Tenancy Protection – Section 3(2)(b), TN Cultivating Tenants Protection Act – Grounds of eviction – Allegations of felling trees, digging pits, constructing huts – Revenue Court relied on Commissioner’s report from earlier civil suit and ordered eviction – High Court affirmed – Held: No cogent evidence of destructive acts or negligence – Mere pruning of trees not sufficient – Eviction unsustainable [Paras 14, 17-20].

Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation – TN Cultivating Tenants Protection Act enacted to shield cultivating tenants from eviction – Courts must lean towards tenant protection unless gross violation proved – Beneficial construction requires widest interpretation favouring tenants – Eviction orders must rest on credible and reliable evidence, not mechanical reliance on reports [Paras 22-24].

Civil Court Decrees & Revenue Proceedings – Use of prior commissioner’s report – Revenue Court mechanically relied on report filed in O.S. No. 491/1994 – High Court in revision affirmed without independent scrutiny – Held improper – Revisional jurisdiction under Section 6-B read with Section 115 CPC demands careful review [Paras 14, 18-20].

Long Possession – Equitable considerations – Tenant family cultivating land since 1955–60 – Tenants have vital interest in protecting land and crops – Court held equities lie in favour of sustaining tenancy in absence of proven injurious acts [Para 20].

Connected Appeals – Civil Appeals 7467-7469/2011 by other heirs claiming ownership noted – Already subject matter of O.S. No. 302/2009 at Coimbatore – To be decided independently on merits – Not considered in present appeals [Para 13].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court judgment and Revenue Court eviction order set aside – Respondents restrained from interfering with appellants’ possession except in accordance with law – Connected appeals also disposed of [Paras 25-27].

Criminal Procedure – Registration of FIR – Article 226 & Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Writ petitions by complainants against CBI officers alleging intimidation and illegal seizures – High Court directed registration of FIRs – Supreme Court upheld orders, holding that once complaints disclose cognizable offences, FIR registration is mandatory – Preliminary inquiry report of CBI not conclusive – Alternative remedies not a bar to writ jurisdiction [Paras 14, 22-24, 27-32, 34-36, 40].

Delay – Appeals filed after 12 years – Explained by pendency of Letters Patent Appeals dismissed on maintainability – Supreme Court condoned delay noting appellants were vigilant, pursuing remedies in good faith – No deliberate laches [Paras 11-13].

Public Servants – Protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 140 Delhi Police Act – Not applicable – Allegations of illegal seizure, coercion, and abuse of authority fall outside scope of official duty – Public servants not immune where actions are prima facie mala fide and criminal in nature [Paras 18, 26].

Scope of Judicial Review – High Court’s discretion – Constitutional Courts empowered to order FIR registration if material discloses cognizable offence – Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136, reiterating that justice requires accountability even for investigators – “Those who investigate must also be investigated” [Paras 29-30, 34-38].

Investigation – To be conducted by Delhi Police (not Special Cell) by an officer not below ACP rank – Preliminary inquiry report may be looked into but not treated as conclusive – Appellants directed to cooperate – No coercive steps unless custodial interrogation required – FIR and investigation to be completed within 3 months [Paras 39-41].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed with modification – High Court’s orders upheld regarding FIR registration and investigation, but investigation shifted to Delhi Police ACP – Appeal otherwise dismissed [Paras 38-42].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Death Penalty Set Aside – The appellants were convicted for rape and murder of a minor under IPC, POCSO Act, and IT Act, with the first appellant sentenced to death – The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen theory, and DNA evidence – The Supreme Court found serious flaws in the investigation, including failure to establish motive, unreliable last seen evidence, non-examination of crucial witness Nikhil Chand, suspicious arrest of the appellant, and grave inconsistencies in DNA evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt – Convictions set aside – Accused acquitted of all charges [Paras 3, 9-11, 34-58].

Motive – Must Be Clearly Established in Circumstantial Cases – Not Proved – Prosecution alleged motive of sexual lust without supporting evidence – Witness who employed accused did not report his disappearance immediately – Held: Absence of clear and credible motive weakens prosecution case in a circumstantial trial [Paras 13-22].

Last Seen Theory – Delayed and Unreliable Witness Testimonies – Key Informant Withheld – Witnesses who allegedly saw accused near crime scene reported statements only after recovery of body – Victim not seen with accused – Nikhil Chand, who found body, was not examined – Held: Last seen theory fails; adverse inference against prosecution [Paras 24-33].

