Facts:

The appellant was convicted under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The High Court partly upheld and partly modified the sentence, reducing the imprisonment term for rape from seven years to 4 1/2 years.

The appellant claimed innocence, arguing that the victim, a minor, and he were in love and had married with her consent. However, the prosecution contended that the victim was below 16 years of age at the time of the incident, making her consent irrelevant.

Documentary evidence, including a birth certificate, was presented to establish the age of the victim. The trial court found her to be a minor based on this evidence.

Issues:

Whether the victim was below 16 years of age at the time of the incident.

Whether the appellant's claim of consensual marriage with the victim was valid.

What sentencing would be appropriate considering the circumstances of the case.

Held:

The trial court's finding regarding the victim's age was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The birth certificate and other documentary evidence were deemed sufficient to establish her age.

The claim of consensual marriage was rejected by the courts, as the victim's age made her incapable of giving valid consent under the law.

The Supreme Court emphasized the gravity of sexual offenses, particularly those involving minors, and upheld the reduction in the appellant's sentence by the High Court. The court cited the deterrence rationale behind sentencing in such cases and emphasized the need to protect society from such crimes.

The appellant's plea for further leniency based on recent marriage and the victim's marital status was dismissed, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed. The appellant was ordered to serve the remaining sentence.

Facts:

The case involves an appeal by Special Leave against the judgment of the High Court affirming the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence implicating the Appellant in the murder of the Deceased. However, various inconsistencies and lapses in the investigation were noted.

Issues:

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether the investigation conducted by the police was satisfactory and adhered to legal procedures.

Whether adverse inferences can be drawn against the accused based solely on their statements during examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Held:

The conviction is predicated on circumstantial evidence alone. Fingerprints have not been lifted from the scene, the murder weapon has not been recovered, and any credible motive is absent.

It is thus abundantly clear that the investigation conducted by the police was less than satisfactory, nay, it was non-existent. Given the failure of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of the doubt would have to be bestowed on the Accused.

Facts:

The incident occurred after 11 years of marriage, wherein the husband set his wife on fire, resulting in her demise. The minor daughter of the deceased witnessed the quarrel and rushed to her grandparents' home.

Issues:

The credibility of witnesses, including the minor daughter of the deceased, and the validity of the plea of alibi raised by the accused.

Held:

The court found that the deceased had indeed suffered burn injuries leading to her death, based on oral evidence and seized items from the place of occurrence. The testimony of the minor daughter, though declared hostile, did not provide credible information regarding the whereabouts of the accused at the time of the incident.

Medical evidence, particularly the post-mortem report and the testimony of the doctor who conducted it, corroborated the prosecution's case. The court emphasized the significance of medical testimony in establishing the nature and cause of injuries sustained by the deceased.

Despite the plea of alibi raised by the accused, the burden to establish it with certainty rested on him. The evidence presented in support of the alibi was deemed sketchy and insufficient to exclude the possibility of his presence at the scene of the crime.

The court upheld the conviction, noting the lack of credibility in the accused's defense and the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, including the dying declaration of the victim.

Facts:

The appeal is against the judgment and order of the High Court which reframed questions under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The questions related to the entitlement of the Assessee to the benefit of disallowance of commission purportedly paid by the Assessee to its commission agents for procurement of orders for the supply of liquor.

Issues:

The reframing of questions by the High Court, the jurisdiction of the High Court to set aside the order of the Tribunal, and the correctness of the High Court's exercise of jurisdiction in re-evaluating the evidence.

Held:

The High Court was within its jurisdiction to reframe questions under Section 256(2) of the Act. However, it erred in setting aside the Tribunal's order. Nonetheless, the manner in which the High Court re-evaluated the evidence was found to be appropriate, as it drew legal inferences from facts already recorded by the Tribunal. The judgment of the High Court was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

Facts:

The appeals were initially filed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, with the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the focus shifted to seeking the lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Issues:

The criteria for deeming an acquisition as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, specifically concerning the passing of an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, possession of the land, and payment of compensation.

Held:

The court held that each appeal must satisfy certain criteria before a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) can be made. These criteria include establishing the passing of an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act at least five years before the commencement of the 2013 Act, and demonstrating that possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid by the acquiring authority.

The court disposed of the appeals with liberty given to the landowners to initiate appropriate proceedings seeking the benefit of Section 24 of the 2013 Act within eight weeks.

Additionally, the court granted interim protection for a period of 90 days and allowed parties to approach the court within 90 days of the passing of the High Court's orders to revive the appeals if necessary.

