Criminal Law – Murder – Reversal of Acquittal – Identity of Accused Not Proved – Ocular testimony of independent house-owner witness (PW-7) established assault by three unknown persons inside her house but she could not identify the assailants – No test identification parade – Prosecution relied on PW-1 and PW-2 as eyewitnesses but their presence held doubtful; PW-1 a chance witness with unnatural conduct; PW-2’s version dependent on PW-1 – Recovery of weapons from open places not linked to the deceased by FSL; only discovery portion of disclosure admissible under Sections 25-27 Evidence Act – High Court erred in upsetting trial court’s acquittal absent perversity – Appeals allowed; conviction set aside; appellants acquitted [Paras 14-25, 28-36].

Witness Testimony – PW-7 (Independent Householder) – Credibility and Limits – PW-7 clearly deposed to the assault by three persons and the presence of blood on her clothes and bedsheet; however, she did not know the assailants’ names; no identification parade held; police failed to get accused identified by her – Court treated her testimony as trustworthy to the occurrence but insufficient for identity [Paras 14-16].

Chance Witness – PW-1 (Father of Deceased) & PW-2 – Presence Doubtful – PW-1’s conduct (not handing over blood-stained clothes; route taken was not on the way home) deemed unnatural; his presence at scene held doubtful, making him a chance witness; PW-2 admitted trailing PW-1 by 60–70 steps; with PW-1’s presence doubtful, PW-2’s testimony also unreliable for identification [Paras 19-24].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 25, 26 & 27 – Scope of Admissibility – Only the portion of disclosure leading to discovery is admissible; the self-inculpatory add-on that recovered weapons were used in the crime is inadmissible – No FSL report linking blood on recovered weapons to deceased; recoveries from open places insufficient to connect appellants with offence [Paras 28-33].

Criminal Procedure – Appellate Interference with Acquittal – High Court can interfere only if trial court’s view is perverse or patently erroneous; in absence of such perversity, deference to trial court’s appreciation of evidence is warranted; High Court erred in reversing acquittal [Paras 35-36].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted on benefit of doubt – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 36-37].

Taxation – Works Contract – Transfer of Property in Goods – Printing of Lottery Tickets – Appellant engaged in printing lottery tickets using ink and chemicals procured by itself while paper was supplied by contractee – Assessing Authority levied tax under Section 3F(1)(b) of U.P. Trade Tax Act on ink and chemicals – Appellate Authority and Tribunal deleted levy holding such materials “consumed” and not transferred – High Court reversed holding ink and chemicals passed to customers as part of printing – Held: Tax under Section 3F(1)(b) is on goods involved in execution of works contract, not on end product – Lottery tickets being actionable claims immaterial – Ink and chemicals adhering to paper are transferred “in some other form” – Hence liable to tax [Paras 34–37, 52–56, 67–73].

Works Contract – Constitutional Scope – Article 366(29-A)(b) – After 46th Amendment, indivisible works contract deemed divisible into sale of goods and supply of services – Dominant intention test irrelevant – States empowered to tax transfer of property in goods “whether as goods or in some other form” – [Paras 21–33, 60–63].

Consumables – Meaning and Deduction – Only those consumables whose property is not transferred (e.g., water, electricity, fuel) are deductible – Ink and chemicals incorporated in printing process are not “consumables” but goods transferred in execution of works contract [Paras 61–64].

Interpretation – Moment of Transfer – Transfer of property occurs when contractor’s goods are incorporated in the “works” – Later consumption or transformation of goods immaterial – Taxable event is the deemed sale at the point of incorporation [Paras 59–63].

Precedents – Followed Builders Association of India v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 645; Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan (1993) 1 SCC 364; Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2014) 1 SCC 708; State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Printing Press Fine Art Printer (1999) 114 STC 388 – Overruled Rainbow Colour Lab v. State of M.P. (2000) 2 SCC 385 to the extent inconsistent [Paras 25–33, 57–58].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upholding levy of tax affirmed – Appellant liable to pay tax on ink and processing material under Section 3F(1)(b) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 – [Paras 70–74].

