Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Conviction and Acquittal – Appellant convicted of raping and murdering a ten-year-old girl and concealing her body under haystack at a tubewell cabin – Trial Court imposed the death penalty, which was commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court – Supreme Court finds deficiencies in evidence and procedural lapses, including failure to properly examine the appellant under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Evidence insufficient to sustain conviction – Appellant acquitted [Paras 1-24].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of PW-2 – PW-2, the only eyewitness, was seven years old at the time of the incident and ten years old during testimony – His deposition contradicted the version narrated to PW-1, the victim's father – Delay of 21 days in recording his statement under Section 161 CrPC raises doubt about the reliability – Held: Testimony of PW-2 is not of sterling quality and unsafe for conviction [Paras 10-12].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Items – Recovery of victim's slipper and underwear at the appellant's instance was not substantiated – Recovery memo lacked crucial details like time and place – Prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses to the recovery – Held: Prosecution failed to prove recovery, breaking the chain of circumstances [Para 13].

Section 313 CrPC – Failure to Put Material Circumstances to the Accused – Incriminating evidence from PW-1 and PW-2 not specifically put to the appellant in his examination – Only three generalized questions asked – Supreme Court holds this as a serious procedural irregularity, prejudicing the appellant’s defense – Defect deemed incurable due to lapse of 15 years since the incident – Appellant acquitted on this ground [Paras 14-17].

Right to Legal Aid – Denial and Deficiency – Appellant was unrepresented during crucial stages, including framing of charges and recording of PW-1’s examination-in-chief – Legal aid provided was inadequate, with multiple advocates appearing inconsistently, affecting the quality of defense – Held: Failure to provide effective legal aid violated the appellant’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 19-22].

Role of Public Prosecutor and Legal Aid Counsel – Supreme Court emphasizes duties of Public Prosecutors and Legal Aid Advocates to ensure fair trials – Directives issued to ensure consistent, competent, and effective legal representation, especially in serious cases involving potential life or death sentences – Legal Services Authorities instructed to monitor and improve the quality of legal aid [Paras 23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Convictions under Sections 376, 302, and 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled – Directives issued to Legal Services Authorities for systemic improvements [Paras 24-26].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Acquittal – Circumstantial Evidence - Appellants were convicted for the culpable homicide of the deceased, initially under Section 302 IPC by the trial court, which was modified by the High Court to Section 304 Part I IPC with a sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment – Both courts relied on circumstantial evidence including last seen, motive, recovery of a blood-stained stone, and meat bag, and testimony of key witnesses – Supreme Court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and appellants acquitted [Paras 1, 11-13, 23-41].

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles and Chain of Evidence - The Supreme Court reiterated principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence: (i) Circumstances must be fully established; (ii) They should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused; (iii) They must form a complete chain ruling out other hypotheses; (iv) They must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused – The Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof – Applying these principles, the Court found the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution failed the test of conclusiveness and completeness [Paras 18-22].

Last Seen Evidence – Inadequacy and Lack of Proximity - Prosecution relied on PW-4’s testimony of the deceased being last seen with the appellants on 2.2.1997 at 4:30 PM near Gadhera College – Supreme Court held the time gap between the last seen (4:30 PM) and recovery of the body (next morning at 8:30 AM) was too large to exclude third-party involvement – The Court emphasized that mere walking together on a public path is insufficient to infer culpability without further corroboration – Circumstance was held insufficient and inconclusive [Paras 26-27].

Recovery Evidence – Admissibility and Inconclusiveness - Prosecution relied on the recovery of blood-stained stones at the instance of the appellants on 6.2.1997 – Supreme Court held the disclosure statement (Exb. Ka-18) inadmissible as it did not lead to discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – The recovery was made en route to the police station before the disclosure statement was recorded – Furthermore, forensic evidence failed to link the recovered items to the crime – Recovery evidence was deemed inconsequential [Paras 32-38].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Delayed Disclosure - PW-2 claimed to have seen the appellants walking near the crime scene on 2.2.1997 at night – Supreme Court found his testimony unreliable due to delay in disclosure (statement recorded on 9.2.1997) and prior enmity with the accused – PW-8’s presence during the recovery process was also deemed doubtful due to inconsistencies and distance from the site – Witness testimony failed to inspire confidence [Paras 29-30, 38].

Motive – Insufficiency - Prosecution alleged enmity arising from panchayat elections as the motive – Supreme Court held the motive was weak as it lacked any concrete evidence or recent precipitating incident – Motive alone was insufficient to establish guilt [Paras 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part I IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 39-41].

