Facts:

Dr. Sou Jayshree Ujwal Ingole, a surgeon, appealed against the order of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, which dismissed her petition to quash criminal proceedings initiated against her under Section 304A IPC. The case involved the death of a patient suffering from Haemophilia at Irvin Hospital, Amravati, where Dr. Ingole was on call.

Issues:

Whether Dr. Ingole's actions constituted criminal negligence under Section 304A IPC, given her decision to leave the hospital after noting that a Physician should be summoned for the patient.

Held:

The court held that Dr. Ingole's actions did not amount to gross negligence or a rash and negligent act under Section 304A IPC. The judgment emphasized the distinction between civil and criminal liability in cases of medical negligence and highlighted the need for caution before instituting criminal proceedings against medical professionals.

The court concluded that Dr. Ingole's decision to leave the hospital before the Physician arrived may have been an error in judgment, but it did not meet the high threshold required for criminal liability.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the criminal proceedings against Dr. Ingole were quashed.

Facts:

The case involved a partition suit filed by the respondents, claiming to be the sons and daughter of Mithu Sao and Bilaso Devi (2nd wife). The appellants were the sons and daughter of Mithu Sao and Temni (1st wife), who was deceased at the time of the suit. The dispute arose over the joint family properties owned by a joint Hindu Mitakshra family.

Issues:

The entitlements of the parties regarding the partition of the joint family properties.

Held:

The court analyzed the provisions of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was held that before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the joint family continued with Mithu Sao as the sole coparcener after the death of the common ancestor. Following the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a notional partition was presumed just before the death of Mithu Sao.

The court calculated the shares of each party based on this notional partition and the devolution of shares after the deaths of Mithu Sao and Bilaso Devi. Consequently, the appellants were entitled to a higher percentage share in the joint family property.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of modifying the decree to grant the appellants a higher share in the joint family property.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute over land between the appellant, Hari Shankar Shukla, and the deceased, Umesh Shukla.

The altercation between the parties escalated, leading to a scuffle during which the appellant fired a shot that resulted in the death of Umesh Shukla.

The trial court acquitted all accused due to discrepancies in witness testimonies, but the High Court overturned this decision and convicted Hari Shankar Shukla under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Issues:

Whether the conviction of Hari Shankar Shukla was justified based on the evidence presented.

Additionally, there was a procedural issue regarding the right of certain witnesses to appeal against the trial court's judgment.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to convict Hari Shankar Shukla based on consistent testimonies from eyewitnesses regarding his involvement in the shooting.

Despite discrepancies highlighted by the trial court, the crucial fact of the appellant firing the fatal shot remained consistent among witnesses.

The court also considered the injuries sustained by the appellant during the altercation, further confirming the occurrence of a scuffle.

Consequently, the conviction was upheld, but the sentence was reduced to six years of rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 7,000.

The appellant, who was out on bail, was ordered to be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.

The appeals are allowed.

Facts:The case involved a petition (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 558 of 2012) filed by Kalpana Mehta and others against the Union of India and others. The petition raised questions regarding the reliance on Parliamentary Standing Committee reports by the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the Supreme Court can refer to and place reliance upon Parliamentary Standing Committee reports in litigation filed under Arts. 32 or 136 of the Constitution.

If such a report can be considered, are there any restrictions on its reference, considering parliamentary privilege and the delicate balance between constitutional institutions as envisaged under Arts. 105, 121, and 122 of the Constitution.

Held:

The procedure of the Parliamentary Standing Committee is sui generis, neither inquisitorial nor adjudicative. It serves as a means for Parliament to examine the conduct of the executive, but individuals do not have a right to be heard, and principles of natural justice are not applicable.

While Constituent Assembly debates and parliamentary proceedings can be referenced for understanding constitutional provisions and legislative intent, Parliamentary Standing Committee reports cannot be used as evidence to establish facts.

Article 105(2) of the Constitution protects members of Parliament from liability for statements made in committee meetings, and their freedom of speech within committees is subject to constitutional provisions and parliamentary rules.

Article 118 empowers Parliament to regulate its procedure apart from what is stated directly in the Constitution.

Articles 121 and 122 impose limitations on parliamentary discussions and court inquiries into parliamentary proceedings to maintain a delicate balance between constitutional institutions.

Judicial review primarily focuses on the propriety of executive decisions, and reliance on Parliamentary Standing Committee reports should be cautious to avoid undermining parliamentary privilege.

Due to the substantial questions of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution, the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench for further consideration. The questions framed included the permissibility and restrictions on relying on Parliamentary Standing Committee reports by the Supreme Court.

Facts:

The Orissa Olympic Association was granted a lease of land for the construction of a stadium. However, a dispute arose regarding a portion of the plot where 23 shops and part of a Kalyan Mandap were built by the association.

The State contended that this portion of land was outside the leased area, while the association claimed it was erroneously excluded from the leasehold area in state records.

Issues:

Whether the constructed shops and Kalyan Mandap were within the leasehold land granted to the association.

Whether there were discrepancies in the income derived from the disputed land and if there was any conflict of interest in the association's dealings.

Held:

The Committee of Judicial Officers concluded that the association encroached upon government land by constructing the shops and part of the Kalyan Mandap. Thus, the properties built on government land must be returned to the government's possession.

The court observed significant discrepancies in the income reported by the association and the actual revenue calculated by the Accountant General, indicating potential revenue manipulation. Consequently, a CBI investigation was ordered to probe the matter.

The court found a conflict of interest in the association's dealings, as the son and son-in-law of the association's secretary were partners in a firm that had a contract with the association. This agreement was declared null and void, and the secretary was barred from contesting any post in the association.