Public Interest Litigation – Road Safety – Pedestrian Protection – Directions Issued – Supreme Court takes cognizance of alarming rise in road accident deaths (1.72 lakh in 2023 including 35,000 pedestrians) – Court issues detailed directions on five key aspects: (i) pedestrian footpaths, (ii) pedestrian crossings, (iii) mandatory helmet use, (iv) prevention of wrong-lane driving, and (v) control of dazzling LED lights and unauthorised red–blue strobes and hooters – States, UTs and NHAI to ensure implementation of IRC:103–2022 and MOHUA accessibility norms, enforce helmet and lane-discipline laws, and curb misuse of lighting and sirens [Paras 6, 11, 28, 30–35.17].

Pedestrian Infrastructure – Footpaths – IRC Guidelines Compliance – Directions issued for footpath audits in 50 major cities and NHAI corridors to identify deficiencies in width, height, surface, and encroachments – Authorities to prioritise accident-prone and high-footfall areas (markets, schools, transit hubs) – Audit findings to guide repairs, retrofitting, and enforcement drives using GIS and camera-based monitoring – Dedicated Accessibility and Pedestrian Cells to be established in urban local bodies for implementation and monitoring [Paras 35.1–35.5].

Pedestrian Crossings – Safety and Accessibility – Authorities directed to audit and retrofit pedestrian crossings with high-visibility zebra markings, illumination, CCTV coverage, panic buttons, and barrier placements – Raised crossings and traffic-calming measures mandated near schools and hospitals – New crossings to be designed per IRC:103–2022 with signalisation, audible cues, and tactile paving – NHAI and cities to create new crossings where heavy pedestrian movement exists (including Delhi High Court–Zoo crossing) within 7 months [Paras 35.2–35.9].

Grievance Redress and Accountability – Online grievance portals to be set up by PWDs, NHAI, and Municipal Authorities for complaints on encroachments, non-maintenance of footpaths, and lack of crossings – Complaints to be addressed within fixed time – DRSCs to review pedestrian safety monthly – Officials and contractors liable under Section 198A MV Act for deaths arising from road design failures [Paras 35.10–35.12].

Helmet Enforcement – Sections 128, 129 & 194D MV Act – Court directs strict enforcement of helmet laws for drivers and pillion riders – E-enforcement through automated cameras and data reporting to Court – States/UTs to submit statistics on challans, fines and licence suspensions – Non-compliance to attract contempt and monitoring [Paras 28–29, 35.13].

Lane Discipline – Sections 184 & 206 MV Act – Wrong-lane driving and unsafe overtaking to be checked by automated cameras, fines, rumble strips, coloured lane markings, and tyre killers at intersections – Real-time dashboards on violations suggested for deterrence and transparency [Paras 30–32, 35.14].

Traffic Hazards – Dazzling LED Headlights and Unauthorised Hooters – MoRTH and States to set luminance and beam-angle limits for headlights – Ban on sale/use of unauthorised red–blue strobes and sirens – Enforcement through vehicle fitness checks, seizures and penal action – Nationwide awareness campaigns directed on glare hazards and misuse of emergency lights [Paras 33–35.15].

Statutory Rulemaking – Sections 138(1A) and 210D MV Act – All States/UTs directed to frame rules within six months regulating access of pedestrians and non-mechanised vehicles and ensuring road design and maintenance standards for non-National Highways [Paras 35.16–35.17].

Constitutional Law – Right to Safe Mobility – Article 21 – Court reiterates pedestrians’ right to safe, unobstructed movement and directs removal of encroachments from footpaths and pavements – Reaffirms Olga Tellis v. BMC, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, Sudhir Madan v. MCD, and M.C. Mehta v. UOI – Violation of pedestrian safety treated as infringement of life and dignity [Paras 24–25].

Monitoring and Compliance – Supreme Court to review implementation after 7 months – States, UTs, NHAI to file progress reports on audits, enforcement, and rule framing – Appreciation recorded for Amicus Curiae Mr. Gaurav Agrawal for decade-long assistance in advancing pedestrian safety jurisprudence [Paras 35.10, 36–37].

Decision:

Comprehensive directions issued to Union and State Governments, NHAI, and Municipal Authorities to implement pedestrian infrastructure safety audits, enforce helmet and lane discipline, curb unauthorised lights and hooters, and frame statutory rules within six months under the Motor Vehicles Act – Matter to be listed after seven months for compliance review.

