Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Civil Death – Respondent No.2 sought appointment on compassionate grounds after his father, a municipal employee, went missing on 01.09.2012 – High Court directed appointment by treating 01.09.2012 as date of death – Held: Under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, death is presumed only after a lapse of 7 years from the date of disappearance – No specific evidence adduced to prove earlier date of death – Civil Court decree did not fix a date of death – Presumption of death applies only from 01.09.2019 – Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be based on presumed death before that date [Paras 3, 6–9]

Service Law – Retirement Benefits – Missing Employee – Despite disappearance, employee was deemed in service and retired on 31.01.2015 – Family accepted retiral dues and continues to receive pension – Held: Acceptance of retirement and benefits estops respondent from seeking compassionate appointment based on presumed earlier death [Paras 4, 9]

Administrative Law – Scope of Judicial Direction – High Court erred in directly ordering appointment – Held: Even where claim is maintainable, proper course is to direct consideration of the case, not straight appointment – Appointment can only follow satisfaction of prescribed criteria [Para 10]

Equitable Relief – Appointment on Merits – Though compassionate appointment was denied, Court left it open to the Corporation to consider respondent No.2 for appointment on merits, independently of his claim, subject to law and age relaxation if permissible [Para 11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 18.07.2024 set aside – No entitlement to compassionate appointment – Liberty granted to consider respondent No.2 for appointment on other grounds.

Criminal Law – Sections 302, 376, 394 and 449 IPC - Circumstantial Evidence – Murder, Rape, and Robbery – Conviction Reversed – Appellant convicted for rape, robbery, and murder of 85-year-old woman – Prosecution case based solely on circumstantial evidence – Trial court and High Court convicted appellant based on alleged recovery of gold bangles and testimony of ‘last seen’ witness – Held: No eyewitness – Chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete – No forensic link between appellant and crime scene or victim – Guilt not established beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 1-4, 17-18, 24, 32-33]

Recovery Evidence – Credibility – Doubt Cast – Prosecution claimed recovery of gold bangles from appellant’s pocket at hospital following arrest – Appellant alleged police torture and false implication – Held: Recovery at 4:00 a.m., three days after incident, appears planted – Unlikely accused would carry stolen jewellery so long after crime – No evidence of proper seizure process or identity of informant leading to arrest – Recovery held unreliable [Paras 11, 22-23, 29]

Witness Testimony – Last Seen Theory – Weak Evidence – Prosecution relied on Senthil Kumar (PW-5) who saw appellant exiting compound at 2:45 a.m. – Did not see him exiting victim’s house – Did not find appellant suspicious – Akash Saksena (PW-6) stated appellant went out at 2:00 a.m. and returned perturbed – Held: Last seen evidence insufficient and uncorroborated – No link established between presence and commission of crime [Paras 8, 20, 28]

Investigation – Material Witness Not Examined – Marcus, who went with appellant to smoke at 2:00 a.m., never examined – Held: Marcus was last person seen with appellant before alleged time of offence – His omission casts serious doubt – Prosecution claim that he was not a material witness rejected – Non-examination of critical witness undermines prosecution case [Paras 21, 30]

Criminal Procedure – Deficiencies in Identification and Arrest – Prosecution failed to record identity or statement of informant who led to appellant’s arrest – No sketch or identification process followed – No test identification parade conducted – Held: Arrest narrative doubtful – Supports defence claim of earlier illegal custody and torture – Benefit of doubt to be given [Paras 22-23, 29]

Forensic Evidence – Absence of Corroboration – Sniffer dog, fingerprint and forensic teams visited crime scene – No fingerprints of appellant found – No biological samples (hair, blood, semen) linked to accused – Held: Lack of scientific evidence fatal in circumstantial case – Prosecution failed to connect accused to crime scene or victim [Paras 7, 24-25, 27]

Legal Principles – Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Must Be Complete – Reiterated: Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof – Missing links in chain fatal to conviction – Applied principles in Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala and Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh – Held: Conviction unsustainable in absence of cogent and conclusive evidence [Paras 17, 26, 31-32]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 376, 394 and 449 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case [Para 33]

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Murder – Section 149 IPC – Appellants (accused nos. 3, 4, 6) challenged reversal of acquittal and conviction under Sections 302/307 read with 149 IPC – Trial Court had acquitted for want of specific overt act or common object – High Court reversed acquittal on reappraisal of consistent, corroborated ocular and medical evidence – Held: Active participation and facilitation of premeditated attack established – Common object to commit murder proved – Section 149 rightly invoked [Paras 35-44].

