Dowry Death & Cruelty - Appeal challenging conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC - Supreme Court examines statutory framework of dowry laws and dowry-related cruelty following wife's suicide - Analyzes legislative intent and judicial interpretations to ascertain the scope of 'cruelty' and 'dowry death' provisions - Contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies noted; insufficiency of evidence regarding continuous dowry-related harassment or cruelty leading to wife's suicide highlighted - Conviction under the scrutinized sections requires proof of persistent dowry demands and resultant cruelty closely preceding the death - Court finds evidence inadequate to establish such connection - Appeal allowed, conviction overturned [Paras 1-24].

Referred Cases:

Narayanamurthy vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 2377

Bhagwan Das vs. Kartar Singh, AIR 2007 SC 2045

Subramaniam vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 14 SCC 415

Pathan Hussain Basha vs. State of A.P., AIR 2012 SC 3205

Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 2839

Durga Prasad vs. State of M.P., (2010) 9 SCC 73

Nallam Veera Stayanandam vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., AIR 2004 SC 1708

State of Tamil Nadu vs. M/s. Arooran Sugars Ltd., AIR 1997 SC 1815

Mithu vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 473

State of Travancore-Cochin vs. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factory, AIR 1953 SC 333

The State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532

Jasvinder Saini vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2014 SC 841

P.N. Krishna Lal vs. Govt. of Kerala, (1995) 2 SCC 187 Supp

Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence including presence at crime scene and forensic results confirming the appellant's and victim's interaction - Apex Court affirmed lower courts' judgment on convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 376 and 302 IPC [Para 1-10] - Medical reports and forensic evidence linked the appellant to the crime scene with injuries on the victim matching the assault described, and bloodstains on the appellant’s clothing matched the victim’s blood group [Paras 8, 10].

Juvenile Justice - Age Determination - Initial plea of juvenility at the Supreme Court based on medical age estimation - Medical examination suggested appellant was 17 years and 2 months old at the time of offence, qualifying him as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [Paras 12-16] - Supreme Court utilized medical opinion to ascertain juvenility, despite lack of educational or birth records, invoking Rule 12(3)(b) of Juvenile Justice Rules, and determined appellant was a juvenile at the time of the crime.

Decision - Conviction affirmed under IPC Sections 302 and 376; however, sentence set aside due to appellant’s status as a juvenile at the time of offence [Para 17] - Directed release unless needed in another case, highlighting the role of juvenility in modifying sentencing despite the severity of the crime.

Referred Cases:

None

Kidnapping and Ransom – Evidence and Identification – Accused identified as Vinod Kumar, previously working as domestic help; charged under Sections 363, 109, 364A IPC for kidnapping young child Anand for ransom; discrepancies in evidence regarding identification and recovery of child highlighted, but not deemed substantial enough to overturn conviction – High Court found trial court’s acquittal untenable due to reliable witness testimony and minor nature of discrepancies [Paras 1-26]

Letters as Evidence – Authenticated by accused Vinod during investigation; trial court’s dismissal of these letters as coerced by police rejected by High Court; no substantial cross-examination on police coercion or validity of letters; appellate court held letters legitimate and confirmed accused's demand for ransom [Paras 21-25]

Appellate Review – High Court exercised appellate jurisdiction to re-evaluate evidence where trial court’s acquittal was based on incorrect appreciation of minor discrepancies and misinterpretation of procedural requirements; upheld principles guiding appellate intervention in acquittal appeals [Paras 13-15, 26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment convicting the appellant upheld.

Referred Cases:

Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 3106

Chandrappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) CriLJ 2136

Rammi @ Rameshwar etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 3544

Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Nahar Singh (Dead) and Others, AIR 1998 SC 1328

Jadunath Singh and Others etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 116

State of Karnataka Vs. K. Gopalakrishna, AIR 2005 SC 1014

Surajpal Singh and Others Vs. The State, AIR 1952 SC 52

Appabhai and Another Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696

S. Ganesan Vs. Rama Raghuraman and Others, (2011) 1 Crimes 165

Sanwat Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715

Damodarprasad Chandrikaprasad and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 622

State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48

Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P., (2004) 13 SCC 257

Retirement Benefits and Pay Revision - Employees of nationalized general insurance companies who retired under a special voluntary retirement scheme argued for the inclusion of a retrospective pay revision in their pension calculations - Supreme Court held that employees who voluntarily retired under the special scheme before the pay revision were not entitled to the benefits of the retrospective pay revision as they were considered a separate class of employees, distinguished from those who retired after or were still in service during the pay revision - Court concluded that the purpose of the retirement scheme was to reduce long-term expenditures and providing additional benefits to these retirees would defeat the scheme's financial objectives [Paras 33-42].