Criminal Law – PMLA – Quashing at Pre-Trial Stage – Alternate Remedy – ECIR did not name appellants and CBI dropped them in supplementary report – ED complaint rests on alleged withdrawal of attached sums (post-PAO) linked to an identified quantum ₹33,80,87,617/- claimed as proceeds of crime – Held: With statutory appeals under Section 26 PMLA pending and PMLA being a self-contained mechanism, interference to quash cognizance is unwarranted – Issues whether the attached amount is “proceeds of crime” and effect of withdrawals are for Appellate Tribunal – Appeals disposed of; liberty to pursue statutory remedies; no costs [Paras 33-41].

PMLA – Provisional Attachment & Confirmations – Statutory Scheme – Court reiterates that Section 5 (provisional attachment), Section 8 (confirmation), and Section 26 (appeal) comprise a comprehensive adjudicatory path – Constitutional/appellate jurisdiction ordinarily not exercised where efficacious remedy exists and is actively pursued [Paras 34-35].

PMLA – Proceeds of Crime – Scope and Identification – Core question is confined to whether the specified sum ₹33.80 crore (unpaid consideration for iron ore supplied by AMC) is “proceeds of crime” and whether its post-PAO withdrawals constitute an offence under Section 3 – Apprehension that entire banking operations are tainted is misplaced where payments were through regular channels and in the books; determination falls within Tribunal’s domain [Paras 37-38].

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance & Summons – Where allegations are confined to recovery of quantified amount and do not presently fasten wider criminal liability, apprehension of arbitrary prosecution is misplaced – No ground made out to quash cognizance or interdict proceedings at this stage [Para 39].

Practice & Procedure – Writ/Appeal vs. Statutory Forums – Court declines to prejudge issues pending before Appellate Tribunal; proceedings may continue uninfluenced by observations in the judgment; appeals disposed of with liberty; no order as to costs [Paras 40-42].

Decision: Appeals disposed – No interference with ED proceedings/cognizance at this stage – Appellants at liberty to pursue PMLA appeals – No costs – Pending applications disposed [Paras 40-43].

Oral Gift (Hiba) – Validity under Mohammedan Law – Plaintiff claimed title over 10 acres via oral gift by her mother and inheritance to rest of the land – High Court reversed Trial Court’s finding on gift without cross-appeal – Held: Oral gift invalid as essential condition of delivery of possession not proved – No contemporaneous action like mutation or exclusive control demonstrated – Plaintiff’s claim under Hiba rejected [Paras 34–39]

Evidentiary Law – Section 50 Evidence Act – Status of Plaintiff as daughter – Plaintiff failed to produce documentary evidence to establish relationship with donor – Trial Court and High Court erroneously relied on oral testimony of interested witnesses without applying triple test of relevancy, admissibility, and credibility – Held: Finding on Plaintiff’s lineage perverse and unsupported by credible evidence – Relationship not proved [Paras 22–33]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Absence of Cross-Appeal – High Court modified Trial Court decree and upheld validity of oral gift, enhancing Plaintiff’s ownership – Held: In absence of cross-appeal, High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant enhanced relief – Trial Court’s finding on oral gift stood untouched – Decree modification without cross-appeal is impermissible [Paras 16–21]

Limitation – Suit Barred – Challenge to 1995 registered sale deeds and claim of ownership filed in 2013 – No steps taken for mutation or assertion of possession for nearly two decades – Held: Plaintiff failed to act with reasonable diligence – Suit barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of Limitation Act – Constructive notice and long delay fatal to Plaintiff’s case [Paras 40–48]

Possession and Mutation – Mutation records continuously in Defendants’ names since 1995 – Plaintiff never recorded as owner or cultivator – Absence of mutation or possession inconsistent with valid oral gift – Held: Consistent revenue records favoring Defendants demonstrate absence of possession or ownership by Plaintiff [Paras 38–39]

