot be treated as near relative – Oral prayer by Amicus Curiae to continue appeal not permissible under Section 394 CrPC – Appeal governed by substantive provisions of law [Paras 3-5].

Decision – Appeal disposed of as having abated due to appellant's death and lack of application by near relative to continue the appeal [Para 5].

Environmental Law – Environmental Clearance and Land Use – Appellant challenged the environmental clearance (EC) and land use modification for a cement grinding unit – NGT dismissed appeal on grounds of limitation and lack of jurisdiction – Supreme Court held challenge to EC barred by limitation but remitted case to NGT for deciding on challenge to land use modification if delay could be condoned [Paras 1-21].

Jurisdiction and Limitation – NGT Act, 2010 – NGT's original and appellate jurisdiction – EC challenged beyond limitation period, barred – Land use modification challenge to be considered by NGT for condoning delay and merits [Paras 10-21].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Case remitted to NGT for considering challenge to land use modification – NGT to decide on condoning delay and merits of the challenge [Paras 20-22].

Civil Law – Interim Injunction – Appellant, Narendra Hirawat and Co., entered into agreements with Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (SME) for exclusive rights to films – Disputes arose leading to a Deed of Settlement requiring payments by appellant – Non-compliance alleged by SME leading to termination notice – Single Judge granted interim injunction favoring appellant – Division Bench reversed the order – Supreme Court set aside Division Bench's decision, restored Single Judge's order [Paras 1-21].

Balance of Convenience – Supreme Court noted substantial payments already made by appellant – Balance of convenience favored appellant, justifying injunction [Paras 16-21].

Injunction Principles – Appellate court's interference limited to instances of arbitrariness or perversity – Division Bench's interference deemed unjustified – Appeal allowed, Single Judge's injunction order restored [Paras 17-21].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Single Judge's injunction order restored – High Court directed to expedite suit hearing [Paras 21-23].

Service Law – Interest on Delayed Payment – Appellant retired from aided college, faced delays in receiving retirement benefits – Writ petition for interest on delayed payment led to Division Bench's acknowledgment of entitlement, but no order due to ongoing inquiry into who was responsible for delay – Supreme Court held appellant entitled to interest, directed college to pay, recoverable from responsible party post-inquiry [Paras 1-5].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Appellant to receive interest on delayed payment of retirement benefits – Payment to be made within six weeks – Government to finalize responsibility inquiry, with recovery rights for the college [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Confiscation and Acquittal – Appellant's truck confiscated under Cow Slaughter Act despite acquittal in criminal case – Supreme Court held confiscation arbitrary when criminal court found no evidence of intent to slaughter – District Magistrate's order of confiscation overturned as it violated appellant's rights under Article 300A of the Constitution [Paras 1-22].

Burden of Proof – Confiscation vs. Prosecution – Section 13A of Cow Slaughter Act shifts burden of proof during prosecution, not confiscation – State must justify confiscation, burden not on accused in confiscation proceedings [Paras 19-20].

Constitutional Law – Property Rights – Confiscation post-acquittal deemed arbitrary deprivation of property – Confiscation order violated right to property under Article 300A [Para 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Confiscation order by District Magistrate set aside – High Court decision reversed [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping for Ransom – Appellants convicted under Sections 364A and 120B IPC – High Court upheld convictions and sentences – Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha and Salauddin were kidnapped on 7th February 2006 – Ransom of Rs. 1200000/- paid to Deepak Kumar – Subsequent arrest and rescue operations led to convictions – High Court's acquittal of Santosh not challenged by State [Paras 1-3].

Evidence and Standard of Proof – Convictions upheld based on depositions, identification by victims, and recovery of ransom money – Doubts about the involvement of Kanhaiya Lal, Ramjee Prajapati, and Abhay Kumar led to their acquittal – Prosecution failed to conclusively prove their involvement or agreement to the conspiracy [Paras 4-17].

Judicial Reasoning – Analysis of Inspector K.K. Singh (PW-4) and I.O. Yogesh Chandra (PW-8) depositions led to the benefit of doubt for Kanhaiya Lal – Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar’s actions were deemed neutral, showing concern rather than participation in the crime [Paras 11-17].

Decision – Appeals by Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, and Madan Prasad Thathera dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed – Appeals by Kanhaiya Lal, Ramjee Prajapati, and Abhay Kumar allowed; convictions set aside – Deepak Kumar to surrender within 10 days to serve life imprisonment and pay the fine [Paras 18-19].

Insolvency Law – Withdrawal of CIRP Proceedings – Majority of home buyers settled dispute with developer – NCLAT upheld NCLT's admission of insolvency proceedings – Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142, permitting withdrawal of CIRP proceedings in larger interest of home buyers awaiting possession for over eight years – Ensured business continuity and completion of real estate project [Paras 1-14].

Article 142 Powers – Supreme Court facilitated settlement, permitted withdrawal of insolvency proceedings – Emphasized larger interest of home buyers over prolonged insolvency process – Directed developer to complete project within one year and provide possession [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – CIRP proceedings withdrawn – Developer to complete project within one year – Conditions and undertakings to be complied with, enabling home buyers to receive possession after prolonged delay [Paras 14-17].