Criminal Procedure – Interference with Acquittal – Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction – Appellants contended High Court overstepped jurisdiction in reversing acquittal – Supreme Court held: Where Trial Court’s view is manifestly unsustainable or overlooks crucial evidence, High Court justified in reversing – Trial Court failed to appreciate consistent eyewitness accounts and corroborative medical evidence – No perversity in High Court’s judgment [Paras 29-30, 46].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Injured Eyewitnesses – PW-1, PW-7, and PW-9 were consistent in narrating arrival of accused on motorcycles with weapons, attack sequence, and individual roles – Court found testimonies natural, coherent, and supported by medical evidence – No material contradictions sufficient to discard their evidence – Held: Eyewitness accounts trustworthy and established coordinated assault [Paras 31-36].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Autopsy confirmed death due to haemorrhagic shock from multiple incised injuries on vital organs – PW-7 and PW-9 suffered grievous injuries – Medical officers (PW-16, PW-19, PW-21) confirmed injuries consistent with sharp weapons used – Held: Medical evidence corroborates ocular account and proves brutal and targeted nature of attack [Paras 38-40].

Vicarious Liability – Section 149 IPC – Mere presence with knowledge of weapons and object of assembly sufficient – Individual infliction of fatal blows not necessary – Appellants’ transportation of assailants and role in preventing escape integral to execution of common object – Held: All appellants liable for murder and grievous hurt under Section 149 IPC [Paras 41-44].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC affirmed – Trial Court’s acquittal rightly reversed by High Court – No merit found in appellants’ contentions [Paras 47-48].

Motor Vehicles – Compensation – Fatal Accident – Reassessment of Income – Deceased died in road accident due to negligent driving of bus which deviated from its permitted route – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 18.86 lakhs based on notional income of Rs. 8,000/month – High Court reassessed income at Rs. 15,750/month with 40% future prospects, applying multiplier of 16 and appropriate deductions for dependents – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 31.84 lakhs – Held: High Court correctly applied settled principles for assessing loss of dependency and consortium benefits [Paras 4–5.1].

Motor Vehicles – Insurance Liability – Route Permit Violation – Appellant-owner’s bus did not have permit to enter Channapatna City where accident occurred – High Court applied ‘pay and recover’ principle relying on Amrit Paul (2018) 7 SCC 558 – Held: Driving vehicle outside permitted route is a fundamental breach of policy – Insurer must first compensate third parties, but entitled to recover from insured – Deviation from permit route justifies application of ‘pay and recover’ principle [Paras 5.2–10].

Motor Vehicles – Insurance Law – 'Pay and Recover' Doctrine – Applicability – Court reaffirmed that in cases involving lack of valid permit, fake or no driving license, or unauthorized goods carriage, insurer is liable to third party but can recover from owner – Cited precedents in Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, Kamla (2001) 4 SCC 342, Parminder Singh (2019) 7 SCC 217, S. Iyyapan (2013) 7 SCC 62 – Held: Principle balances rights of victims with contractual limitations of insurers – High Court’s direction upheld [Paras 7–10].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Compensation enhanced – Insurer directed to pay and recover from owner – No order as to costs [Para 11].

Specific Performance – Registered Agreement – Additional Consideration – Plaintiff entered into a registered agreement for sale dated 08.01.2010 for purchase of two items of property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,80,000 – Out of which, Rs. 4,70,000 was paid as advance on the date of agreement – Plaintiff placed in possession of the property – Subsequently, defendants demanded an additional Rs. 2,00,000 – Plaintiff paid Rs. 1,95,000 on 09.06.2010, which was acknowledged by endorsement on the reverse of the agreement – Trial court disbelieved transaction, treating it as a loan and held plaintiff not ready and willing – First appellate court reversed, upheld existence of valid sale agreement and additional consideration – Held: High Court erred in discarding endorsement without addressing findings of first appellate court – No perversity or misreading shown – Findings of fact binding under Section 100 CPC – Acceptance of further consideration after stipulated period proved contract remained subsisting [Paras 4, 6, 7, 14-21]

Termination of Contract – Necessity of Declaratory Relief – Respondents contended that without challenging the termination notice dated 20.08.2010, suit for specific performance was not maintainable – Supreme Court held: Agreement did not contain automatic termination clause – Vendor accepted additional Rs. 1,95,000 after six-month period, thereby waiving right to terminate – Plaintiff could treat agreement as subsisting and sue for enforcement – Suit for specific performance not barred for want of declaratory relief – Declaratory relief becomes necessary only where a cloud exists on title or subsistence of contract – Not applicable when termination itself is invalid or waived by conduct [Paras 21-33]

Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff paid over 90% of consideration upfront and further agreed to pay additional amount demanded by vendors – No reason to doubt readiness and willingness to perform contract – High Court erred in holding otherwise – Acceptance of Rs. 1,95,000 after expiry of six-month term showed that time was not of the essence and defendants treated contract as ongoing – Mere delay in tendering balance Rs. 10,000 not fatal – Ready and willing conduct to be assessed holistically, based on facts and conduct of parties [Paras 18-21]

