Criminal Procedure – Service of Notice under Section 35 BNSS – Electronic Mode Not Permissible – Application Dismissed – The State of Haryana sought modification of the Supreme Court’s earlier order to allow electronic service of notices under Section 35 BNSS – Held: Legislative intent is explicit in excluding investigation-related notices from electronic mode under Section 530 BNSS – Non-compliance with such notices may result in arrest, impacting liberty – Electronic service not legally sustainable [Paras 3, 17, 26-27, 43].

Electronic Communication – BNSS Provisions – Scope Delineated – Legislative Intent Respected – Court held that BNSS expressly permits electronic communication for limited procedures like service of summons with Court seal, communication to witnesses, production of documents, and filing of police reports – Investigative notices affecting liberty require stricter compliance and personal service [Paras 15, 20, 40-42].

Right to Liberty – Article 21 – Protection in Investigative Stage – Court interpreted Section 35(3)-(6) of BNSS as substantively protecting individual liberty – As arrest can follow non-compliance with notice, mode of service must be stringent – Personal service mandated to safeguard constitutional rights [Paras 24-26, 29].

Judicial vs Executive Acts – Summons vs Investigative Notice – Procedural Distinction – Summons issued by Court under Sections 63/71 BNSS differ from notice under Section 35 issued by Investigating Agency – Judicial summons can use electronic communication under strict format – Executive notices impacting liberty cannot [Paras 31-39].

Decision – No Modification of Previous Order – Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling requiring Standing Orders directing personal service of notice under Section 35 BNSS – Application by State of Haryana dismissed – Prior judgment upheld [Para 44].

Conviction for Rape, Kidnapping and Wrongful Confinement – Section 376, 363, 342 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 376, 363, 342 IPC, which was upheld by the High Court – The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix to be under 16 years as per the legal requirement – The only document relied upon was a school certificate (Exhibit P11) based on school register entries, which was not backed by primary evidence or the testimony of any family member – Held: Prosecution failed to establish the age conclusively; conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC unsustainable [Paras 7-12].

Kidnapping and Confinement – Section 363 and 342 IPC – Conviction Quashed – The prosecutrix had voluntarily stayed with the appellant for approximately two months without any evidence of inducement, threat, or confinement – The prosecution's claim of kidnapping failed due to absence of evidence showing force or deceitful means – Held: Conviction under Sections 363 and 342 IPC unsustainable in absence of credible evidence of kidnapping or wrongful restraint [Paras 13-17].

Rape Allegation – Absence of Proved Non-Consent – Section 376 IPC – Conviction Reversed – The prosecutrix did not allege forcible sexual intercourse and there was no medical evidence establishing recent forced intercourse – Her deposition contained inconsistencies and contradictions, with admissions of willingly cohabiting with the appellant – Held: Prosecution failed to establish absence of consent, leading to acquittal under Section 376 IPC [Paras 18-20].

Principle of Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof in Criminal Trials – Conviction Reversed – The Court reiterated the principle that criminal convictions must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt – Mere suspicion or defective investigation cannot form the basis for conviction, especially in cases involving grave charges – Held: Benefit of doubt must be given to the accused where prosecution fails to discharge burden of proof [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentences Quashed – The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 376, 363, and 342 IPC – The appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Para 22].

Criminal Law - Section 319 CrPC – Power to Summon Additional Accused – FIR Naming but Non-Charge-Sheeting – Summoning Restored – The complainant’s appeal arose from the High Court quashing the Trial Court’s summoning of Respondent No.2 under Section 319 CrPC – The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court was correct in summoning Respondent No.2, whose presence was consistently noted in the FIR and supported by statements of eyewitnesses PW1, PW2, and PW3 – Held: The High Court erred by applying the standard required at the conclusion of trial rather than the correct standard applicable under Section 319 CrPC, which requires more than a prima facie case but less than evidence for conviction – Summoning order restored [Paras 2-26].

