Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Conviction – Appellant convicted of rape and murder of a minor girl based on disclosure statement leading to recovery of the dead body – Court affirmed the conviction noting the strong chain of circumstances and corroborative evidence – Testimonies of witnesses established the appellant's involvement in the crime – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-21].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Commutation – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment with a stipulation of a minimum of 30 years without remission – Mitigating factors considered include the young age of the appellant, absence of criminal antecedents, and possibility of reformation – The option of life imprisonment is not foreclosed, and hope for rehabilitation exists – Sentence modification aligns with principles of rarest of the rare cases [Paras 22-30].

Evidentiary Standards – Disclosure Statement – Recovery of dead body based on the appellant's disclosure statement deemed strong evidence – Incriminating circumstances supported by medical evidence confirming rape and asphyxia by strangulation – Post mortem findings corroborated the timeline of events as per prosecution's case [Paras 16-20].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment with a condition of no premature release before serving 30 years – Sentences for other offences to run concurrently – Conviction for offences under Sections 302, 376, 364, 366A, and 201 IPC upheld [Paras 30].

Consumer Law – Deficiency in Service – Losing the case on merits after the advocate argued the matter cannot be said to be deficiency in service on the part of the advocate – Court held that in every litigation, one party is bound to lose, and such loss does not constitute a deficiency in service by the advocate – Complaints against advocates for losing cases on merits dismissed by District Forum, State Commission, and National Commission affirmed [Paras 1-6].

Delay in Filing – Special Leave Petition – Petition dismissed due to a delay of 593 days in filing – Even on merits, no case of deficiency in service established – Courts below rightly dismissed the complaint against the advocates [Paras 2.1, 4, 6].

Decision – Special leave petitions dismissed – No deficiency in service by advocates found – No exemplary costs imposed considering the nature of proceedings [Paras 5-6].

Arbitration – Setting Aside of Arbitral Award – Plea of waiver taken against appellant-State on the ground of not raising objection in Section 34 petition dismissed – Court held Section 34(2A) empowers setting aside of an award if vitiated by patent illegality – Such grounds can be invoked by the Court in an appeal under Section 37 – High Court should have considered 'supervision charges' as per agreement and Circular – Failure to consider amounts to patent illegality [Paras 23-25].

Arbitral Tribunal – Terms of Contract – Tribunal failed to decide in accordance with the terms of the contract regarding 'supervision charges' – Agreement and Circular by Government mandated such charges – Ignoring these amounted to patent illegality [Paras 22, 25].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Award quashed to the extent it permitted deduction of 'supervision charges' – Judgment modified to uphold imposition of 'supervision charges' as per agreement and Circular – Costs borne by respective parties [Paras 25-26].

Insurance Policy – Interpretation and Revival – Appellant challenges NCDRC's decision allowing the respondent's claim for accident benefit – Supreme Court holds that the terms of the insurance policy must be strictly construed and the policy had lapsed before the accident occurred – Revival of the policy after the accident without disclosing the accident was considered suppression of material facts, leading to the rejection of the accident benefit claim [Paras 1-11].

Good Faith – Suppression of Material Fact – Court emphasizes the requirement of good faith (Uberrima fides) in insurance contracts – Non-disclosure of the accident at the time of policy revival indicates mala fide intent and lack of bona fides – Cites precedents highlighting that terms of the insurance policy cannot be rewritten or liberally construed beyond the agreed terms [Paras 8-9].

Accident Benefit – Policy Lapse and Revival – Condition No. 11 of the policy specifies that accident benefit is payable only if the policy is in force on the date of the accident – Policy had lapsed on 14.10.2011, and the accident occurred on 06.03.2012, with the policy being revived on 09.03.2012 – As the policy was not in force on the accident date, the accident benefit claim is not payable [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the NCDRC is set aside – Accident benefit claim of the respondent is rejected – Pending applications, if any, are disposed of [Para 11].

Investigation and Authorisation – Validity of Delegation – Appellant challenges the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court – Supreme Court upholds the validity of the authorisation given to an inspector under the second proviso to Section 3 of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 – Distinguishes the case from Bhajan Lal, clarifying that the second proviso does not require detailed reasons for authorisation – Observes that the authorisation was not mechanical and showed application of mind [Paras 8-8.6].

Prior Sanction for Non-Cognizable Offences – Not Required When Coupled with Cognizable Offences – High Court’s decision quashed – Supreme Court cites Pravin Chandra Mody, holding that prior sanction of a magistrate under Section 155 of J&K CrPC is not necessary when investigating a cognizable offence along with a non-cognizable one – Emphasizes that requiring prior sanction would lead to delays and hamper the investigation [Paras 9-10].

Preliminary Enquiry – Validity of Rule 3.16 – Court overturns the High Court’s declaration of Rule 3.16 as ultra vires – Holds that the preliminary enquiry under Rule 3.16 is in line with the law laid down in Lalita Kumari – States that detailed enquiries during preliminary verification are permissible to establish a prima facie case before registering an FIR [Paras 11-13].

