Facts:

The prosecution alleged that police officials caused injuries to a victim in order to extract a confession regarding a crime, leading to the victim's death in police custody. The trial court acquitted the accused of murder but convicted them under various sections of the IPC. The High Court upheld the convictions under section 330 IPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the actions of the accused constituted culpable homicide and if the charges and sentences were appropriate.

Issues:

Whether the injuries inflicted by the police officers were the cause of the victim's death.

Whether the actions of the accused amount to culpable homicide under the Indian Penal Code.

Held:

The courts below concurred that the injuries did not directly cause the victim's death. The cause of death was determined to be asphyxiation from vomiting, which occurred hours after the injuries were inflicted.

Causation is a crucial element in determining culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC. While factual causation may exist, legal causation requires a sufficient connection between the accused's actions and the death.

The principle of 'take their victim as they find them' was considered, indicating that if a person hastens the death of another already suffering from a disorder, they are deemed to have caused the death.

As the injuries inflicted were not directly responsible for the victim's death, sections 302 and 304 IPC were not applicable.

The police officers' actions were criticized as lawless, and their sentences were increased to the maximum imposable period under section 330 IPC, considering the gravity of their conduct.

Decision: The Court upheld the lower courts' decisions regarding the charges and convictions of the accused. However, it modified the sentences of the accused police officers to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under section 330 IPC.

In light of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the Criminal Appeal Nos. 182-187 of 2009 in the afore-stated terms. Further Criminal Appeal Nos. 385-386 of 2008, Criminal Appeal Nos. 387-388 of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2008 stand dismissed.

Facts:

Haribhau, the appellant, along with Babarao, confronted a teacher, Bala Saheb Ingole, at a school, accusing him of tardiness.

When Bala Saheb did not comply with their demands, Haribhau physically assaulted him, leading to the filing of an FIR.

Haribhau and Babarao were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Babarao was acquitted on appeal, but Haribhau's appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the sentence awarded to Haribhau should be altered considering factors such as his age, lack of prior criminal record, and time already served.

Held:

In our considered opinion, firstly, taking into account that the appellant has already undergone one month's jail sentence out of three months awarded to him, secondly, the fact that the incident in question is quite old and seems to have occurred at the spur of the moment, thirdly, the appellant has no criminal antecedent in his past life and lastly, he is not required in any other criminal case except the one in question which the appellant fairly did not deny having committed and rightly did not challenge his conviction, it is considered to be just and proper to alter the jail sentence awarded to the appellant from three months to the extent of the period of one month which was already undergone by him and instead enhance the total fine amount awarded under different Sections from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 15,000/-.

The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal in part, reducing Haribhau's jail sentence to the time already served and increasing the total fine amount. It directed Haribhau to deposit the fine within one month, failing which the remaining jail sentence would be reinstated.

Facts:

The petitioners, including an actor, producer, and director of the movie "Oru Adaar Love," sought to quash an FIR filed against them regarding the picturization of a song from the movie.

The FIR was filed by an intervenor alleging that the song offended the sentiments of a particular community, invoking Section 295A of the IPC.

Issues:

Whether the actions of the petitioners in picturizing the song amounted to an insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of a community, as per Section 295A of the IPC.

Held:

The court analyzed Section 295A of the IPC and referred to the case law to interpret its applicability. The court concluded that the provision did not apply to the petitioners' actions, as there was no deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings.

The court emphasized the importance of artistic expression and originality, stating that mere picturization of the song, even with controversial elements, did not violate Section 295A.

Therefore, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the FIR, and directed that no further action be taken against the petitioners regarding the picturization of the song.

Facts:

The deceased, Dilip Bhowmik, was driving his own vehicle when he met with an accident and sustained fatal injuries. His family members filed a claim petition seeking compensation, which was contested by the insurance company.

Issues:

Whether the claim petition is maintainable when the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and responsible for the accident due to his own negligent driving.

Held:

The Court held that the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable since the deceased, being the owner-cum-driver, was responsible for the accident due to his rash and negligent driving.

Therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation beyond the limit specified in the insurance policy for personal accident coverage.

The appeal was allowed, and the insurance company was directed to deposit the specified amount with interest to the respondents.

Facts:

The employees were dismissed by a unanimous decision of the Board of Governors of the educational institution. The dismissal was challenged, leading to a series of legal proceedings.

Issues:

The nature of the relationship between the management and employees in private unaided educational institutions, the legality of the dismissal, and the appropriate remedy.

Held:The court emphasized the significant responsibility held by employees in educational institutions, stressing the need to maintain an environment conducive to learning. The methodology of making demands in such institutions was deemed distinct from industrial establishments.

The decision of the Board of Governors to dismiss the employees was deemed unanimous and in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989. However, there was a procedural error in not obtaining written consent from the Director of Education.

In private unaided educational institutions, the relationship between management and employees is contractual. The court emphasized that the conduct of the employees resulted in a loss of confidence from the management.