Criminal Procedure – Bail in Serious Offences – Impact on Trial – Ordinarily, courts should not grant bail in serious offences like rape after trial commencement unless undue delay occurs – Supreme Court disapproved of the practice of granting bail based on discrepancies in the victim's statement at preliminary stages of trial [Paras 13–15, 20–21].

Victim Protection – Bail Conditions – Conditions Enhanced – Accused directed not to enter the victim’s village or contact witnesses – High Court's lack of stringent conditions criticized – Supreme Court directed strict adherence to bail conditions to avoid influencing the trial process [Paras 18, 23, 26].

Trial Expeditiousness – Prioritization in Serious Cases – Supreme Court directed trial court to prioritize and dispose of the case within three months, ensuring speedy justice for all parties involved [Paras 24–25].

Judicial Observations – Prima Facie Findings – Held: Observations during bail adjudication are not determinative of guilt or innocence and do not influence the final outcome of the trial [Para 27].

Decision:

Special Leave Petition disposed of with directions – High Court’s order granting bail not interfered with, but bail conditions strengthened – Respondent No. 2 barred from entering the village or contacting witnesses – Trial Court directed to expedite proceedings within three months [Paras 24–27].

Service Law - Promotion after Retirement – Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules – Financial Benefits Denied The respondent, who retired before receiving final approval for promotion, sought notional financial benefits for the higher post – Held: Rule 54(1)(a) precludes retrospective promotion or associated benefits unless duties of the post were assumed – The Court reversed the High Court's order granting notional benefits, emphasizing that actual service in the promotional post is essential for financial claims. [Paras 4-9, 14-18]​.

Right to Promotion – Articles 14 and 16 – No Fundamental Right to Promotion While an individual has a right to be considered for promotion, there is no absolute right to promotion itself – The Court held that only consideration for promotion is a fundamental right, but promotion becomes effective upon assumption of duties, not from the date of vacancy or recommendation. [Paras 14-16]​.

Administrative Delays – Procedural Lapses – Equitable Relief Denied Procedural -delays by the Department in forwarding documents for promotion were noted; however, the respondent's inability to assume duties prior to superannuation rendered retrospective benefits legally untenable – The principle of effective assumption of duties was upheld over procedural equities. [Paras 5-7, 19]​.

Decision:

The appeal was allowed. The judgments of the High Court and Tribunal granting notional financial benefits were reversed and set aside.

Scheduled Castes – Eligibility Criteria – Impact of Religious Conversion – Denial of Scheduled Caste Certificate Upheld - The appellant claimed entitlement to a Scheduled Caste community certificate on the basis that her father and paternal ancestors belonged to the Valluvan caste, recognized as a Scheduled Caste under the S.C. Order, 1964. However, evidence showed that the appellant and her family had converted to Christianity, and baptismal records confirmed her religious identity as Christian. The Court held that, as per the S.C. Order, 1964, only individuals professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism can be recognized as members of Scheduled Castes – Held: Denial of certificate was justified and not arbitrary.

Conversion and Reconversion – Eclipse Doctrine – Applicability Conditional on Community Acceptance - The appellant argued that caste persists under eclipse during conversion and revives upon reconversion to Hinduism. However, the Court found no evidence of public declaration, ceremonies, or community acceptance of reconversion in this case. Without such proof, the appellant’s claim to Scheduled Caste status was unsustainable – Held: Doctrine of Eclipse not applicable in absence of reconversion.

Fraud on the Constitution – Misuse of Reservation Policies – Claim Rejected - The appellant professed Christianity and actively practiced the faith but sought Scheduled Caste status for availing reservation benefits in employment. The Court observed that such claims, based on convenience and lacking sincerity, undermine the constitutional ethos and reservation policy – Held: Claim dismissed as an abuse of constitutional provisions.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is not entitled to a Scheduled Caste community certificate as per the S.C. Order, 1964. Pending applications are closed.
 

Matrimonial Offences – Quashment of FIR – Section 482 of CrPC – Allegations Omnibus in Nature – FIR Quashed - The appellant accused No.5, wife of accused No.6, challenged the High Court's refusal to quash the FIR despite quashing it for accused No.6 – The Supreme Court observed that allegations against accused No.5 were vague and unsupported by specific evidence, similar to those quashed against her husband (accused No.6) – Referring to Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, the Court held that such allegations were exaggerated and indicative of over-implication – Held: FIR quashed against accused No.5 [Paras 17-21].