Section 319 CrPC – Standard for Invoking Power – Deposition in Examination-in-Chief Sufficient – No Mini Trial Required – The Court reiterated that statements made in examination-in-chief before the court constitute valid evidence sufficient for invoking Section 319 CrPC – Cross-examination is not a prerequisite, and a mini-trial at this stage is impermissible – Held: The degree of satisfaction must be more stringent than framing charges but less than conviction – Trial courts must rely on courtroom evidence, not on police case diaries or statements under Section 161 CrPC [Paras 6-15].

FIR Named Accused – Role Reaffirmed in Court Depositions – Summoning Justified – The judgment clarified that even if a person is excluded from the charge sheet, their naming in the FIR and clear deposition by witnesses during trial implicating them with specific roles justifies their summoning under Section 319 CrPC – Held: High Court erred in discarding credible in-court testimony and relying on extraneous materials like affidavits before police [Paras 16-25].

Final Decision – Summoning Upheld – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the summoning order passed by the Trial Court – Directed the trial to conclude within 18 months while ensuring cooperation of parties and avoidance of delays [Paras 26-28].

Criminal Law – Murder - Section 302, 308, 325, 323 of the IPC - Standard of Proof – Conviction Set Aside – Section 302 IPC – Death Sentence Reversed – The Court allowed the appeals against concurrent conviction and death sentence for murder of four family members including two minor children – Held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Major contradictions in testimonies of key prosecution witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW17 rendered their evidence wholly unreliable – Material inconsistencies on presence at scene of crime, weapon used, and number of accused persons involved – Benefit of doubt extended to accused – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1-32].

Evidence Act – Eyewitness Testimony – Contradictions in Depositions – Material Discrepancies Fatal to Prosecution Case – The Court found that depositions of PW1 and PW2 were full of contradictions regarding their presence at the scene, alarm raised, and timeline of events – Presence of PW1 at scene held improbable – Presence of PW2 found doubtful due to inconsistent narrations and absence in FIR – Statement of injured child witness PW17 clarified he was asleep and did not witness the crime – Held: prosecution version collapsed in absence of credible eyewitness evidence [Paras 25-35].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Recovery of Weapon and Clothes – No Forensic Linkage – Investigative Lapses – The alleged recovery of blood-stained clothes and gandasi made after two months of the incident found untrustworthy in absence of independent witnesses and proper forensic corroboration – Chemical report only confirmed human blood, without linking it to the deceased – Courts below erred in accepting such evidence without formal exhibition of forensic report – Held: recovery evidence inadmissible for sustaining conviction [Paras 36-38].

Evidence Act – Section 106 – Reverse Burden of Proof – Not Applicable – The Court held that Section 106 Evidence Act could not be applied to infer guilt from unexplained injuries on the accused – Held that adverse inference under Section 106 requires prior establishment of foundational facts connecting the accused to the crime, which was absent in this case – Injuries on accused alone cannot replace prosecution’s burden to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 39-40].

Death Penalty – Rarest of Rare Doctrine – Inapplicability – Death Sentence Set Aside – The Court held that in absence of trustworthy eyewitness accounts, independent corroboration and reliable circumstantial evidence, the death sentence imposed on the appellant was wholly unwarranted – Case did not qualify as “rarest of rare” – Conviction and sentence quashed – Appellant directed to be released after more than eleven years of incarceration [Paras 41-45].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside – Conviction and death sentence under Sections 302, 308, and 325 IPC quashed – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Para 44].

Criminal Law - Sections 302, 376AB, 377, 201 of the of the IPC - Rape and Murder of Minor – Last Seen, Recovery of Dead Body, and DNA Evidence – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted for the brutal rape, unnatural sexual assault, and murder of a 10-year-old girl – Conviction based on last seen evidence by child witnesses, recovery of deceased’s body from appellant’s hut, and DNA report conclusively matching the appellant’s semen with biological samples – Supreme Court held that concurrent findings by Trial Court and High Court were based on reliable ocular, medical, and scientific evidence, and upheld conviction under Sections 302, 376AB, 377 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act [Paras 1-13].

