Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder Trial – Last Seen Together – Conviction based solely on the theory of ‘last seen together’ without corroborative evidence – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC by Trial Court, affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court found chain of evidence incomplete – Held: Last seen theory alone, absent recovery of weapon or conclusive motive, insufficient to sustain conviction – Acquittal granted [Paras 7-9, 15, 18-25].

Evidence Act – Last Seen Theory – Weak Circumstantial Evidence – Witnesses PW-1, PW-2, and PW-13 saw deceased last in the company of appellant – However, no recovery made at appellant’s instance and no admission of guilt – Stone allegedly used in the offence recovered near the body, not via any disclosure under Section 27 Evidence Act – Blood stains found but blood group not matched – Held: Suspicion not sufficient to convict in criminal jurisprudence [Paras 13-18, 22-24].

Motive and Recovery – Absence of Clear Intent or Physical Evidence – Prosecution failed to establish any convincing motive linking the appellant to the murder – Allegations about suspicion over wife’s fidelity speculative and unsupported – No recovery of weapon from accused or based on his confession – No conclusive forensic linkage between the accused and the crime – Held: Conviction cannot rest on conjecture or hypothetical intent [Paras 16-18, 22-23].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Burden of Proof – Chain of Circumstances – Prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence – Contradictions in witness accounts regarding recovery site – Appellant did not abscond, joined search for deceased, and showed no guilty conduct – Held: Circumstantial evidence failed to exclude every hypothesis except guilt – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 10-12, 15-16, 23].

Precedents – Standard for Circumstantial Conviction – Legal principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Kanhaiya Lal, and Sujit Biswas reiterated – ‘Last seen together’ rule cannot be the sole basis of conviction without supporting evidence – Absence of motive, lack of recovery, and inconclusive forensic analysis undermine prosecution case – Held: Strong suspicion cannot replace legal proof [Paras 12, 20-21, 24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to be released if not required in any other case [Para 25].

Civil Writ – Constitutional Law - Public Authority – Meaning under Article 12 – Air Force School Not a “State” – The Supreme Court held that the Air Force School, though administered by the Indian Air Force Educational and Cultural Society and staffed by IAF personnel, did not satisfy the test of pervasive control by the State – The school is financially autonomous, not directly funded by government grants, and operates under a non-statutory code – Held: The school is not “State” within Article 12 and is not subject to writ jurisdiction [Paras 20–25].

Service Dispute – Contractual Employment – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Teachers appointed through private contractual arrangements challenged their termination via writ petitions – The Court found that no statutory provisions governed their service and the dispute did not involve public law elements – Held: Remedies lie in private law; writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available [Paras 14, 22–24].

Education Code – Nature and Effect – Not Having Statutory Force – The Education Code relied upon by appellants was not issued under statute and had no legal binding effect – Held: Administrative codes of private societies cannot confer public law remedies in the absence of statutory backing [Paras 21–23].

Funding – Absence of Government Grants – Autonomy in Financial Management – The audited accounts showed no receipt of public funds or grants – Contributions stemmed from fees and non-public funds like welfare contributions from IAF personnel – Held: Absence of financial dependence on State negates classification as “State” [Paras 13–21].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Majority Opinion – The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision that the Air Force School is not “State” under Article 12 and therefore writ petitions against it are not maintainable – Civil remedies are open to the appellants outside writ jurisdiction [Para 25].

Dissent – Pervasive Control by IAF – Writ Maintainable – Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah dissented, holding that the School, managed by IAF officers and constructed on IAF land with welfare funding, performs a public function – He opined that the IAF exercises pervasive control, and therefore, writs are maintainable against the School under Article 226 – Held: The school is an “authority” under Article 12 and its employment decisions are subject to judicial review [Dissenting Paras 5–30].

Road Safety – Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – National Highways – Implementation of Control of National Highways Act, 2002 – Directions issued to remove unauthorised occupation from National Highways and establish enforcement mechanisms – Court found the absence of dedicated inspection teams and grievance redressal portals violated statutory mandates – Held: Centre and Highway Administrations must constitute inspection squads, grievance portals, and public reporting mechanisms to ensure road safety [Paras 1-3, 5, 10, 13-14].

Highway Administration – Failure in Statutory Duties – Rule 3 of Highway Administration Rules, 2004 (as amended in 2019) – Highway Administrations failed to enforce mandatory duties such as SOP formulation, enforcement monitoring, and grievance resolution – No concrete data or compliance with SOPs submitted – Held: Detailed affidavits with implementation timelines to be filed; strict enforcement of Rule 3 required [Paras 8-9, 13].

Encroachments – Section 24 and 26 of 2002 Act – Lack of Survey and Eviction Mechanisms – Court found that despite legal powers to detect and remove encroachments, Highway Administrations lacked proactive enforcement – No regular surveys, no public complaint channels, and negligible action taken despite notices – Held: Mandatory regular inspections, citizen complaint portal, and toll-free reporting system to be established [Paras 2-7, 11-12, 14].