Arrest and Recovery – Illegal Detention and Fabricated Seizures – Arrest of Akhtar Ali from Ludhiana not properly documented – No independent witnesses – Recovery of hairband highly doubtful – Held: Arrest and recovery procedures vitiated, casting doubt on prosecution case [Paras 34-44].

DNA Evidence – Reliability Questioned – Expert Not Qualified – DNA of Akhtar Ali allegedly matched cervical swab, but not vaginal samples or smear slides – DNA expert held degree in Botany, not forensic science – Held: DNA report untrustworthy; likely tampered with; cannot form basis for conviction [Paras 45-50].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – No Mitigating Circumstances Considered – Death sentence imposed on same day as conviction without separate sentencing hearing – Held: Mandatory consideration of mitigating factors before awarding death penalty was not followed – Sentencing procedure violated law laid down in Manoj v. State of MP [Paras 5.8, 54].

Standard of Proof – Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Incomplete – Prosecution failed to eliminate all reasonable doubts – Key links missing in motive, last seen theory, and forensic chain – Held: Conviction unsustainable in law; acquittal warranted in capital punishment case [Paras 51-58].

Acquittal – Derivative Charges Against Co-Accused Also Fail – Charges against second appellant based on confession of first appellant – Once first appellant acquitted, case against second appellant collapses – Held: Both appellants entitled to acquittal [Para 55].

Consumer Law - Medical Negligence – Scope of Pleadings – Consumer Fora Jurisdiction – Complaint alleged negligence only in post-delivery treatment – NCDRC held negligence in antenatal care despite no such pleading – Held: Fora cannot build a new case for complainant; decision must rest within pleadings [Paras 26-30].

Medical Negligence – Expert Opinion – Reports of five independent Medical Boards – All concluded no gross negligence in treatment of deceased mother and newborn – Findings entitled to weight; Courts and Fora not to substitute themselves as medical experts [Paras 17-22, 23-24].

Medical Negligence – Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur – Not applicable merely because patient died – Death due to atonic postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), a known complication with high mortality, does not by itself prove negligence – Failure of treatment ≠ negligence unless supported by cogent evidence [Paras 22-23].

Consumer Protection – Jurisdiction – Fora must adjudicate on pleaded case – NCDRC erred in introducing new ground of liability based on antenatal care, contrary to complainant’s pleadings – Such approach beyond its power and unsustainable [Paras 26-30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of SCDRC (2007) and NCDRC (2012) set aside – Complaint dismissed – Respondent directed to refund ₹10,00,000 received in interim, in monthly instalments of ₹1,00,000, apportioned between insurer and doctors – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 30-31].

Bail in UAPA Case – Continued Incarceration – Bail Granted – Accused facing charges under UAPA and IPC for alleged association with banned organization and money transactions – Appellant incarcerated for over 2 years and 7 months – Only 3 witnesses examined so far – Trial likely to be prolonged – Some co-accused already granted bail – Court finds overt act attributable to appellant not so grave to deny bail – Held: Bail granted with conditions imposed by Trial Court [Paras 3–8].

Trial Expeditiousness – Direction to Trial Court – Supreme Court directs Trial Court to conclude trial within one year considering prolonged incarceration and slow pace of trial [Para 10].

Consequences of Non-Cooperation – Conditions for Cancellation of Bail – Court grants liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation of bail if the appellant is involved in future illegal activity or does not cooperate in trial – Preventive safeguards added to balance liberty and security [Para 9].

Decision – Impugned order denying bail set aside – Appeal allowed – Bail granted to appellant subject to trial court’s terms and conditions [Paras 8, 11].

Expunction of Adverse Remarks – Counsel’s duty of candour – Article 136 – Remarks Expunged – High Court, while deciding W.P. No. 6228 of 2022, recorded displeasure at the conduct of counsel (appellant) for not disclosing that the constitutional validity of amended Rule 6 (upheld in W.P. No. 18699/2020) had not been overturned – Appellant tendered unconditional apology and asserted he was not counsel in the Arushi Mahant matter; omission, if any, was bona fide – Held: In the facts, adverse observations in para 7 of the High Court’s order were avoidable and are expunged as against the appellant [Paras 4–5, 7, 9–10].