Death Sentence – Sentencing without Proper Mitigation Inquiry Impermissible – Death Penalty Commuted – Though crime was heinous, the Supreme Court held that courts below failed to appreciate mitigating circumstances – Reports under directions of Supreme Court highlighted absence of prior criminal record, good behaviour in jail, socio-economic backwardness, and potential for reformation – Court applied principles from Bachan Singh and Manoj cases, holding that sentencing must not focus solely on crime’s brutality – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment without remission till natural death [Paras 14-22].

Sentencing Guidelines – Adherence to Principles in Manoj Judgment – Comprehensive Inquiry Mandatory – Supreme Court reiterated sentencing procedure laid down in Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353, mandating socio-economic, psychological, and behavioural analysis before awarding capital punishment – Courts below failed to conduct a meaningful analysis of such factors, warranting interference in sentence [Paras 15-21].

Decision – Conviction Affirmed, Death Sentence Commuted – Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by commuting death sentence to life imprisonment without remission till the remainder of natural life, while confirming conviction on all counts [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Review – Order 47 Rule 1 CPC – Review Order Set Aside – Division Bench of High Court recorded no ground for review but proceeded to issue investigative directions – Supreme Court held such directions unjustified and beyond review jurisdiction – Held: Review power cannot be used to rehear matter or interfere with investigation without satisfying legal criteria [Paras 7-9].

Investigation – Interference by Superior Officer – Restraint Imposed – Letter by IG (Police) restraining arrests despite anticipatory bail rejection deemed unauthorized – Investigation restored to original officer after CID involvement based on invalid order – Held: Investigating Officer to proceed uninfluenced by superior authority and conclude probe under law [Paras 4-5, 10-11].

Writ Appeal – Maintainability of Intra-Court Appeal in Criminal Writs – Doubt Expressed – Referring to Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana, Court noted uncertainty on maintainability of intra-court appeals in criminal writs – Division Bench should have limited scope to what was pleaded – Held: Broader directions beyond scope of appeal unwarranted [Para 6].

Extraordinary General Meeting – Interim Restraint Without Plea – Disapproved – Single Judge restrained company’s meeting though no such relief was claimed – Supreme Court held such injunction in a criminal writ unjustified – Held: Injunction not to apply to future meetings, liberty granted to appellant to approach appropriate forum [Paras 12-14].

Final Decision – Impugned Order Set Aside – Investigation Restored – Appeals Allowed – CID-initiated investigation reversed, original officer reinstated – Liberty granted to challenge future developments before competent forum [Paras 9-11, 15].

Criminal Law – Criminal Review Jurisdiction –Abuse of Investigative Process – Review Jurisdiction – Interference by High Court – Appellant challenged the Division Bench’s order dated 13th May, 2025, passed on review petitions that were filed against the dismissal of writ appeals – Despite earlier finding no ground for review on 8th May, 2025, the Division Bench proceeded to pass substantive directions amounting to interference in the investigation process – Held: Division Bench’s order indefensible as it exceeded its jurisdiction and invoked review power without fulfilling conditions under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC – Such action amounted to reopening concluded proceedings under the guise of “interest of justice” without any legal justification [Paras 2, 4, 5(d), 7–9].

Criminal Writ – Improper Transfer of Investigation – CID Involvement Set Aside – On basis of impugned review order, investigation in FIR No. 588/2024 was transferred to CID – Supreme Court, noting the review order as invalid, directed restoration of investigation to original Investigating Officer – Evidence collected by CID to be handed over – Investigation to proceed uninfluenced by superior officers and in accordance with law [Paras 10–11].

Writ Jurisdiction – Intra-Court Appeal in Criminal Writ – Improper Relief by Single Judge – Court expressed doubt whether intra-court appeal was maintainable in a criminal writ under Article 226 in light of Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana – Even if maintainable, Division Bench should have confined itself to examining interim order, not expanded into review of investigation – Also held: Single Judge wrongly restrained holding of EGM in a criminal writ despite no such prayer by petitioner – Relief not sought should not be granted, as reiterated in Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi [Paras 6, 12–14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s order dated 13th May, 2025 set aside – Investigation restored to original Investigating Officer – Interim injunction against company meetings not to apply to future meetings – Appellant may approach appropriate forum if affected by future decisions [Paras 9, 11, 14–15].

