Facts:

The complainant alleged that all accused entered the victim's under-construction house armed with deadly weapons and collectively attacked the victim, leading to his death. Two witnesses, PW-7 and PW-8, also sustained injuries. The trial court convicted six accused, and one accused (A-1) passed away during the trial. A-2 and A-7 did not appeal, but A-3, A-4, A-5, and A-6 approached the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the non-inclusion of Section 141 IPC in framing charges renders the trial illegal, particularly in invoking Section 149 IPC.

A-4 and A-6's contention that the absence of charges under Section 141 IPC nullifies the existence of an unlawful assembly.

A-5's plea of mistaken identity.

Held:

The Court dismissed A-4 and A-6's contention, affirming that the absence of charges under Section 141 IPC does not render the trial illegal. The necessary ingredients of an unlawful assembly, as outlined in Section 141 IPC, sufficed for invoking Section 149 IPC (Para 21).

The Court found that the collective intent of the accused was evident, and the absence of charges under Section 141 IPC did not negate the existence of an unlawful assembly. The actions and punishment for an unlawful assembly are addressed in subsequent provisions after Section 141 IPC (Para 22).

A-5's plea of mistaken identity was rejected. Minor discrepancies in testimonies were deemed natural, given the sudden and violent nature of the incident. The court observed a broad consistency in the witnesses' accounts (Para 30).

Decision: All four appeals by A-3, A-4, A-5, and A-6 were dismissed, affirming the convictions imposed by the trial court.

Facts:

Respondent-Hari Ram allotted commercial booth in 1996, failed to pay installments and ground rent.

Lease canceled in 2006; eviction order passed in 2007; appeal dismissed in 2008.

High Court set aside eviction, directed return of deposited amount, and ordered further opportunity for payment.

Issues:

• Validity of eviction order due to persistent defaults by the respondent.

• Determination of outstanding dues and market value for the booth.

Held:

The respondent consistently defaulted on payments despite numerous opportunities, leading to the cancellation of the lease and an eviction order. The court disagrees with the High Court's decision and emphasizes the respondent's persistent defaults.( Paragraph 8)

The court adopts the 2010 market value, directing the respondent to pay Rs. 12,77,950/-. Six months allowed for payment; on deposit, the administration to confirm allotment, otherwise eviction proceedings to proceed.( Paragraph 12)

Facts:

The case involves the conviction of appellants for offenses related to the murder of Pitambar Singh.

The prosecution alleged a conspiracy among the accused, leading to the murder.

Eyewitness testimonies formed a significant part of the evidence against the accused.

The recovery of bloodstained articles, including sticks and tabbal, was a key aspect of the prosecution's case.

Issues:

Delay in recording eyewitness statements.

Credibility of eyewitness testimonies and allegations of fabrication.

Lack of evidence linking bloodstained articles to the deceased.

Failure to prove the conspiracy charge.

Held:

The Court expressed skepticism about the delay in recording eyewitness statements, questioning the prosecution's explanation and finding inconsistencies in the story. ( Paragraph 6)

Highlighted the importance of evidence relating to the recovery of bloodstained articles and cited previous cases where mismatches in bloodstains led to reversals of convictions. (Paragraph 8)

Emphasized that if the recovery of bloodstained articles is proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the investigation is untainted, the prosecution may establish human origin of blood, even if blood groups are not matched. ( Paragraph 13)

Expressed doubt about the prosecution's positive material indicating that the stained blood was of human origin and of the same blood group as that of the accused. ( Paragraph 14)

Noted the absence of conspiracy and questioned the genesis of the prosecution's case, leading to suspicion. ( Paragraph 15)

The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were directed to be released. The benefit of the judgment was extended to other accused in the same case who had not appealed. The Court expressed suspicion about the genesis of the prosecution's case and concluded that reliance on eyewitness testimonies and recovery evidence was not justified. (Paragraph 16)

Facts:

Land dispute between complainant and accused.

Incident occurred on 07.06.2002, resulting in the death of the deceased.

Trial court convicted all four accused.

High Court altered the conviction and acquitted respondents nos. 3 and 4.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in altering the conviction and acquitting respondents nos. 3 and 4.