Procedural Consequence – Order on modification application – Article 136 – High Court order quashed – Since the adverse remarks stand expunged, the Supreme Court also set aside the High Court’s order dated 05/01/2024 dismissing IA No. 17812/2023 (seeking modification to delete the remarks) – Appeals disposed of accordingly [Paras 11–12].

Non-appearance of Respondents – Proceeding ex parte – Despite service, no one appeared for the State/Respondents; Court proceeded on record and submissions of appellant – Did not affect the merits of expunction granted in peculiar facts [Para 8].

Professional Impropriety – Standard for judicial censure – Appellate caution – While counsel owe a duty of full disclosure when citing precedent, courts should exercise restraint in recording personal strictures unless clearly warranted – In this case, possibility of bona fide oversight justified expunction [Paras 4, 9–10].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Income Assessment – Appeal Allowed – Deceased with diploma in pharmacy engaged in distributorship and cooperative bank activities – Tribunal fixed monthly income at Rs.6,000/-, High Court reduced to Rs.5,500/- without reasons – Held: Unjustified – Considering overall circumstances, monthly income reasonably fixed at Rs.12,000/- – Compensation recalculated at Rs.20,80,000/- – [Paras 2–5, 6–7].

Assessment of Income – Incremental Approach – Following Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. (2011) 13 SCC 236, daily wagers earned Rs.4,500/- in 2004; by 2010 could earn Rs.7,500/- – Deceased with higher qualifications/business reasonably taken at Rs.12,000/- p.m. – [Paras 5–6].

Consortium – Wider Entitlement – As per Somwati, not just spouse but children and parents also entitled to consortium – Rs.40,000/- each awarded – [Para 6].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs.20,80,000/- with 6% interest – Deduction of amounts already paid – To be disbursed as per Tribunal’s apportionment within 3 months – [Paras 7–8].

Criminal Appeal – Conviction for Trespass and Assault – IPC Ss. 447 & 323 – Acquittal – Appellants convicted by Trial Court and affirmed by High Court despite closure report finding land belonged to State – Complainant admitted prior enmity and gave only self-serving testimony corroborated by interested witnesses – Held: Prosecution evidence weak, no proof of ownership or possession by complainant, complaint a counterblast to proceedings under S.107 CrPC – Conviction unsustainable – Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted [Paras 6–10].

Probation of Offenders Act – Trial Court had granted probation under S.4 despite conviction – However, since conviction itself found unsustainable by Supreme Court, benefit of probation became redundant [Paras 2, 5, 10].

Appellate Scrutiny – High Court erred in mechanically affirming trial court findings without appreciating lack of independent corroboration and ignoring Investigating Officer’s closure report – Supreme Court intervened to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 7–8].

Decision – Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted; bail bonds discharged [Para 10].

Industrial Disputes—Section 11A—Scope of interference by Tribunal—Domestic enquiry held fair—Tribunal cannot re-appreciate evidence as an appellate forum – Tribunal and High Court exceeded jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence after the enquiry’s fairness had attained finality – Held: Interference impermissible when Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities’ findings are based on evidence and are not perverse [Paras 12, 39-41]

Service Law—Bank employees—Integrity and probity—Higher standard in banking sector – Supreme Court reiterates that absolute devotion, integrity and honesty are sine qua non for bank employees—Courts should be slow to dilute discipline in such cases [Para 38]

Departmental proceedings vs Criminal trial—Standards of proof—Acquittal in criminal case does not vitiate concluded departmental findings – Standard of proof differs—Subsequent criminal acquittal has no effect on earlier domestic enquiry or the punishment if enquiry was otherwise valid [Para 10]

Evidence in Disciplinary Enquiry—Non-examination of some witnesses—Admissions and documentary material – Where the record (including employee’s statements and contemporaneous bank documents) supports guilt, adequacy/reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before Tribunal—Findings tested on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 16-19, 39]

Punishment—Compulsory retirement—Nature of consequences—Retiral benefits – Compulsory retirement does not deny gratuity and other pensionary benefits—which are denied only on dismissal—Tribunal’s view that reinstatement was necessary for retiral benefits is erroneous [Paras 40-41]

Decision Appeal Allowed – Orders of Tribunal and High Court set aside—Order of Disciplinary Authority imposing compulsory retirement affirmed—Respondent entitled to gratuity and other pensionary benefits as per law—Appeal disposed of [Paras 41-43]