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside judgments that were in favor of revising the pension benefits of the employees who retired under the special scheme to include the retrospective pay rise - All related transferred cases were finally disposed of, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed [Para 42].

Referred Cases:

National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Kirpal Singh, AIR 2014 SC 1440: (2014) 5 SCC 189

Deputation Appointment and Repatriation - Challenging premature repatriation from a tenure deputation position, S.N. Maity was repatriated without stated reasons, violating Article 14 and 16 - High Court deemed repatriation arbitrary due to lack of reasonable grounds, setting it aside and ordering reinstatement - [Paras 4-5, 18].

Judicial Review of Administrative Action - Supreme Court reviewed High Court's decision to overturn tribunal's dismissal of Maity's application - Found High Court right in setting aside repatriation due to arbitrariness and lack of procedural fairness but altered remedy considering time lapse - [Paras 6, 19-25].

Employment Law - Interpretation of deputation terms - Supreme Court confirmed tenure nature of Maity's deputation, emphasizing that premature termination must be justified with valid reasons - Compensation awarded for salary loss due to arbitrary repatriation, calculated till the end of the original tenure - [Paras 7, 24-25].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed - High Court's order of reinstatement set aside due to impracticability after lapse of time - Directed compensation for lost salary plus interest - [Para 25]

Referred Cases:

Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Shri Bhanwar Lal Mundan, AIR 2014 SC 776

Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, (2012) 7 SCC 757

Debesh Chandra Das Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1970 SC 77

Sri Justice S.K. Ray Vs. State of Orissa and Others, AIR 2003 SC 924

Representing Advocates:

Tushar Mehta, ASG; Sushma Manchanda, Jetendra Mahapatra and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant

Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv.; P.K. Pattanaik, A.P. Mohanty, and Praveen Swarup for the Respondent

Property Dispute – Family settlement and consent decree – Civil suit concerning 52 kanals of land in Nizampur Majra, Sonepat, claimed under a family settlement – Consent decree passed admitting claim without contest – Subsequent suit by other family members contesting the decree as collusive and challenging under Registration Act - Held, consent decree not collusive as per first appellate court and upheld by High Court; requirement of registration discussed with respect to the creation of rights in immovable property. [Paras 1-33]

Registration Requirements – Interpretation of Section 17 of the Registration Act – Held, the gift of 20 kanals of self-acquired property by Bhagwana to Ram Singh requires registration, but the family settlement involving 32 kanals of ancestral land does not, under Section 17(2)(vi) – Supreme Court clarifies the application of registration requirements to family settlements and judicial decrees involving property transfer. [Paras 28-33]

Legal Standings – Challenge by daughters – Held, daughters had no locus standi to challenge the family settlement or the consent decree involving ancestral property, as the property was dealt with by their father Bhagwana of his own free will, acknowledging Ram Singh’s care as quasi-filial – No evidence presented by daughters in original suits. [Paras 17, 31]

Referred Cases:

K. Raghunandan and Others vs. Ali Hussain Sabir and Others, AIR 2008 SC 2337; (2008) 13 SCC 102

Ramachandra Ganpat Shinde and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1994 SC 1673; (1993) 4 SCC 216

Rup Chand Gupta vs. Raghuvanshi Private Limited and Another, AIR 1964 SC 1889; (1964) 7 SCR 760

Nagubai Ammal and Others vs. B. Shama Rao and Others, AIR 1956 SC 593; (1956) 1 SCR 451

Bhoop Singh vs. Ram Singh Major and others, AIR 1996 SC 196; (1995) 5 SCC 709

Phool Patti and Another vs. Ram Singh (Dead) through Lrs. and Another, (2009) 13 SCC 22

Urban Land Regulation - Dispute over compliance with floor space surrender requirements under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Initial exemption granted to retain part of the land and surrender specified percentage for government nominees - Discrepancies and changes in the percentage of floor space to be surrendered led to multiple legal queries and adjustments, including amendments to initially stated conditions and misunderstandings about retrospective application of judgments affecting such exemptions - Appellant challenged by subsequent demands from authorities claiming insufficient surrender of floor space, leading to the legal conflict - High Court upheld the demands, finding no retrospective application of the precedent affecting the appellant's obligations, which led to the present appeal [Paras 2-7].

