Facts:

The case involves the brutal rape and murder of Jayashri, a widow living with her son in Bangalore. The petitioner, B.A. Umesh, was convicted based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution presented witnesses and evidence establishing Umesh's involvement in the crime, including his escape from custody and subsequent involvement in another robbery within two days of the murder.

Issues:

Whether the death sentence awarded to the petitioner should be affirmed or commuted to life imprisonment.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering both mitigating and aggravating circumstances, upheld the death sentence. The bench emphasized the severity of the crime, including the violent rape and murder of a defenseless woman, along with Umesh's criminal history and his escape from custody. The Court found no compelling reason to modify the earlier judgment affirming the death sentence.

The Court cited previous judgments and legal principles, including the rarest of rare doctrine established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab. It also addressed procedural arguments raised by Umesh's counsel regarding the hearing on the sentence, stating that while there is no mandate for a separate date for hearing on sentence, parties must be given an opportunity to present their arguments.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed Umesh's review petitions and affirmed the death sentence, concluding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors presented by the petitioner.

Facts:

The appellant, Benson, was charged with multiple offenses of theft on different occasions and was separately tried and convicted. The appeals against these convictions were dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Thrissur, and subsequent Criminal Revision Petitions filed in the High Court were also dismissed.

Issues:

The Supreme Court was regarding the concurrent running of sentences for the offenses committed by the appellant, considering the provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Held:

The Court noted the discretionary power conferred upon it by Section 427(1) to direct whether subsequent sentences shall run concurrently with the previous sentences. It emphasized that such discretion should be exercised judiciously and not in a mechanical manner. After examining the records and considering the submissions, the Court decided to modify the sentences. It directed that the sentences imposed in each of the cases against the appellant should run concurrently with the sentence imposed in a specific preceding case, which was currently operative.

The Court granted the benefit of concurrent running of sentences in respect of substantive sentences to the appellant, while maintaining the sentences of fine and default sentences. It clarified that if the fines were not deposited, the default sentences would run consecutively. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed in part, and the orders of sentences were modified accordingly.

Facts:

The court had previously issued directions to address overcrowding in prisons and improve living conditions for prisoners. However, despite these orders, overcrowding persisted, and little progress was made in addressing the issue. The Ministry of Women and Child Development was tasked with preparing a manual for juveniles in custody, but it had not been completed within the specified timeframe. Similarly, states and union territories had not prepared a Plan of Action to reduce prison population or improve infrastructure.

Issues:

Overcrowding in prisons and its impact on prisoners' rights.

Delay in the preparation of a manual for juveniles in custody.

Failure of states and union territories to prepare a Plan of Action to address prison overcrowding.

Held:

The court emphasized the importance of upholding the fundamental rights and human rights of prisoners, citing previous decisions reaffirming these rights. It directed the Ministry of Women and Child Development to expedite the preparation of the manual for juveniles in custody, setting a deadline of November 30, 2016. Additionally, states and union territories were ordered to prepare a Plan of Action within six months, by March 31, 2017, to address prison overcrowding. The court also directed the Union of India, through the Ministry of Home Affairs, to obtain and collate compliance status of previous orders by September 30, 2016, to ensure the rights of prisoners are given due importance.

Facts:

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the death of his wife by hanging. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with his brother, murdered his wife. However, the evidence presented by the prosecution was challenged by the appellant. The case lacked eyewitnesses to the incident, and the testimony of witnesses and medical evidence did not conclusively link the appellant to the crime.

Issues:

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether the circumstantial evidence supported the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.

Whether the benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellant based on the evaluation of evidence and circumstances.

Held:

The evidence presented by the prosecution, when considered along with the testimony of witnesses and medical evidence, did not directly or indirectly link the appellant to the actual act leading to the death of the deceased.

The circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution fell short of the requirement in law to return a finding of guilt against the appellant without any element of doubt whatsoever.

The absence of eyewitnesses and the inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses weakened the prosecution's case against the appellant.

The appellant's resignation from the police department and alleged intention to move abroad were not definitively proven, and the letters written by the deceased to the appellant did not suggest any bitterness or frustration.

In a criminal prosecution, mere suspicion cannot replace legal proof, and the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when reasonable doubt exists.

Decision: The court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of the charge of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The lack of conclusive evidence and the presence of reasonable doubt necessitated the acquittal of the appellant.

Facts:

The respondent filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant to the No. 81 Deosar Constituency of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly.

Issues:

The High Court set aside the election on various grounds including improper acceptance of nomination.