Allegations of suppression of evidence by the prosecution.

Held:

Serious doubts arose due to the failure of the prosecution to investigate the FIR lodged by the accused and present their injury reports.

Burden lies on the prosecution to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused only needs to create doubt about the prosecution's case.

Fair investigation and trial are essential for a just decision.

Failure to act fairly and present relevant materials prejudiced the prosecution.

The benefit of doubt must follow unless the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeals were dismissed, upholding the High Court's order, and there was no interference with the acquittal of accused nos. 3 and 4.

Facts:

The case involves an application filed under Section 14(1)(e) seeking eviction of non-residential premises. The petitioner, a tenant, sought a reference to a larger bench for reconsideration of the *Satyawati Sharma case, which had declared Section 14(1)(e) as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issues:

The constitutionality of Section 14(1)(e) in relation to non-residential premises and the plea for a reference to a larger bench based on perceived conflicts with previous judgments.

Held:

The provision of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, applies specifically to premises let for residential purposes. Part of Section 14(1)(e) was struck down in the *Satyawati Sharma case, deeming it violative of the doctrine of equality under Article 14. [Para 10, 11]

Prior to the *Satyawati Sharma case, landlords primarily used Section 14(1)(e) for seeking recovery of possession only for residential premises. Post the judgment, landlords began filing applications for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) for non-residential premises, which were processed through the summary trial procedure outlined in Chapter III-A of the Act. [Paras 11 and 12]

The principle of per incuriam, a legal doctrine developed by English courts, was discussed, emphasizing that the *Satyawati Sharma case was not per incuriam. The judgment did not ignore the ratio in **Gian Devi Anand case nor took a contrary view. [Paras 22 and 24]

The Court distinguished the #Gauri Shanker case, stating it was not applicable as it dealt with a different provision and premise, and it was not a binding precedent for the *Satyawati Sharma case. [Para 32]

The Court rejected the plea for reference, asserting that non-reference of Section 25-B in *Satyawati Sharma case did not render the judgment per incuriam. Section 25-B, being related to the procedure for considering applications under Section 14(1)(e), had no bearing on the issues addressed in *Satyawati Sharma. [Para 35]

The judgment clarified that *Satyawati Sharma case did not read down the provision of Section 14(1)(e) but struck down the discriminatory portion as violative of Article 14. [Paras 52, 53, and 54]

The Court addressed the non-reference of Section 25B, emphasizing that it did not render the judgment per incuriam. The issues related to the procedure under Section 25B were deemed matters for the legislature to consider, and any changes should be made by the legislature, not the judiciary. [Para 45]

The Court concluded that there was no good ground to refer the judgment in *Satyawati Sharma case to a larger bench, highlighting the acceptance of the suggestion in **Gian Devi Anand case by the legislature in enacting the Delhi Rent Act, 1995. [Paras 55 and 57]

Facts:

The case originated from a general election for a reserved seat in the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The successful candidate faced disqualification due to a complaint challenging her claim to belong to a backward class. The District Caste certificate scrutiny committee invalidated the candidate's caste certificate, resulting in disqualification by the Corporation and the creation of a casual vacancy in the ward.

Issues:

The primary issue revolved around the legality of the State Election Commission's notification, dated May 9, 2019, for a by-election to fill the aforementioned casual vacancy.

The appellant, Nitin Bandopant Salagre, contended that, as the candidate with the second-highest votes, he was entitled to be declared elected under Section 33 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.

Held:

The Court held that the mere pendency of an election petition challenging the returned candidate's election does not automatically defer or postpone the filling of a casual vacancy. The State Election Commission is mandated to consider the statutory provisions under Section 34 and make a conscious decision, taking into account all relevant factors before proceeding with a by-election. The statutory scheme recognizes the candidate with the second-highest votes as deemed to be elected to avoid the necessity of conducting fresh elections.