Matrimonial Allegations – Relatives Residing Separately – Abuse of Process – FIR Quashed - Applying principles in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, the Court held that distant relatives not residing in the same household as the complainant were over-implicated – Lack of material evidence to connect accused Nos.5 and 6 to alleged harassment reinforced this conclusion – Held: FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 22-25].

Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers of High Court – Scope – The Court emphasized the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Filing of the final report or challan does not bar exercising such powers – Held: FIR against accused No.5 quashed to maintain parity with accused No.6.

Decision:

Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022 filed by accused No.5 (Payal Sharma) is allowed, quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings. Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13579 of 2023 filed by the complainant is dismissed, upholding the quashment of FIR against accused No.6 (Subhash Chander Kapila).

Criminal Law - Public Servants – Requirement of Sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Summoning Order Quashed – The appellant, a District Town Planner, was accused of illegal demolition of a college building – The Court considered whether the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC vitiated the proceedings – Held: The demolition was part of the appellant’s official duties, and no cognizance could have been taken without prior sanction – Summoning order and consequent proceedings quashed, with liberty to seek sanction if deemed appropriate [Paras 24, 33].

Official Duties – Demolition Action – No Evidence of Malice – The appellant argued that the demolition was carried out under superior orders and not independently – The Court noted that the acts were reasonably connected to official duties and could not be termed as an "excess" – Held: There was no malafide intent, and the actions were within the scope of lawful authority [Paras 33-35].

Protection of Public Servants – Object and Scope of Section 197 CrPC – The provision aims to shield public servants from unwarranted harassment and frivolous prosecution for acts performed in official capacity – The Court emphasized that protection applies when acts are connected to duties, even if alleged to be excessive [Paras 36-38].

Decision – The appeal was allowed, summoning orders quashed, and the initiation of the complaint declared non-est – Liberty granted to seek sanction and initiate proceedings in compliance with Section 197 CrPC [Paras 40-41].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Presumption under Section 20 – High Court’s Judgment Reversed - The appellant contended that the High Court erred in acquitting the respondent despite strong evidence of demand and acceptance of Rs. 2,000 as illegal gratification. The Court observed that the prosecution had established both demand and acceptance of bribe through oral and documentary evidence, corroborated by tape recordings and recovery of tainted currency notes. The presumption under Section 20 was upheld, and the respondent’s defense of a loan transaction was found to lack evidentiary support – Held: The High Court’s acquittal was erroneous, and the trial court’s conviction and sentence were restored.

Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Scope of Presumption – Prosecution’s Burden Discharged - The Court clarified that mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient to establish guilt under Section 7 of the Act unless the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are proved. In this case, both were demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20, once raised, shifts the burden to the accused, which the respondent failed to rebut satisfactorily – Held: Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Appellate Review in Acquittal Appeals – Scope – Judgment of High Court Found Perverse - The Court reiterated the principle that in appeals against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the trial court's findings are unsupported by evidence or are perverse. Here, the High Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly, leading to an unsustainable acquittal. The trial court’s judgment convicting the respondent was reinstated.

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The High Court’s judgment acquitting the respondent is set aside, and the trial court’s judgment convicting the respondent is restored. The respondent is to be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence and pay the fine as imposed by the trial court.

False Promise of Marriage – Section 375 IPC – Prolonged Consensual Relationship – FIR Quashed - The appellant contended that the alleged sexual relationship spanned over nine years and was consensual – The Court noted the absence of evidence indicating a false promise of marriage from the outset – Held: A prolonged consensual relationship without clear evidence of intent to deceive does not amount to rape – FIR quashed [Paras 19-27].

Consent Under Misconception of Fact – Section 90 IPC – Absence of Criminal Intent – No Vitiation of Consent - The complainant alleged that the appellant had engaged in sexual relations by falsely promising to marry her – The Court held that the complainant’s prolonged participation without objection, despite knowing the appellant was married, undermined her claims of vitiated consent – Held: No criminal liability for consensual relations under a purported false promise of marriage unless it is shown that the promise was made with mala fide intent from the outset [Paras 28-32].

Abuse of Process of Law – Section 482 CrPC – FIR Quashed - The Court highlighted the increasing misuse of criminal provisions in cases involving consensual relationships that later deteriorate – Continuing such proceedings would be a misuse of judicial resources – Held: FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process [Paras 33-37].

Decision:

The appeal is allowed. The order dated 12/02/2018 by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition (CRWP) No. 5190 of 2017 is set aside. FIR No. 302 of 2017, registered against the appellant with Kharghar Police Station, Navi Mumbai, under Sections 376, 420, 504, and 506 IPC, is quashed.