Article 136 – Scope of Interference – Though appellate interference with concurrent findings is limited, where appreciation of evidence is perverse or based on assumptions without legal foundation, Supreme Court may reappreciate evidence – Findings of High Court and Trial Court on key issues found unsustainable [Paras 14–15]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside – Suit OS No. 212 of 2013 dismissed as barred by limitation and lacking evidence of valid oral gift or status – No costs – Pending applications disposed of [Para 49]

Criminal Law – Remission / Premature Release – Categorisation under 2010 Guidelines – Life convict initially directed to be released after 24 years by applying Category 4(d) (murder jointly with another with premeditation) – Held: On facts, offence arose from perceived protection of family prestige (love affair involving appellant’s sister) and falls under Category 3(b) – Entitled to consideration after 22 years [Paras 2, 4-6]

Sentence Remission – Time Undergone – Custody certificate showed 20 years 7 months 8 days as on 30.09.2024 – Court noted custody now almost 22 years, short of three months – Directed release forthwith, three additional months would serve no penological purpose [Paras 6-7]

Sentencing – Youthful Offender Consideration – Appellant was just past 18 years on date of crime – Factor weighed in favour of immediate release [Para 7]

Appeal – Outcome – Appeal allowed – Direction to release appellant forthwith – Pending applications disposed [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Property Law – Declaration of Title – Oral Gift (Hiba) – Suit for declaration of title and cancellation of sale deeds based on oral gift by Muslim mother to daughter – Plaintiff claimed oral gift of 10 acres out of 24 acres 28 guntas, and inheritance of remaining land – Trial Court disbelieved oral gift, but decreed 3/4th share based on succession – High Court reversed finding on oral gift without cross-appeal and granted absolute title to Plaintiff – Held: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under CPC – In absence of cross-appeal, it could not enlarge Plaintiff’s relief – No valid oral gift proved – Reversal impermissible [Paras 8, 9.3, 20–21]

Oral Gift – Conditions for Validity – Under Mohammedan Law, oral gift requires: (1) declaration by donor, (2) acceptance by donee, and (3) delivery of possession – Plaintiff failed to prove delivery of possession of 10 acres – Revenue records showed continued possession with donor and her husband – No mutation in Plaintiff’s name – Plaintiff remained silent for over 23 years – Held: Oral gift incomplete – No transfer of title in law – Possession is essential and not proved [Paras 34–39]

Evidence Act – Section 50 – Proof of Relationship – Plaintiff claimed to be daughter of original owner Khadijabee – No documentary proof filed – Only oral testimony of interested witnesses (PW-2, PW-3) relied upon – Held: Section 50 allows opinion evidence based on conduct by persons with special knowledge, but court must evaluate credibility – Trial Court and High Court accepted opinion without applying tests of relevancy, admissibility, or credibility – Mere assertions not enough to prove status – Perversity in finding Plaintiff to be legal heir without reliable proof [Paras 22–33]

Evidence Act – Section 73 – Comparison of Signatures – Trial Court compared signatures on disputed Memorandum of Gift (Ex. P-8) with sale deeds (Exs. D-3 to D-7) without admitting either document as genuine – Held: Court cannot act as handwriting expert without proper basis – Unsafe to base findings solely on signature comparison where both sets of documents are disputed – Comparison must be corroborative, not conclusive – Approach flawed [Paras 30–31]

Limitation – Article 58 and 59 of Limitation Act, 1963 – Suit filed in 2013 challenging 1995 sale deeds and mutation entries – Plaintiff claimed knowledge of dispossession only in 2013 – Held: Plaintiff had constructive notice of mutation and sale deeds since 1989 and 1995 – Continuous inaction for over two decades without challenge amounts to negligence – Registered sale deeds enjoy presumption of validity – Suit barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 – Cause of action not continuing [Paras 40–48]

Constructive Notice – Plaintiff failed to act despite multiple opportunities to assert her rights in 1989, 1990, 1995 and 2001 – Revenue records showed transfer and possession with Defendants since 1995 – Plaintiff did not rebut presumption of validity of registered sale deeds – Held: Constructive notice applies – Plaintiff cannot claim ignorance – Her silence results in legal bar to suit [Paras 44–46]