Whether the improper acceptance of the nomination materially affected the election result and whether the appellant was qualified to contest the election.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to determine whether the improper acceptance of nomination had materially affected the election result as required by Section 100(1)(d). It also found that the respondent did not plead that the appellant was not qualified to contest the election under Section 100(1)(a) based on his voter status. Therefore, the election was declared valid, and the High Court's order was set aside. The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

Incident occurred at a Biriyani stall leading to an altercation between the deceased and the accused.

Accused, along with associates, attacked the deceased and others with knives and sticks, resulting in the death of the deceased.

FIR lodged, investigation conducted, and charge sheet filed under relevant sections of IPC and SC/ST Act.

Trial court convicted accused primarily based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence.

High Court upheld the conviction, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the accused shared a common object to commit the offence?

Whether the evidence proves the intention to commit murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

Whether the exceptions under Section 300 of IPC apply to reduce the offence?

Held:

The Court held that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and shared a common object to commit the offence. Mere presence in the assembly is sufficient for vicarious liability under Section 149 of IPC.

The injuries inflicted, the weapons used, and the manner of attack establish the intention to cause death, satisfying the requirements of Section 300 'Thirdly' of IPC.

Exception 4 of Section 300 does not apply as the incident was not sudden, unpremeditated, and not committed in the heat of passion. Accused arrived with armed men, indicating prior planning.

Based on the above findings, the appeals were dismissed, and the convictions of the accused were upheld.

Facts:The case involved two sets of suits: the appellants filed suits for eviction and damages, while the respondents filed suits for adverse possession, injunctions, and against the Municipality.

Issues:

Whether the questions formulated by the High Court satisfied the test of being 'substantial questions of law' under Section 100 of the CPC.

Whether the findings of the lower courts were binding on the High Court.

Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to remand the case for a de novo trial.

Whether any party raised the ground for remand, and whether there was justification for remanding the case.

Whether the High Court's decision was based on substantial questions of law or not.

Held:

The questions formulated by the High Court did not satisfy the test of being 'substantial questions of law' under Section 100 of the CPC. The second appeal did not involve any substantial questions of law .

The findings of the lower courts were binding on the High Court, as they were concurrent in nature .

The High Court lacked jurisdiction to remand the case for a de novo trial. It also failed to formulate substantial questions of law regarding the remand .

No party raised the ground for remand, and there was no justification for remanding the case .

The High Court's decision lacked justification and failed to consider whether the questions framed were substantial questions of law.

Decision:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, finding no error in the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court. It held that the High Court's decision to remand the case was unjustified.

Facts:

The case involves the sentencing of the appellants in a criminal appeal. The trial court had imposed life sentences on the accused, while the High Court declined to enhance the sentence to death but instead imposed fixed term sentences.

The appellants were convicted under sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and the trial court could have imposed the death sentence.

Issues:

The permissibility of imposing a fixed term sentence.

The competence of the appellate court to impose a sentence beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court.

Determining whether the fixed term sentences should run concurrently or consecutively.

Consideration of the circumstances surrounding the crime, particularly whether it constitutes an 'honour killing'.

The scope of judicial review regarding the exercise of executive powers under Article 71 and Article 161 of the Constitution.

Held:

The court held that the imposition of a fixed term sentence is within the judiciary's domain and is not unauthorized in law .

The court also established that the appellate court cannot impose a sentence beyond the competence of the trial court.

Regarding the concurrent or consecutive running of sentences, the court held that the High Court did not direct the sequence of serving sentences, so it is inappropriate to do so on appeal. Thus, the sentences imposed for different offences shall run concurrently.

The court considered the crime as an 'honour killing' and noted the brutality and lack of respect for human life displayed by the accused. Consequently, the imposition of fixed term sentences was deemed appropriate.

The scope of judicial review regarding executive powers was discussed, emphasizing that while amenable to review, the courts cannot exercise such powers.

Facts:

The case concerned the demand for regularization of workmen employed at Balihari Colliery under Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL).

An Industrial Tribunal initially awarded regularization without back wages, which was later modified by the High Court to give preference to the workmen whenever regular employment opportunities arose.

Issues:

Whether the modification of the Industrial Tribunal's award by the High Court adequately addressed the concerns of the workmen.

Whether the workmen, after significant passage of time and facing practical difficulties, were entitled to further relief.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the modification of the Industrial Tribunal's award by the High Court did not fully address the predicament of the workmen, who were left without practical relief. Given the prolonged duration since their engagement and nearing retirement age for many, the Court deemed it appropriate to order compensation in final settlement of all claims, dues, and outstandings payable to the remaining 14 workmen. This compensation, amounting to Rs. Two lakhs each, was to be deposited by BCCL with the Central Government Tribunal at Dhanbad. Upon verification of identity, the amount would be disbursed to the respective workmen, marking the satisfaction of the Industrial Tribunal's award. The Civil Appeal was allowed, with no costs awarded.