Facts:

The respondents, state employees in the Forest Department, claimed eligibility for certain benefits based on a letter dated 28.07.1983, which they interpreted as a promise by the state. They sought relief before the High Court, which allowed their writ petitions. The state appealed against this decision.

Issues:

Whether a promise was made by the state to the respondents,

Whether promissory estoppel was applicable in this case, and whether the respondents fulfilled the necessary qualifications under the statutory rules.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the letter in question did not contain a promise by the state to grant the reliefs sought by the respondents. It emphasized that service conditions of state employees are governed by statutory rules, and a plea of promissory estoppel against the state can only succeed if the promise is explicit, specific, and supported by adequate evidence. The Court distinguished this case from previous decisions on promissory estoppel, noting that those cases dealt with different factual scenarios and were not applicable to the present matter, which concerned service law.

Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeals filed by the state, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and upheld the decision of the Tribunal, which had dismissed the respondents' original applications. The Court clarified that the respondents could still be considered for promotion or benefits in accordance with the existing or amended rules, provided they meet the necessary qualifications.

Contempt of Court - Criminal contempt for derogatory speech against judiciary - Appellant made a public speech criticizing a High Court judgment, using terms deemed disrespectful towards the judges - Convicted under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, sentenced to six months imprisonment, reduced to four weeks by Supreme Court - Upheld importance of dignified discourse about judiciary without scandalizing or lowering its authority - Emphasized separation of powers and limits on free speech when it disrupts court's functioning [Paras 1-11].

Free Speech vs. Contempt - Balancing act between free expression and respect for judiciary - Appellant argued right to criticize under Article 19, but crossed boundaries into contempt - Supreme Court reiterated that criticism should be temperate and not obstruct justice [Paras 6-10].

Sentencing in Contempt - Initial sentence deemed excessively harsh; reduced considering overall context and absence of prior contempt - No apology from appellant, reflecting lack of remorse [Para 10].

Disposed off with modification in the sentence.

Referred Cases:

P.N. Dua Vs. P. Shiv Shanker and Others, AIR 1988 SC 1208

In Re: S. Mulgaokar, AIR 1978 SC 727

R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex-parte Blackburn 1968 (2) All ER 319(CA)

Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, Entry 25's validity questioned following its previous invalidation by Karnataka High Court - processing and supply of photographs initially deemed a service contract without sale of goods component - High Court ruled lack of state competence to tax such contracts under Entry 25 as unconstitutional [Para 14-16].

Revisiting legislative powers post-46th Amendment, Supreme Court clarifies goods involved in execution of works contracts can be taxed - overrules previous decisions limiting state's power only to goods explicitly sold rather than incidental transfers [Para 11, 18-19, 21].

Supreme Court holds Entry 25 constitutionally valid from 1st July 1989, despite retrospective application - justifies re-enactment by the legislature following principles laid out in Builders Association and M/s. Larsen and Toubro cases which allowed splitting of contracts into goods and services for taxation purposes [Para 22-23, 28-29].

Argument against retrospective application under Entry 25 rejected - Legislature deemed competent to enact retrospective laws provided they do not violate constitutional principles or impose excessive burdens [Para 24-27].

Referred Cases:

Golden Colour Lab and Studio and Others Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others, (2003) ILR (Kar) 4883

Keshoram Surindranath Photo-Mag (P.) Ltd. and Others Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (LR), City Division and Others, (2001) 121 STC 175

Gannon Dunkerley and Co. and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (1993) 1 SCC 364

Builders Association of India and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1371

M/s. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, AIR 2001 SC 862

M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2014) 1 SCC 708

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2006 SC 1383

Telecom Law – Differential Tariffs and Non-Discrimination – Appeal against TRAI directive enforcing uniform tariff rates for calls to BSNL/MTNL compared to other private operators – Tribunal upheld TRAI’s order, finding the directive justified to prevent discriminatory tariffs as per amended license conditions – Appellants argued differential tariffs due to lack of direct connectivity with BSNL/MTNL which incurred additional charges – Supreme Court concurs with Tribunal that appellants had not made adequate efforts for direct connectivity and upheld the non-discrimination mandate under Telecom Tariff Order, 1999 – Appeal dismissed as discriminatory tariff practices could not be justified on technical grounds - [Paras 2-24]

Decision: Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing the regulatory framework against discriminatory practices among subscribers of the same class, enforcing tariff uniformity regardless of technical and operational challenges faced by service providers.

Referred Cases:

The State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75: (1952) CriLJ 510: (1952) 1 SCR 284