Reinstatement was deemed inappropriate due to the loss of confidence and procedural errors. Compensation was determined as the appropriate remedy.

The court affirmed that there could be no question of reinstatement in such cases, and compensation was the sole remedy due to the breach of legal requirements.

The compensation awarded by the High Court was reviewed, and it was deemed appropriate to calculate it based on the actual pay and allowances liable to be drawn for the relevant period.

The court enhanced the compensation awarded, quantifying it at Rs. 25 lakhs for one appellant and Rs. 18 lakhs for another, with adjustments for provident fund amounts and other retiral dues.

Future salary and allowances were not granted to one appellant due to non-reinstatement, as it would be considered excessive and not an appropriate form of compensation.

Facts:

On June 13, 1995, the deceased, Shabu, and Riyazuddin were attacked while grazing buffaloes in the jungle. Shabu was fatally shot, and Riyazuddin sustained injuries. The prosecution alleged that Raja and others conspired to kill the brothers, with Raja instigating the attack. The trial court convicted Raja and others under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34. However, the High Court acquitted the accused, citing doubts about the reliability of the prosecution's evidence.

Issues:

The reliability of the prosecution's evidence, particularly the presence and conduct of Imamuddin (PW-1), the advocate brother of the deceased, and discrepancies regarding the absence of bullet holes in the deceased's clothes.

Held:

The Court found no serious errors in the High Court's judgment warranting interference. The High Court's doubts regarding the presence and conduct of Imamuddin (PW-1) were considered relevant, especially his actions following the incident, which were deemed unnatural.

Additionally, discrepancies regarding the absence of bullet holes in the deceased's clothes raised doubts about the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the respondents.

Facts:

The State of Uttar Pradesh (appellant) filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents in a case involving charges under various sections of the IPC.

The High Court dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal without providing reasons for its decision.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's dismissal of the application for leave to appeal without assigning reasons was justified.

What is the proper approach for the High Court in deciding applications for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the CrPC?

Held:

The Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the application for leave to appeal without providing reasons. It emphasized the importance of the High Court's duty to apply its mind and consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised.

The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision on the application for leave to appeal. The Court clarified that it had not assessed the merits of the case itself but focused solely on the lack of reasoning in the High Court's order.

Facts:

Incident occurred on March 6, 1993, wherein the prosecutrix was allegedly raped.

Complaint lodged on March 8, 1993, after the prosecutrix's father returned to the village.

Medical examination of the prosecutrix on March 9, 1993, revealed indications of sexual intercourse.

Trial court convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC.

High Court acquitted the accused, citing absence of external injury and delay in FIR registration.

Issues:

Whether the absence of external injury negates the allegation of forcible rape.

Determination of the prosecutrix's age and its relevance to the case.

Justifiability of the delay in FIR registration.

Held:

The absence of external injury does not necessarily indicate consent. The Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning and emphasized the importance of considering medical evidence and testimonies.

The prosecutrix's age was determined to be 12 years based on evidence from the school headmaster. Considering her age, her consent was irrelevant under Section 375 IPC.

The delay in FIR registration was deemed justified, given the circumstances explained by the prosecutrix's uncle. The High Court's failure to consider this aspect was noted.

Decision: The appeal by the State was allowed, and the conviction of the accused under Section 376 IPC was reinstated. However, the sentence was reduced from seven years to four years considering the passage of time. The accused was ordered to surrender to custody within four weeks if the sentence had not already been served.

Facts:

The appellants were selected for the post of Personal Assistant in the U.P. Secretariat by the U.P. Public Service Commission in 1999-2000.

Following the reorganization of Uttar Pradesh into Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the appellants were directed to join the Uttarakhand Secretariat.

The State of Uttar Pradesh provided options to its employees, including the appellants, to serve in either Uttar Pradesh or Uttarakhand, to which the appellants opted for Uttarakhand.

The appellants joined the Uttarakhand Secretariat, and their services were confirmed by the Uttarakhand government.

However, the final allocation list published by the Central Government excluded the appellants for transfer to Uttarakhand.

The High Court of Uttarakhand held that the appellants shall continue to remain employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Issues:

Whether the transfer of the appellants from Uttar Pradesh to Uttarakhand was valid.

Whether the appellants can be considered as employees of the State of Uttarakhand.

Held:

The Court held that the transfer of the appellants from Uttar Pradesh to Uttarakhand was valid. The Court observed that the transfer was done with the mutual consent of both states, as contemplated by the Central Government's letter. Additionally, the appointment letters of the appellants clearly stated the possibility of their services being allotted to either Uttar Pradesh or Uttarakhand after the reorganization.

The Court emphasized that there was no infirmity in the procedure adopted by both states for the transfer of employees, as it was in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government.

Therefore, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court, ruling that the appellants shall continue as employees of the State of Uttarakhand.