Public Accountability – Digital Tools and Surveillance – Rajmargyatra App – Incomplete Implementation – App intended for highway users’ complaints lacked redressal transparency and citizen feedback – Court directed upgrade of app with tracking features, status updates, and appeal mechanisms – Also ordered creation of portal with full complaint and response visibility [Paras 12-13].

Judicial Monitoring – Continuing Mandamus – Enforcement Timeline – Recognizing persistent failure of executive bodies, Court retained writ petition on file to ensure periodic judicial review and enforcement of compliance – Directed Union of India and MoRTH to file action-taken affidavits within three months – Surveillance teams with police coordination to be constituted for highway patrolling [Paras 14, 16].

Decision – Interim directions issued – Highway Administration and Union of India to implement SOPs, launch public portal, upgrade mobile app, establish patrolling teams, and file compliance reports within three months – Case to remain pending as continuing mandamus – Next compliance hearing on 15 September 2025 [Paras 16(i)-(viii)].

Civil Writ – Service Law - Performance Appraisal – Role of IAS Officers in IFS PAR – Government Order Quashed – Government of Madhya Pradesh issued a G.O. on 29th June 2024 allowing IAS officers to participate in the appraisal of IFS officers – Held: Such appraisal structure is contrary to Supreme Court’s binding rulings in Santosh Bharti and P.C. Wadhwa cases – Only officers from the IFS cadre can serve as reporting/reviewing authorities up to the level of Additional PCCF, with exceptions for PCCF level – Government Order quashed for violating binding judicial orders [Paras 1-3, 34-39].

Constitutional Governance – Contemptuous Nature of Administrative Orders – Judicial Orders Must Be Followed – The impugned G.O. was issued despite existing Supreme Court directions and without seeking clarification or modification – Held: The G.O. is contemptuous and demonstrates administrative disregard for the rule of law – Court refrains from initiating contempt proceedings but warns against future violations [Paras 36-39].

Service Jurisprudence – Reporting Authority Hierarchy – IFS Confidential Reports – Reporting and reviewing officers must be immediate superiors within the same department – Past judicial interpretations and DoPT/MoEF circulars reiterated this – Evaluation by non-IFS officers is impermissible unless officer works outside the department – Observed: Superior officers must be in higher rank and grade than the one being appraised [Paras 11-20, 24-26, 30-33].

Judgment – Government Order Struck Down – Relief Granted – The impugned G.O. dated 29th June 2024 is quashed and set aside – State directed to reframe rules within one month in compliance with the directions issued by the Court in Santosh Bharti and clarified by MoEF and DoPT [Paras 41-42].

Criminal Law - Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 473, 474, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Quashing of FIR – Forged Lease Deed Used – FIR Restored – Allegation that accused used a forged lease deed to sell land and obtained ₹10 lakh as advance – Held: High Court erred in quashing FIR by relying on defence plea that accused were unaware of forgery or were willing to return money – Such issues are matters for trial – FIR restored for continuation of investigation and trial [Paras 2–10].

Plea of Defence – Not a Ground for Quashing – Accused Claimed to Be Victims Themselves – Rejected – Supreme Court reiterated that defence pleas cannot be considered at FIR stage – Even willingness to refund money does not negate commission of cognizable offence – Quashing order set aside [Paras 8–10].

Multiple FIRs – Distinct Transactions – Not Barred – Separate Victims, Separate Offences – Held: Presence of other FIRs relating to similar modus operandi does not make the current FIR a second FIR for the same offence – Each transaction with separate victim constitutes a distinct offence [Para 10].

Final Relief – FIR Quashing Set Aside – Criminal Proceedings to Continue – Supreme Court held that allegations made out a prima facie case – Investigation having culminated in a charge sheet, FIR and proceedings restored for trial – Appeal allowed [Paras 10–11].

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice Act – Determination of Age – School Certificate and Birth Certificate Take Precedence – The JJB had wrongly rejected documentary evidence and ordered medical examination despite availability of school and municipal birth records – Held: Section 94(2) of JJ Act mandates preference for documentary proof – Medical opinion can only be considered in their absence – Order of JJB declaring respondent an adult was invalid – Reversal by Appellate Court and High Court upheld [Paras 26-28].

Juvenility – Review of Previous JJB Decision – Not Permissible – JJB had previously accepted the respondent’s date of birth as 08.09.2003 – In subsequent proceedings, JJB took contrary view – Held: JJB lacks statutory power to review earlier declaration of age – Its contrary action was legally untenable – High Court rightly affirmed appellate reversal [Paras 29-30, 34].

Juvenility – Preliminary Assessment Under Section 15 – Respondent Aged Above 16 Years – JJB Conducted Assessment – Found Respondent Fit to Undergo Trial as Adult – As per JJ Act, in heinous offences involving minors aged 16–18, a preliminary assessment is mandatory – Respondent was assessed as mentally and physically capable and trial ordered before POCSO Court – Valid exercise of jurisdiction [Paras 35-39].

