Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – Section 3 – The possession of vacant land not taken over by the State Government or Competent Authority prior to the Repeal Act’s adoption would result in abatement of proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 – Mere vesting of vacant land without actual possession does not fulfill the requirements for the application of Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act – Appeal allowed. [Paras 2-12]

Legal Procedure – Possession and Vesting of Land – Possession of land must be taken for the land to be vested with the State under Section 3 of the Repeal Act – Factual confirmation of non-possession by State Government mandates abatement of ongoing proceedings under the repealed Act. [Paras 7-10]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's decision reversed – Proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, regarding the subject property declared as abated due to lack of actual possession by the State Government. [Paras 12-13]

Employment Law – Pharmacists' Appointment – The court dealt with the interpretation of Rule 15(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980 – The Rule required appointments to be made batch-wise from each year of diploma holders – Several writ petitions challenged the advertisement dated 12.11.2007 for 766 vacancies for not adhering to this interpretation – High Court’s decision affirmed by Supreme Court – Reiterated that changes in policy could not retrospectively disadvantage candidates who were denied appointment under the same Rules – Special Leave Petitions dismissed. [Paras 2-13]

Rule 15(2) Interpretation – The provision requires earlier diploma holders to be appointed first against vacancies accruing each year, irrespective of their merit – Any deviation from this practice, especially retrospectively, was held to be arbitrary and unfair – Reaffirmed that subsequent policies could not disadvantage candidates previously affected under the original Rules. [Paras 3-8]

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Appointments to be made in accordance with Rule 15(2) and candidates who were previously disadvantaged by the change in policy to be accommodated – No costs. [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Law – Conviction and Death Sentence – The appellant was convicted for the rape and murder of a three-year-old girl – The trial court sentenced him to death, which was upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and circumstances, confirming the conviction and death sentence – Emphasized the heinous nature of the crime and the brutality involved. [Paras 1-19]

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Together – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence including "last seen together" principle – Multiple witnesses testified seeing the appellant with the victim – The chain of events pointed conclusively to the appellant’s guilt. [Paras 7-15]

Imposition of Death Penalty – The court applied the "rarest of rare" doctrine – The crime was exceptionally brutal, involving a helpless minor – The mitigating circumstances did not outweigh the aggravating factors – Death sentence deemed appropriate and justified. [Paras 16-19]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and death sentence affirmed. [Paras 19]

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Appellants were convicted for the murder of Siya Ram, with life imprisonment awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt – The involvement of the appellants in the crime was corroborated by credible witness testimonies and medical evidence. [Paras 1-36]

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Interested Witnesses – The court upheld the reliance on testimonies of interested witnesses (family members of the deceased) – It emphasized that such testimonies can be credible and reliable if they are cogent, coherent, and corroborated by other evidence. [Paras 19-21]

Self-Defence Claim – Rejection – The court rejected the appellants' claim of self-defence – The appellants failed to prove the need for self-defence and the prosecution’s evidence indicated premeditated aggression by the accused. [Paras 15-17]

Imposition of Life Imprisonment – The court upheld the imposition of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC – The facts did not warrant a conversion of the conviction to a lesser offence under Section 304 IPC as suggested by the appellants. [Paras 28-33]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment affirmed. [Paras 34-36]

Pension – High Court Judge – Subsequent Service – Pension for service as a High Court Judge cannot be combined with subsequent service as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission unless specifically provided by statute – The High Court Judge is entitled to pension only for the period served in that capacity – Executive orders by the State Government cannot override statutory provisions. [Paras 1-46]

Executive Power – Rule-making Authority – The State Government can issue executive orders to fill gaps where statutory rules are silent – However, executive orders cannot be inconsistent with statutory provisions or rules already in place – The Madhya Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, did not provide for pension for the President of the State Commission, thus an executive order granting such pension is not permissible. [Paras 19-39]