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction of Appellate Court – High Court reversed trial court’s finding on oral gift and enhanced Plaintiff’s relief despite absence of cross-appeal – Held: In absence of cross-appeal or cross-objection, appellate court cannot grant relief beyond what was granted by trial court – Modification of decree in favour of non-appealing party illegal – Trial Court had already disbelieved gift – Reversal not justified [Paras 16–21]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed – Oral gift and legal heirship not proved – Suit also barred by limitation – No costs [Paras 49]

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Section 8(3) – Alienation of Minor’s Property – Mode of Repudiation – Natural guardian sold minors’ immovable property without prior court permission – Upon attaining majority, minors executed fresh sale deed of same property in favour of appellant within limitation – High Court held absence of suit to cancel earlier sale rendered later sale void – Held: Prior permission of court is sine qua non under Section 8(2); transaction without such permission is voidable, not void – Such voidable transaction may be repudiated by the minor on attaining majority either by filing a suit or by unequivocal conduct, such as executing a fresh sale deed – Institution of suit is not mandatory [Paras 10–14, 22, 32–34].

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 60 – The period of three years for a minor to challenge alienation of property by guardian runs from date of attaining majority – Repudiation by conduct within such period is sufficient; formal suit not necessary [Paras 10, 33–34].

Transfer of Property – Repudiation by Conduct – Execution of a subsequent sale by the minors within limitation amounts to effective repudiation of earlier voidable transfer – Once repudiated, earlier transfer becomes void ab initio – Avoidance relates back to date of original transaction [Paras 17–20, 29–32].

Evidence Act – Power of Attorney Holder – Competence to Depose – Plaintiff failed to enter witness box; evidence led through power of attorney holder inadmissible on facts within personal knowledge of plaintiff – Such proxy cannot substitute principal’s testimony – Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217; Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 981, relied on [Paras 38–39].

Civil Procedure – Pleadings and Proof – Plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved valid title of vendor; sale deed not proved – Evidence cannot travel beyond pleadings – Failure to enter witness box fatal to plaintiff’s case [Paras 36–40].

Decision: Judgment of High Court dated 19.03.2013 and that of First Appellate Court dated 30.06.2005 set aside – Trial Court decree restored – Suit dismissed – Appeal allowed – No order as to costs [Paras 41–42].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Clause in contract designating Managing Director or nominee of Respondent as Sole Arbitrator held invalid post-2015 Amendment – High Court refused to appoint Arbitrator holding arbitration clause to be inoperative and application barred by limitation – Supreme Court held clause for arbitration remains valid despite invalidity of appointment procedure – Power of Court under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 remains intact – Arbitration agreement to be interpreted purposively – Mere ineligibility of named arbitrator does not render arbitration clause void [Paras 15–20]

Limitation – Section 11(6) Application – Final bill raised on 20.03.2018 – Amount became due on 21.04.2018 – Application under Section 11(6) filed on 15.03.2022 – Normally barred by 3-year period under Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 – However, Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation directed exclusion of period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 due to COVID-19 – Held: Once excluded, application filed within limitation – Delay condonable and application maintainable [Paras 21–24]

Arbitration Clause – Invalidity of Appointment Mechanism – GCC Clause 8.6 named Managing Director or his nominee as Sole Arbitrator – Post 2015 Amendment, such persons fall under ineligibility under Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule – Supreme Court reiterates law from TRF Ltd., Perkins Eastman, and Voestalpine – Once named arbitrator is ineligible, power of nomination also extinguished – Court empowered to appoint independent Arbitrator under Section 11(6) – Invalid appointment mechanism does not vitiate arbitration agreement itself [Paras 16–20]

Interpretation of Arbitration Agreement – Core clause referring disputes to arbitration upheld despite invalidity of appointing authority – Arbitration clause to be construed purposively and not literally – Legislative intent behind 2015 Amendment was to ensure impartiality, not to extinguish dispute resolution mechanism – Held: Arbitration clause survives – Appellant entitled to seek appointment of Arbitrator from Court [Para 20]

Relief – Orders of High Court dated 19.12.2023 and 10.04.2024 set aside – Matter referred to Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) for appointment of Arbitrator – Arbitrator to proceed in accordance with law – Appeals allowed – No order as to costs [Paras 25–28]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of High Court quashed – Application under Section 11(6) held maintainable – Matter referred to DIAC for appointment of Arbitrator.