Specific Performance – Agricultural Land – Specific Performance Upheld with Additional Payment – Dispute arose from Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.2001 concerning over 9 acres of agricultural land where seller failed to execute sale deed – Plaintiffs claimed readiness and willingness but faced challenge from third party alleging fraud and possession – Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court concurrently decreed specific performance, Supreme Court upheld the decree with modification directing plaintiffs to pay additional ₹25,00,000/- in view of land appreciation while nullifying subsequent sales by seller and third party objectors – Specific performance with possession decreed after balancing equities [Paras 1-21].

Readiness and Willingness – Proof of Financial Standing – Section 22 Specific Relief Act – Readiness of Plaintiffs Affirmed – Supreme Court reiterated readiness to perform need not involve production of sale consideration but can be established through conduct and financial position – Trial and Appellate Courts rightly relied on bank accounts and assets of plaintiffs to hold them ready and willing to perform contract despite lapse of time – Specific performance decree upheld [Paras 6-13].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Subsequent Transfers Declared Void – Section 52 Transfer of Property Act – Sale Deeds During Suit Hit by Lis Pendens – Seller executed two sale deeds during pendency of suit and purchaser sold it further – Supreme Court ruled these transactions invalid being hit by Section 52 and collusive attempt to defeat plaintiffs’ rights – Transfers during pendency of litigation held unenforceable [Paras 9-15, 21].

Possession – Relief Granted Despite Omission in Pleadings – Section 22 Specific Relief Act – Court Empowered to Grant Possession Without Specific Plea – Plaintiffs did not seek possession in original plaint but Court granted possession relying on power under Section 22 – Supreme Court held such relief permissible in interest of justice even without formal amendment in pleadings [Paras 16-17].

Escalation of Land Prices – No Ground to Deny Specific Performance – Appreciation in land value since 2001 cited by seller to resist decree – Supreme Court held that price rise alone is insufficient to deny equitable remedy of specific performance where readiness and willingness established – However, to balance equities, plaintiffs directed to pay ₹25,00,000/- in addition to original consideration to protect fairness [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Supreme Court confirmed specific performance and delivery of possession subject to additional payment – Sale deeds executed by seller and subsequent purchasers declared null and void – Registry directed to inform Sub-Registrar for cancellation of illegal transactions – No costs awarded [Paras 20-21].

Civil Law - General Power of Attorney (GPA) – Validity of Registration – Sections 32, 33, 34, and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Appeal Allowed for Reconsideration - The appellants challenged the validity of the General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.1990 and the sale deeds executed by the attorney-holder on behalf of the original owners – The Supreme Court examined whether a power-of-attorney holder becomes an “executant” under Section 32(a), thereby bypassing the authentication requirements of Section 33 – Held: The power-of-attorney holder signs documents on behalf of the principal and remains an agent, not an executant under Section 32(a) – Therefore, the statutory requirements of authentication under Sections 32(c), 33, 34, and 35 are mandatory for valid registration [Paras 1-17].

Interpretation of Executant – Distinction between Agent and Executant – Clarification Made - The Court disapproved the interpretation laid down in Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar, (2009) 14 SCC 782, which held that a power-of-attorney holder executing a document becomes the “executant” under Section 32(a) – Held: Such an interpretation is erroneous as it overlooks statutory safeguards requiring verification of the agent’s authority and identity – Such power-of-attorney holders continue to fall under Section 32(c), necessitating adherence to authentication procedures [Paras 12-18].

Reference to Larger Bench – Conflict in Precedent – Matter Referred - Noting a direct conflict with previous binding precedent and its significant implications on property registration practices, the Court referred the matter to a larger bench to conclusively settle the legal position concerning the status of power-of-attorney holders under the Registration Act [Para 18-19].

Decision – Appeals Listed Before Larger Bench - The Supreme Court directed the Registry to obtain necessary orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice for expeditious listing of these appeals before an appropriate larger bench for authoritative adjudication [Para 19].