Legislative Intent – Interpretation of 'Prescribed' – The term 'prescribed' means as provided by rules framed by the State Government – If the rules are silent, it does not automatically imply authority for the executive to act beyond the statute – The provisions of the statute and the rules must be read as they are, without importing external meanings or intentions. [Paras 35-44]

Decision: Appeal allowed – The High Court’s order granting pension based on the executive order set aside – The Respondent is entitled to pension only for the service rendered as a High Court Judge, and any pension for the period served as President of the State Commission is not permissible without statutory provision. [Paras 45-46, 70-71]

Criminal Law – Summoning Order – Revision – The maintainability of a Criminal Revision Petition against a summoning order is upheld – An order directing issuance of process is not purely interlocutory and thus can be challenged under Section 397 CrPC – Revisional jurisdiction was appropriately exercised in challenging the Magistrate's order. [Paras 9-10]

Prosecution of Public Servant – Requirement of Sanction – No sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required for prosecuting a public servant for offences under Sections 420, 406, and 161 IPC, as these offences are not considered as having been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty – The official status of the public servant only provides an opportunity for committing the offence, not a shield under the necessity of sanction. [Paras 11-14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court and Additional Sessions Judge quashing the summoning order set aside – The original summoning order issued by the Judicial Magistrate restored – Trial to proceed as per the summoning order. [Paras 15]

Criminal Law – Common Object – Conviction for Murder – The appellants were convicted for the murder of Ramchandra Singh under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC – The incident was premeditated, arising from existing enmity and previous litigation between the accused and the deceased – The nature of the injuries and the use of deadly weapons indicated a common object to kill – Appeal dismissed, conviction upheld. [Paras 1-3, 13]

Nature of Injuries – Intention to Kill – The deceased sustained 21 injuries, including fractures and ruptured lungs – The injuries inflicted and the exhortation by one of the accused to kill the deceased demonstrated an intention to cause death – Arguments that the injuries indicated no intention to kill were rejected. [Paras 10-13]

Consideration of Enmity – Premeditation – Established enmity and premeditation were critical factors in determining the common object of the assembly – The incident was not a result of sudden provocation – The court concluded that the attack was planned and executed with the intention to kill. [Paras 12-16]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences by the trial court and the High Court upheld – Offences under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC and Sections 147, 148 IPC affirmed. [Paras 16-18]

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted of murdering his wife and three young children due to suspicion of infidelity – High Court confirmed the death sentence – Supreme Court reviews evidence and finds the appellant guilty of murder – However, court commutes death sentence to life imprisonment due to mitigating factors such as lack of premeditation and mental imbalance at the time of the crime [Paras 1-28].

Evidence – Statement under Section 313 CrPC – Appellant’s statement used to support prosecution's case – Court highlights that such statements can be used against the accused when corroborating evidence is present – Emphasizes the necessity of a thorough cross-examination and proper judicial discretion [Paras 10-12].

Sentencing – "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine – Supreme Court considers aggravating and mitigating factors – Finds that the case does not fall within the "rarest of rare" category warranting the death penalty – Appellant’s remorse and mental state at the time of the crime considered significant mitigating factors – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment [Paras 23-28].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment (21 years).

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – Appellants convicted for gang rape and murder – High Court confirmed death sentence awarded by trial court – Supreme Court reviews evidence and principles of sentencing – Upholds conviction but commutes death sentence to life imprisonment (21 years), emphasizing mitigating factors such as the age of the appellants and the possibility of reformation [Paras 1-50].

Evidence – Sole Eyewitness Testimony – Appellants challenged credibility of sole eyewitness PW6 – Supreme Court finds testimony reliable and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence – Witness threats and hostile environment considered but not deemed to invalidate his testimony [Paras 14-16].

Sentencing – "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine – Detailed analysis of aggravating and mitigating factors – Supreme Court balances the brutality of the crime with mitigating factors like the young age of the appellants, lack of criminal history, and possibility of reformation – Commutes death sentence to life imprisonment (21 years) [Paras 25-50].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment (21 years).