Facts:

The respondent No. 2 sought permission to conduct prosecution under Section 302 of the CrPC for offenses under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC.

The Magistrate initially declined permission without providing reasons.

The High Court, upon considering relevant judgments, allowed the respondent No. 2 to prosecute the appellants-accused.

Issues:

Whether the Magistrate has the discretion to grant permission to the victim to conduct prosecution.

The role of the Public Prosecutor in criminal proceedings.

The right of the victim to participate in criminal proceedings.

Held:

The Magistrate is not bound to grant permission at mere asking, but the victim has a right to assist the Court in a trial before the Magistrate. The Magistrate may consider the victim's ability to assist the Court and whether the trial involves complexities beyond the victim's handling.( Para 5)

The High Court's order granting permission was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrate. The Magistrate should reconsider whether the complainant should be granted permission to prosecute the offenses under Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 IPC.( Para 15)

The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the appellant for road construction in Meghalaya.

Letter of Award (LOA) sent to the respondent, requesting a signed acknowledgment within seven days.

Respondent accepted the bid proposal and returned the signed LOA.

Contract agreement not signed until a later date.

Appellant decided to withdraw the LOA due to the non-availability of a No Objection Certificate.

Issues:

Whether the LOA constituted a binding contract?

If so, whether the arbitration clause in the draft agreement applied at the LOA stage?

Held:

The court rejected the interpretation that the LOA stage constituted a binding contract. It emphasized the clauses in the RFP, including a Disclaimer, Schedule of Bidding Process, and jurisdiction clause. The court held that an agreement would only be enforceable after specific conditions were met. The clauses cited by the respondent did not change this principle. The arbitration clause in the draft agreement did not apply as no enforceable agreement existed at the LOA stage. The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute between RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL & ORS. and MANJIT KAUR & ORS., challenging the interpretation of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The matter pertains to a suit for a declaration of title based on adverse possession.

Issues:

The primary issue before the court is whether a person claiming adverse possession can file a suit for a declaration of title under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Held:

The court criticizes previous decisions, including Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala, for incorrectly opining that a plaintiff cannot seek a declaration of title based on adverse possession. The court overrules these decisions. (Para 31, 32, 39, 43,)

Adverse possession, as a common law concept, is discussed, emphasizing its statutory period of 12 years. The court rejects the notion that adverse possession can only be used as a defense and not as a basis for a plaintiff's claim. (Paras 46-50)

The conclusion reached by the High Court, based on an inferential process related to the language in Column No.3 of Schedule of the Act, is deemed impermissible. The court asserts that there is no bar for the perfection of title by way of adverse possession, whether a person is suing as the plaintiff or being sued as a defendant. (Paras 51, 53-55)

The court clarifies that possession is the root of title, and adverse possession requires continuity, publicity, and hostility to the true owner's title. Trespasser's long possession is not synonymous with adverse possession. (Paras 56-60)

1.5 The decisions in Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and related cases are overruled. The court asserts that the plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by a plaintiff under Article 65, and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963, to sue on this basis. (Paras 61, 62)

The court highlights the importance of distinguishing possession types, such as de facto, de jure, constructive possession, and the relevance of personal law in construing the nature of possession. It emphasizes that adverse possession is heritable and can involve tacking by two or more persons. (Paras 56-60)

Decision: The court concludes that the plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by a plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963, to sue on this basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. The matters are directed to be placed for consideration on merits before the appropriate bench.

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:

Two appellants were convicted under Sections 302, 149, and 148 of the IPC for murder and rioting.

Pre-existing enmity between parties due to a history of altercations and police cases.

Eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-8 testified to the appellants' involvement in the fatal assault.

Issues:

Reliability of eyewitness testimony.

Credibility of the sole eyewitness, PW-1.

Inconsistencies in the evidence and discrepancies in the statements of witnesses.

Held:

The High Court's conviction was overturned, and the appellants were acquitted.

The court emphasized the need for heightened scrutiny in cases relying on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness.

Doubts and improbabilities in the evidence, including discrepancies in the statements of witnesses, led to the acquittal.

The court questioned the credibility of PW-1, the sole eyewitness, and highlighted the possibility of false implication.

The number of injuries on the deceased suggested a mob assault rather than the involvement of the two appellants alone.

Facts:

The respondent-University advertised a position for Assistant Professor in Physical Education (Yoga Therapy) with specific qualifications, including a requirement of a Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy.

Dr. Sridip Chatterjee applied for the position and was selected by the Selection Committee despite possessing a Diploma in Yoga Education.

Respondent No. 1 challenged Dr. Chatterjee's eligibility, leading to legal proceedings.

Issues:

Whether Dr. Chatterjee's Diploma in Yoga Education satisfied the eligibility conditions advertised for the position.

The validity of the Equivalence Committee's findings regarding the equivalence of Dr. Chatterjee's qualification.

Held:

The Court emphasized that in the exercise of judicial review, it could not conclude that Dr. Chatterjee's Diploma did not meet the advertised eligibility conditions based solely on its nomenclature. The Selection Committee, comprised of experts, found him suitable.( Paragraph 16)

The Court rejected the argument that procedural irregularities in not recording Dr. Chatterjee's eligibility during the Selection Committee meeting were fatal. The Equivalence Committee, as directed by the Single Bench, found Dr. Chatterjee's Diploma satisfying the advertised requirements.( Paragraph 17)

The Court reinstated Dr. Chatterjee in service with all consequential benefits but without pay for the period he was out of service.( Paragraph 18)

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)