Discretion to Grant Relief – Clean Hands – Allegation of False Plea – High Court refused specific performance on grounds that plaintiff falsely claimed possession and fabricated additional consideration – Held: Absence of recital in agreement regarding possession not sufficient to prove falsehood – Claim may be unproved, but not necessarily false or dishonest – Additional consideration proved by endorsement and admitted signatures – No fraudulent conduct attributable to plaintiff – Court must consider substantial acts done in pursuance of contract and unjust enrichment of vendor – D-3 (Vasanthi), daughter of D-1, not a bona fide purchaser – Plaintiff entitled to relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Paras 34-39]

Interpretation – Time Not of the Essence – In contracts involving immovable property, time is ordinarily not of the essence unless specifically stipulated – Defendants' conduct of accepting additional consideration after expiry of six months indicated waiver of time clause – No notice given requiring performance within fixed time – Contract subsisted – Plaintiff’s failure to issue demand within six months not fatal in such circumstances [Paras 18-20]

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court reversed concurrent findings of fact without framing substantial question of law – Findings regarding genuineness of agreement, additional payment, readiness and willingness, were based on evidence and reasoning – No perversity, misreading, or exclusion of admissible evidence established – Held: High Court exceeded jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Interference with factual findings was unwarranted [Paras 15-17, 20, 38]

Appeal Allowed – Judgment and decree of High Court dated 02.02.2018 set aside – Decree of first appellate court restored – Plaintiff to deposit balance amount of Rs. 10,000 within one month in execution court if not already deposited – Specific performance of contract granted – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 40-41]

Service Law – NIT Recruitment – One-Time Relaxation – Appellants recommended for promotion under one-time relaxation granted via GoI letter dated 06.10.2017 – Relaxation initially held ultra vires by High Court for lacking statutory support – Later validated by incorporation into First Statutes via Statute 9 of 2023 Statutes approved by the President – Held: Statute 9 has clarificatory and retrospective effect validating the 2018 selection process – High Court erred in holding amendment prospective and ordering fresh recruitment [Paras 13–18, 35–38].

Constitutional Law – Separation of Powers – Validating Legislation – Legislature cannot override court judgments but may remove statutory basis of judgment – Held: Amendment through Statute 9 did not overreach prior judgment but cured the procedural defect by incorporating relaxation into law – Action was legally valid and within legislative competence [Paras 32, 36].

Statutory Interpretation – Clarificatory Statute – Retrospective Effect – Statute 9 was explanatory of the executive relaxation dated 06.10.2017 and intended to validate the prior selection process – Held: Clarificatory statutes are presumed retrospective unless otherwise stated – Statute 9 permitted NIT Kurukshetra to complete the 2018 recruitment drive [Paras 28–31, 36].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review of Policy – High Court held 2023 amendment could not revive 2018 selection – Supreme Court held this view erroneous as the statutory change was clarificatory and lawful – Directed NIT Kurukshetra to act upon earlier recommendations [Paras 36–38].

Service Law – Notional Appointment – Relief Granted – Appellants to be considered for notional appointment as Associate Professors effective post 27.11.2018 – No financial or experiential benefit for promotion – Continuity allowed for terminal benefits only [Paras 38–40].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court judgment modified – NIT Kurukshetra to consider and process appointments of appellants/intervenors recommended under Advertisement No. 03/2018 – Appointments to be notional, without back wages or promotional experience – One-time relaxation deemed exhausted thereafter – No impact on NIT Jalandhar [Paras 38–45].

Practice and Procedure – Adverse Remarks Against Counsel – Modification of Order – Supreme Court had imposed Rs. 2 lakh costs and made adverse observations against State Election Commission’s counsel for persistent insistence despite repeated disinclination expressed by the Bench – Counsel filed Miscellaneous Application seeking expungement and waiver of cost – Held: Once Court indicates its mind, further insistence by counsel is inappropriate and undermines courtroom decorum – However, considering unqualified apology and first-time conduct, adverse remarks and cost are deleted with caution against future recurrence [Paras 3, 6–9].

Advocacy – Duty Towards Court vs Client – Counsel must strike balance between duty to client and maintaining decorum of court – Persistent submissions after clear judicial indication disturb dignified functioning of Court – Assurances from senior bar members considered in granting relief [Paras 6–7].

Decision: Application allowed – Remarks against counsel expunged – Cost of Rs. 2,00,000 deleted – Counsel cautioned not to repeat such conduct [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Double Homicide – Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Boundary dispute between related villagers escalated into a violent clash – Appellants armed with sharp-edged spades (phawaras) attacked complainant side causing instantaneous death of two persons and grievous injuries to others – Evidence revealed appellants came armed and initiated attack – Held: Assembly had common object to commit murder and cause injuries; findings of guilt under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC fully justified – No perversity in concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court [Paras 29-31, 45, 51-52].