Decision: The court issued various directions, including the takeover of the disputed properties by the Collector, continuation of tenancy by the Department of Revenue, prohibition of any litigation regarding the property, nullification of the agreement with the firm, and debarring the association's secretary from contesting any post. Additionally, a CBI investigation was ordered to investigate revenue discrepancies and related matters.

Facts:

The case involves financial transactions between the accused and the complainant's family, followed by allegations of rape by the complainant against the accused. Prior to the rape allegations, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been initiated by the accused due to dishonored cheques issued by the complainant's husband and son. During the investigation, statements were recorded from individuals residing in the same house as the complainant, who denied the occurrence of the alleged incident. No medical examination was conducted on the date of the incident or immediately afterward. The examination was performed nearly a month later. Despite the complainant's allegations, there was a lack of evidence supporting the charges against the accused.

Issues:

Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to lack of evidence and potential malafide intentions behind the allegations.

Held:

The court observed that there was sufficient material on record to indicate financial transactions between the accused and the complainant's family. Statements from individuals residing in the same house as the complainant contradicted her allegations.

The lack of medical examination on the date of the incident or immediately afterward, along with the absence of substantial evidence supporting the allegations, was noted by the court.

Despite the complainant's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, there was a lack of corroborative evidence to support the allegations.

Paragraph 38: The court acknowledged precedents where, despite the complainant's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, criminal proceedings were quashed due to insufficient evidence.

The court reiterated the purpose of Section 482 of the CrPC, emphasizing that it should be invoked to prevent the abuse of legal processes. In this case, where the proceedings were maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the court found that the proceedings should be quashed.

Decision: The court allowed the appeal and quashed the entire criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Facts:

The case originated from concerns regarding the presence of liquor vends on national and state highways contributing to road accidents.

Official statistics on road accidents and fatalities provided the backdrop for the Court's intervention.

The judgment addressed the issue based on the consistent policy of the Union Government to curb drunken driving.

Issues:

Whether the presence of liquor vends on highways contributes significantly to road accidents.

Whether the Court's directions to prohibit liquor vends on highways are justified and in the public interest.

Held:

The Court held that there is no justification for allowing liquor vends on state highways while prohibiting them on national highways due to the significant role of drunken driving in causing road accidents.

The Court issued directions to stop granting licenses for the sale of liquor along national and state highways and within a specified distance from the highways' outer edge.

The Court clarified that its judgment was based on established policies of the Union Government and statutory provisions related to road safety.

Modifications were made to the original directions to accommodate varying excise years in different states and to address concerns related to unique geographical conditions.

The Court rejected requests to narrow down the scope of the judgment, emphasizing the importance of preventing drunken driving as the primary objective.

The judgment was affirmed, and the batch of applications was disposed of accordingly.

Facts:

During the hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 400/2006 and related matters, Mr. R. Basant, Senior Counsel for the appellants-complainant, pointed out various inadequacies and deficiencies observed in criminal trials. These deficiencies included discrepancies in trial court judgments across different High Courts, the practice of leaving deposition recordings to court clerks, and the lack of standardized practices in marking exhibits and recording evidence.

Issues:

Inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials, including discrepancies in trial court judgments.

Proposal for issuing general guidelines to improve the administration of criminal justice and ensure uniformity in practices across different jurisdictions.

Held:

The Court acknowledged the discrepancies in trial court judgments and noted the beneficial provisions in the Rules of some High Courts, which ensure the annexation of certain documents to the judgment and order of the trial court.

The Court agreed with the suggestions made by Mr. R. Basant, Senior Counsel, regarding the need for general guidelines to improve the administration of criminal justice. It specifically highlighted various areas for consideration, including the recording of depositions, standardized numbering and nomenclature for witnesses and exhibits, and avoidance of repetition in judgments.

The Court directed the issuance of notices to the Registrars General of all High Courts, Chief Secretaries/Administrators, and Advocates-General/Senior Standing Counsel of all States/Union Territories to seek their input on amending relevant Rules of Practice/Criminal Manuals to establish uniform best practices across the country. The Court also considered the possibility of issuing directions under Article 142 of the Constitution to address these concerns.

Facts:

The case involved the appellants, Ganesh Shamrao Andekar and Avinash Shamrao Andekar, who were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident stemmed from an ongoing enmity between two families, culminating in the murder of Raghunath, the deceased. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, including Rohini (daughter of the deceased) and Shakuntala (widow of the deceased), who witnessed the attack on Raghunath. However, the trial court acquitted all accused, finding inconsistencies and lack of evidence. The State appealed against this acquittal, leading to the High Court's decision to convict the appellants.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in reversing the trial court's order of acquittal and convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

Held:

The High Court's decision to convict the appellants was upheld. The appellate court reiterated that while interference with an acquittal should be cautious, it is not precluded if there are compelling reasons to do so. In this case, the High Court's re-evaluation of the evidence was found to be justified. The eyewitness testimony of Rohini and Shakuntala, though initially doubted, was deemed credible upon scrutiny.

The court observed that discrepancies in the evidence, such as the absence of injuries in certain areas of the deceased's body as mentioned by the witnesses, did not invalidate their overall testimony. Additionally, the prosecution's prompt action, supported by forensic evidence linking the appellants to the crime scene, further bolstered their case. The trial court's reasoning for acquittal was found to be flawed, considering the totality of evidence and the circumstances of the case.

Therefore, the appeal against the conviction of the appellants was dismissed, and they were directed to surrender to serve their sentence.