Interpretation of Legal Amendments and Circulars - Examination of the legitimacy and impact of various circulars and corrigenda issued by the government altering the conditions of floor space surrender - Supreme Court finds no evidence supporting the reduction of surrender requirements from initial amendments, holding the appellant to originally amended conditions of 20% floor space surrender - Appeals court decision underlines the need for clear communication and legal adherence to initially stipulated conditions in property development exemptions [Paras 8-12].

Enforcement of Compliance - Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's order, modifying the directive of the lower administrative authority - Appellant directed to surrender an additional eleven flats to comply with the 20% floor space surrender requirement - Emphasis on the beneficiaries of surrendered flats being members of weaker sections of society, reinforcing the purpose of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 [Para 13].

Referred Cases:

M/s. Shantistar Builders Vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame and others, AIR 1990 SC 630 : (1990) 1 SCC 520

Employment Law – Government restructuring of Electronic Data Processing (EDP) posts – Appellants challenged orders by CAT and High Court that upheld the rights of respondents, originally appointed as Junior Machine Operators, to be re-designated as Data Entry Operators with corresponding pay scales backdated to their initial date of appointment - CAT and High Court ruled in favor of respondents, leading to appeal in Supreme Court - Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions and confirmed the re-fixation of pay and designation to be effective from the respondents' initial dates of appointment [Paras 3-18].

Rationalization of Pay Scales – Directive from Office Memorandum No. F.7(1)/IC/86(44) dated 11th September 1989 by Ministry of Finance followed - Implemented restructuring and standardization of pay scales for EDP posts across ministries and departments [Para 12].

Judicial Assessment – Supreme Court finds no merit in appellants' contentions against the High Court's order affirming CAT's decision; appellants' arguments rejected on the basis that the adjustment of respondents to EDP posts was justified and required rectification from the date of their original appointments - High Court and CAT orders found consistent with principles for restructuring and rationalizing EDP cadre as per government policies- Appeal dismissed [Paras 16-18].

Referred Cases:

Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension and Anr. v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao, C.A. No. 10862 of 2014

Employment Law - Definition of Workman - Appellate review of Industrial Tribunal decision by High Court - High Court allowed writ petition classifying respondent as a workman and quashed the order of termination - Supreme Court found that the High Court exceeded its writ jurisdiction by interfering with the factual findings of the Industrial Tribunal - High Court had erred in directing legislative changes to the definition of 'workman' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act - Supreme Court restored the order of the Tribunal dismissing the respondent's claim as he was found not to be a 'workman' under the statutory definition. [Paras 1-18]

Decision: The appeal is allowed - The High Court's order is set aside and the Tribunal's order dismissing the respondent's claim as a 'workman' is restored - Respondent given liberty to challenge the termination order in an appropriate forum in accordance with law.

Referred Cases:

Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Rajeshwar Mahato and Others, (2001) 10 SCC 611

Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2014) 1 SCC 536

Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, AIR 1987 SC 117

S.K. Maini v. M/s. Carona Sahu Company Limited and others, AIR 1994 SC 1824

Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. v. The Burma Shell Management Staff Association and Others, AIR 1971 SC 922

U.P. Electric Supply Co., Ltd. v. The Workmen of S.N. Choudhary, Contractors and Another, AIR 1960 SC 818

Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union and Another, AIR 2000 SC 1508

Bhogpur Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Harmesh Kumar, AIR 2007 SC 288

Representing Advocates:

For the Appellant: C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate, Ashlesha Srivastava, and Dheeraj Nair

For the Respondent: Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv., Avi Tandon, and Rohit Sthalekar, Advs. for T. Mahipal