Appellate Review – Scope under Article 136 – Concurrent findings on fact and law – Supreme Court reiterates that interference is warranted only when findings are manifestly perverse, based on no evidence, or result in grave miscarriage of justice – Since both courts below had examined the evidence threadbare and reached concurrent conclusions supported by record, no ground to interfere made out [Paras 23-25].

Evidence – Ocular vs Medical – Injured Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – PW-2 (injured eyewitness) sustained multiple wounds consistent with prosecution case – Presence at scene admitted even by defence – Her version corroborated by medical evidence and by PW-3 and PW-4 – Minor discrepancies or omissions in narration do not dilute overall credibility – Medical evidence fully supports ocular account regarding use of sharp weapons and location of injuries – Held: Injured eyewitness testimony has greater evidentiary value and cannot be discarded on trivial inconsistencies [Paras 33-41].

Motive – Not Sine Qua Non where Direct Evidence Exists – Existence of long-standing enmity over partition of agricultural fields and a recently demolished ridge (mendh) established motive for assault – Court reiterates that where credible eyewitness evidence is available, motive assumes secondary importance – However, motive here corroborates the prosecution narrative, showing premeditated aggression by accused party [Paras 42-43].

Culpable Homicide – Section 300 Exception 4 – Plea of Sudden Fight and Free Fight Rejected – The incident was not a spontaneous brawl but a deliberate attack by armed assailants – The nature of injuries on vital parts such as skull and head, inflicted with lethal implements, demonstrates intention and knowledge necessary to constitute murder – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC not applicable – Conviction rightly under Section 302 IPC and not reduced to Section 304 IPC [Paras 44-45].

FIR – Delay in Lodging – Explanation Acceptable – Cross-FIR filed after taking injured to hospital in Chandigarh – Delay reasonably explained and caused by priority of medical care – Law well settled that delay in lodging FIR is not fatal when satisfactorily explained – Held: Delay in filing cross-case does not undermine prosecution version supported by consistent eyewitness and medical evidence [Paras 46-48].

Investigation – Non-Recovery of Weapon – Not Fatal to Prosecution Case – Though weapons (phawaras and lathis) were not recovered, the ocular testimony and post-mortem reports conclusively established use of such instruments – Non-recovery or non-production of weapons not fatal when other evidence is unimpeachable – Prosecution evidence found natural, consistent, and trustworthy [Paras 49-50].

Defence Plea – Self-Defence and Suppression of Genesis – Defence plea of self-defence and suppression of genesis rejected – No convincing evidence to show complainant side was aggressor – Injuries on accused were superficial and not contemporaneous – Held: Defence version an afterthought and cannot displace consistent prosecution case [Paras 27-30, 34].

Principles Reiterated – Credibility of injured witnesses; limited interference under Article 136; delay in FIR not fatal; non-recovery of weapons immaterial when supported by medical and ocular evidence; motive though not indispensable strengthens prosecution version; Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC not attracted in premeditated assault cases [Paras 23-52].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC affirmed – Appellants directed to surrender forthwith; bail bonds cancelled – Liberty granted to seek remission as per statutory policy – Judgment of the High Court upheld in toto [Paras 51-53].

POCSO – Conviction – Quashed Under Article 142 – Appellant convicted under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act – During pendency of appeal, appellant married victim and they had a child – Victim (now wife) expressed desire to live peacefully with appellant and opposed continuation of proceedings – Complainant (victim's father) raised no objection – Held: Though offence under POCSO is serious and ordinarily not compoundable, in unique facts, continuation of proceedings would defeat justice and harm victim and child – Criminal proceedings quashed in exercise of powers under Article 142 to render complete justice [Paras 1-3, 5, 9-11, 14-15].

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Extraordinary power invoked to balance justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation – Court emphasized justice must not be rigid, but responsive to human realities – Appellant’s act found to be one of love, not lust – Continuation of punishment would irreparably harm familial life and cause injustice to dependent wife and child – Power under Article 142 used to override statutory bar on compounding serious offences in interest of social harmony and restorative justice [Paras 6-10, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Compromise in Heinous Offences – Statutory bar to compounding offences under POCSO Act not a constraint on constitutional power under Article 142 – Court clarified that in exceptional and unique circumstances, it may quash criminal proceedings despite statutory prohibition if continuation undermines the ends of justice – Decision not to be treated as precedent [Paras 9, 15].

Conditions Imposed – Quashing Conditional on Marital Responsibility – Court imposed continuing obligation on appellant to not desert wife and child and to maintain them with dignity – Non-compliance may invite future action – Interim relief converting exemption from surrender into absolute discharge of bail bonds granted [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act quashed – Appellant discharged from bail bonds – Directions issued to ensure welfare of victim and child – Order passed in unique circumstances and not to be treated as precedent [Paras 11-15].