Bail – Juvenile in Conflict with Law – Grant of Bail Upheld – Though bail was initially denied by JJB and Sessions Court, High Court granted bail after finding no risk of moral or physical danger or criminal association – No evidence of misuse of liberty during three years of bail – Held: No interference warranted – Appellant or State free to seek cancellation if liberty is misused [Paras 41-42].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Declaration of Juvenility and Grant of Bail Upheld – Supreme Court found no legal error in impugned orders – Dismissed both criminal appeals with liberty to apply for bail cancellation if needed – No costs imposed [Para 43].

PIL - Domestic Violence Act – Implementation of Statutory Duties – Section 6 to Section 11 of the Act – Directions Issued – The petitioner, a public interest organization, sought effective implementation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – The Court found gaps in the appointment of Protection Officers, availability of shelter homes, medical aid, legal assistance, and publicity of rights – Held: States and Union Territories directed to designate officers from Women and Child Departments as Protection Officers within six weeks – Further directed to identify shelter homes at District and Taluka levels within ten weeks – NALSA to ensure legal aid under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is widely publicized and made accessible – Union of India also directed to fulfil its duties under Section 11 – Initial compliance steps mandated for effective nationwide implementation of the Act.

Service Law – Dismissal from Service - Disciplinary Proceedings – Validity of Dismissal – Principles of Natural Justice Not Violated – The appellant alleged procedural violations including non-supply of documents and prolonged inquiry – Held: No prejudice shown to have been caused by these omissions – Rules of natural justice require real, not technical, prejudice – Departmental inquiry conducted with due process – No interference warranted [Paras 17-24].

Chargesheet – Vagueness and Clarity – Allegation of Fake Transfer Order – Charge Clearly Established – The appellant argued the chargesheet was vague – Held: The charge was specific and intelligible to a reasonable person – Allegation was she was the sole beneficiary of a forged transfer order – Plea of vagueness rejected [Para 18].

Rule 15(2), CCS (CCA) Rules – Compliance with Procedural Requirements – Disciplinary Authority Followed Due Process – It was argued that disagreement with inquiry findings was not properly communicated – Held: Inquiry report and reasons for disagreement were provided and opportunity to respond was granted – Rule 15(2) duly complied with [Paras 27-28].

Evidence – Standard in Departmental Proceedings – Preponderance of Probability Satisfied – The appellant contended there was no direct evidence linking her to the fake transfer order – Held: Departmental inquiries rely on preponderance, not proof beyond doubt – Author of transfer order denied signature – Appellant the sole beneficiary – Misconduct proved [Paras 29-30].

Delay – Prolonged Inquiry Proceedings – No Prejudice Proved – The inquiry lasted nine years – Held: Delay explained and justified by logistics and multiple jurisdictions – No claim of prejudice or denial of participation – Delay alone insufficient to invalidate the proceedings [Paras 25-26].

Allegations of Mala Fide – Not Raised in Pleadings – Cannot Be Entertained – Plea that transfer was manipulated to benefit another individual was raised for the first time during appeal – Held: Such plea not considered without specific pleading and parties being impleaded – Rejected on grounds of procedural impropriety [Paras 30-31].

Decision – Dismissal Upheld – Appeal Dismissed – The Court found no violation of natural justice or statutory procedure – Findings of guilt based on evidence – Appeal dismissed with no costs [Paras 32-34].

Taxation Law - Income Tax Act – Deductions under Chapter VI-A – Interpretation of Section 80-IA(9) – Clarified Scope of Restriction – Section 80-IA(9) restricts allowance of deduction under other provisions to the extent profits are already claimed under Section 80-IA – Held: The Section does not bar computation of deductions under other sections; rather, it limits the aggregate deduction allowed, preventing duplication – Deduction under each section may be computed separately, but the total cannot exceed profits from eligible business [Paras 19-21, 23-24].

Legislative Interpretation – Meaning of “Allowed” vs “Computed” – Different Stages of Deduction – The Court distinguished between ‘computation’ and ‘allowance’ of deduction – Held: Section 80-IA(9) affects the stage of allowing deductions, not their computation – As long as aggregate deductions do not exceed profits of the business, computation under multiple sections is permissible – Bombay High Court’s view upheld [Paras 22-24].

Judicial Consensus – Approval of Bombay High Court View – Rejection of Contrary Interpretations – Supreme Court endorsed reasoning of Bombay High Court in Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. case – Declined to follow Delhi and Kerala High Court decisions that interpreted Section 80-IA(9) restrictively – Harmonious construction preferred to avoid anomalous results [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Reference Answered – Interpretation Settled – Held: Deduction under Section 80-HHC should not be reduced by the amount allowed under Section 80-IA – Both deductions to be computed independently – However, aggregate deduction under heading ‘C’ of Chapter VI-A must not exceed profits and gains of eligible business – Reference concluded accordingly [Paras 23-25].