Vicarious Liability – Misinterpretation by High Court – Supreme Court corrects the High Court’s view on vicarious liability – Holds that the respondent’s individual actions were in question, and he was not being held vicariously liable for actions of a company – Reiterates that criminal proceedings can proceed against the respondent in his individual capacity [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashing the criminal proceedings and declaring Rule 3.16 as ultra vires is set aside – Criminal proceedings against the respondent to proceed as per law [Paras 15-16].

Bail Cancellation – Specific Allegations – Appellant challenges the High Court's decision to grant bail to the second respondent – Supreme Court finds specific allegations that the second respondent aided the crime by providing information to the killers and was involved in the conspiracy – High Court's failure to consider the seriousness of the crime and the role attributed to the second respondent – Bail cancelled [Paras 1-20].

Considerations for Bail – Nature and Gravity of Offence – Court emphasizes the importance of considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the evidence, and circumstances peculiar to the accused when deciding bail – Highlights that previous bail applications were denied due to the serious allegations and lack of cooperation in the investigation [Paras 8-11].

Judicial Discretion – Error in High Court's Decision – Supreme Court holds that the High Court erred in granting bail by not considering relevant circumstances and the specific role of the second respondent – Observations of no overt act attributed to the second respondent were found to be incorrect based on the charge-sheet and investigation findings [Paras 12-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Bail order of the High Court set aside – Second respondent to surrender by 7 November 2021 – Observations made are for bail consideration and do not affect the merits of the case or pending trial [Paras 20-22].

Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Appellant challenges the High Court's decision to quash the FIR and investigation into the alleged abetment of suicide by the respondent – Supreme Court emphasizes that the suicide note detailed the role of the accused in events leading to the deceased’s suicide, warranting investigation and possible trial – High Court's quashing of proceedings found erroneous [Paras 1-32].

Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Judicial Discretion – Supreme Court outlines the limited scope of the High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC, which should be exercised with caution and not to assess the veracity of the complaint – Observes that the High Court erred by substituting its own perception and conducting a de facto trial at the quashing stage [Paras 16-19, 25-28].

Mental Health Considerations – The judgment addresses the importance of considering individual mental health variations and criticizes the High Court for diminishing the gravity of mental health issues by labeling the deceased a "weakling" based on behavior patterns before suicide – Emphasizes that behavioral responses to threats vary widely among individuals [Paras 29-30].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment and order dated 29 May 2020 set aside – Investigation and proceedings to continue as per law – Petition for quashing the FIR dismissed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 31-32].

Forest Land Demarcation – Section 3 and 8 of the Vesting Act – Appellants challenge the High Court's decision that only 100 hectares and 155.90 acres were forest land, with the rest being plantations – Supreme Court finds no error in High Court's judgment – High Court correctly relied on surveys, reports, and evidence showing the land's status on the appointed date – Confirms 402 acres as forest and the remainder as plantation [Paras 1-45].

Evidentiary Value of Land Board's Determination – Weight of Evidence – Court emphasizes that Land Board’s findings, while not res judicata, hold considerable evidentiary weight unless proven otherwise – High Court appropriately gave due weight to the Board's determination and other supporting documents, such as the Commissioner’s reports and balance sheets showing agricultural income [Paras 36-45].

Section 482 CrPC – Judicial Discretion – Court underlines limited scope of Section 482 CrPC, cautioning against testing the veracity of allegations at the quashing stage – High Court's findings based on plausible inferences from the evidence deemed sound and just, warranting no interference [Paras 25-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – No interference with the findings and conclusions of the High Court – Costs not ordered [Para 45].

Detention Order – Procedural Safeguards – Appellant challenges the detention order for delays in considering the representation and failure to communicate the decision – Supreme Court quashes the detention order, emphasizing the constitutional right under Article 22(5) for expeditious consideration of the representation by the appropriate government – Holds that both Central and State Governments failed to communicate the rejection of the representation in a timely manner, rendering the detention order invalid [Paras 1-56].

Constitutional Safeguards – Right to Representation – Court underscores the constitutional safeguards in preventive detention cases, noting that timely communication and consideration of the representation are critical to ensuring the detenu's rights – Affirms the necessity of expeditious action and independent assessment by the detaining authority, distinct from the Advisory Board's proceedings [Paras 17-40].

Delay in Representation Consideration – Impact on Validity of Detention – Analyzes precedents emphasizing the requirement for immediate action on the detenu’s representation – Highlights the failure of the State Government to consider the representation promptly, compounded by the lack of timely communication, which vitiates the detention order [Paras 31-46].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Detention order dated 11 May 2021 and subsequent extensions quashed – Appellant ordered to be released forthwith – Emphasizes that the failure in procedural compliance concerning the representation consideration and communication invalidates the detention [Paras 55-57].