The Court emphasized that the expression "as soon as it conveniently may be" in Section 9 grants discretion to the State Election Commission regarding the timing of holding byelections for casual vacancies. The Statute does not mandate an immediate election, providing the Commission flexibility for a purpose and object.( Para 26)

The Court clarified that the statutory scheme does not impose an automatic embargo on the State Election Commission's right to proceed with filling a casual vacancy merely because an election petition is pending. The Commission is obligated to determine whether there is no other candidate who can be deemed elected before holding fresh elections, ensuring a decision-making process that considers all relevant and necessary factors.( Para 27 )

Conclusions drawn regarding the statutory scheme under the Act, 1888 for filling up casual vacancies, highlighting the importance of Section 34 in cases involving the invalidation of a caste certificate.( Para 36 )

The Court directed the State Election Commission to take a fresh decision before issuing any notification fixing dates for holding a by-election in the relevant wards.( Para 38 )

Facts:

The respondents, as successors, sought conversion of land use for a commercial-cum-residential complex.

The Corporation directed the respondents to deposit a specific amount as conversion charges, which they did while reserving their rights.

The conversion of land use was initially allowed.

Issues:

The respondents later sought a refund of the deposited amount, leading to legal proceedings.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, but the Division Bench allowed the special appeal, directing the appellants to refund the amount with interest.

Held:

Section 173-A was amended in 1999, introducing significant changes in the statutory provision. The amendment imposed restrictions on both categories of land, namely, land originally allotted or sold by the State Government/Municipality, and land not allotted or sold.

The amended Section 173-A prohibits the use of land for a purpose other than that permitted by the Master Plan. Even if the respondents used the land for commercial purposes before the amendment, the restriction now applies.

If the appellants claim that the land use in the Master Plan 2011 is residential, the amended Section 173-A restrictions shall apply, necessitating permission and payment of conversion charges.

The respondents' intention to construct a commercial-cum-residential complex and the Corporation's request for conversion charges are inconsequential. Compliance with statutory requirements is paramount.

In the event of conflicting claims regarding the land use in the Master Plan, the respondents are given liberty to submit a representation to the Corporation. This allows them to present materials and grounds indicating that, in the 2002 Master Plan, the land use was commercial rather than residential.

Facts:

Appellant, Kathi David Raju, accused of obtaining a fake Scheduled Caste certificate.

FIR alleged that the appellant changed his name and parentage to secure the false caste certificate.

Police arrested the appellant, and during the incomplete investigation, requested a DNA test on the appellant, his mother, and two brothers.

Order for the DNA test was challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court, which dismissed the application.

Appeal filed in the Supreme Court against the dismissal.

Issues:

Validity of the order for conducting a DNA test.

Prematurity of the DNA test request without a substantial investigation.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the order for a DNA test was premature as it was made without completing a substantial investigation. The Court emphasized the importance of not conducting such tests lightly without appropriate satisfaction of the need for testing. The order for the DNA test was declared unsustainable, and both the High Court and the Additional Junior Civil Judge were found to have erred in not setting aside the order. The Court allowed the appeal and noted that the court concerned could reconsider the request for a DNA test if there were sufficient materials on record to support such a decision.

Facts:

A2-Yasmeen was accused of supporting terrorist activities of ISIS.

The prosecution alleged a criminal conspiracy involving A1 (husband of A2-Yasmeen) and A2-Yasmeen, leading to their association with ISIS.

Charges included offenses under Section 120B IPC, Section 125 IPC, and Sections 38, 39, 40 of the UAPA.

A2-Yasmeen was arrested at the airport while attempting to travel to Afghanistan.

Issues:

Whether the evidence supports the charges against A2-Yasmeen.

Whether A2-Yasmeen should be acquitted or convicted for the mentioned offenses.

Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate.

Held:

The High Court set aside A2-Yasmeen's conviction for certain offenses but upheld it for others, reducing the sentence.

The Supreme Court dismissed A2-Yasmeen's appeal against her conviction and sentence under Section 120B IPC and Section 38 of the UAPA.

The Union's appeal against A2-Yasmeen's acquittal for offenses under Section 125 IPC, Sections 39, and 40 of the UAPA was also dismissed.

The Court allowed the Union's appeal regarding the reduction of A2-Yasmeen's sentence, restoring the sentence imposed by the trial court.

The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing mens rea for offenses under the UAPA.

The High Court's observation that "if a person is punishable under Section 38, Section 39 becomes superfluous" was deemed incorrect, clarifying the distinct scopes of these sections.