Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentencing - Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences - Appeal partly allowed against High Court order upholding consecutive sentences - The Supreme Court reviewed the decision of the High Court that affirmed the consecutive sentencing of the appellant for rape and murder of a minor under Sections 376(f), 302, and 201 IPC. The Supreme Court held that sentences for multiple convictions in a single trial should not run consecutively when one of the sentences is life imprisonment. The High Court's failure to address the issue of consecutive sentences was found to be erroneous. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. [Paras 1-32]

Evidence Law - Admissibility of Confession and Recovery - Sections 27 and 45 of the Evidence Act - The accused's confession to the police, which led to the recovery of the deceased’s body, was found admissible and supported the conviction. The chain of circumstantial evidence, including the accused being last seen with the victim and medical evidence corroborating the cause of death and rape, established the appellant's guilt. [Paras 6-9]

Sentencing - Life Imprisonment - Interpretation of Provisions - Sections 31, 31(2) CrPC and Section 55 IPC - The Court clarified that life imprisonment should be understood as imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life, as per established precedents. The Court reiterated that life imprisonment is not limited to 14 or 20 years, and sentences should not exceed the court's authority unless commuted by the appropriate government. [Paras 16-26]

Decision - Modification of Sentence - The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentencing order to ensure that all sentences under the IPC run concurrently, not consecutively, aligning with the proviso to Section 31(2) of the CrPC. The appeals were thus partly allowed. [Paras 31-32]

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence and Last Seen Theory – Conviction based on last seen theory – Examination of witness credibility – Benefit of doubt – Appeal against conviction for murder and related offenses – Supreme Court examines discrepancies and delay in FIR lodging – Conviction overturned due to lack of conclusive evidence.

Circumstantial Evidence – Reliability – Held – Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain without any break – Prosecution's reliance on the last seen theory was found insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness testimonies and delay in FIR.

Last Seen Theory – Application – Held – The last seen theory can be applied only when the time gap between last seen and the discovery of the deceased is so small that no other person could be the author of the crime – Here, the gap and lack of additional corroborative evidence rendered the theory insufficient for conviction.

Witness Credibility – Analysis – Held – Statements of key witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4) showed significant contradictions and were deemed unreliable – Discrepancies regarding the location and circumstances under which the deceased was last seen weakened the prosecution's case.

Delay in FIR – Impact – Held – Unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR further eroded the prosecution's case – Timely lodging of FIR is crucial to maintaining the integrity of evidence and witness statements.

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Overturned – The Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's affirmation of the Sessions Judge's conviction and sentences – Appellants acquitted due to lack of conclusive evidence linking them to the crime – Ordered immediate release of appellants if not required in any other case.

Criminal Law - Common Intention and Constructive Liability – Sections 34 and 149 IPC – Criminal Appeal against High Court decision altering conviction from Section 302/149 to Section 302/34 IPC – Trial Court convicted accused under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC – High Court altered conviction to Section 302/34 IPC and acquitted one accused – Appeal challenging involvement of appellants, consistency of evidence, and sufficiency of medical evidence to prove injuries caused death – Supreme Court finds ample evidence proving accused's common intention and participation in the crime – Dismisses appeal, upholding High Court's decision. [Paras 1-14]

Role of Accused in Murder – Analysis – Held – Supreme Court scrutinizes witness statements and medical evidence – Finds corroborative evidence supporting the presence and active participation of accused in the crime – Dismisses contentions of discrepancies and contradictions in witness statements – Medical evidence confirming traumatic injuries caused death – Concludes that conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC appropriate. [Paras 9-11]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Supreme Court dismisses appeal, affirming High Court's judgment convicting accused under Sections 302/34 IPC – Holds that appellants inflicted fatal injuries with common intention, leading to the death of the deceased – No merit in the appeal to warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Paras 13-14]

Administrative Law - Voluntary Retirement - Withdrawal Request – Civil Appeal against the rejection of a request to withdraw voluntary retirement – Appellant, a Superintendent in the office of Commissioner of Sericulture, sought voluntary retirement which was approved; subsequently, he requested to withdraw the retirement notice – High Court overturned Tribunal’s order that allowed withdrawal of retirement and reinstatement – Supreme Court held that appellant's actions and requests for pension benefits affirmed his retirement status – No error found in High Court’s decision rejecting reinstatement – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 1-16]

Employment Law - Pension Rules Application – Analysis of Rule 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 – Appellant’s request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement denied based on pending disciplinary proceedings – Appeal challenging the imposition of a pension cut was allowed without reinstatement request – Subsequent application for reinstatement after two years found meritless – Reiteration of principles from Balram Gupta and J.N. Srivastava cases concerning withdrawal of voluntary retirement notices. [Paras 10-15]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the appellant could not withdraw his voluntary retirement notice after its acceptance and the subsequent grant of pension benefits. Reinstatement was denied due to the appellant's conduct and lack of timely challenge to the order rejecting his withdrawal request. [Para 16]

Service Law - Regularization of Service - Government Resolution - Eligibility of Unpaid Candidates - Termination Set Aside - Appeal against the High Court's decision dismissing writ petition for regularization of service - The Supreme Court found that the appellant's termination was set aside by the Tribunal and, thus, she should be deemed to have been in service when the Government Resolution came into effect - Held that the appellant is entitled to regularization with retrospective effect - High Court judgment set aside - Directions issued for compliance with Tribunal's order. [Paras 1-25]

Right to Employment - Continuity of Service - Legal Fiction of Continued Employment - Tribunal's order set aside termination - Appellant considered in continuous service for the purpose of regularization under GR dated 10th March 2005 - High Court's contrary finding reversed. [Para 18]

Decision: Allowed - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the respondents to comply with the Tribunal's order and regularize the appellant's service with retrospective effect. [Para 19-21]

Rajasthan Tenancy Act - Section 42 - Prohibition on Sale by SC Member - Appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of a challenge to the cancellation of land mutation due to the sale by an SC member to non-SC individuals - Held: The sale deed dated 12.01.1962 was void under the amended Section 42, which prohibited such sales without the permission of the State Government - The legislative intent was to protect the interests of SC members by restricting land transfers to non-SC members - The transaction violated public policy and Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 - The lower courts correctly invalidated the sale and mutation. [Paras 22-24]

Limitation Period - Application of Reasonable Time Frame - The Tehsildar filed a suit for ejectment and cancellation of mutation after 31 years from the date of the sale - Held: The suit was barred by limitation as the reasonable period for such actions, in the absence of a specific statutory limitation, should not exceed five years - The suit filed after a considerable delay without justification was rightly dismissed by the Assistant Collector - Affirmation of the principle that unreasonable delay defeats justice. [Paras 32-39]

Decision - Appeal Allowed - The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Board of Revenue - The sale and mutation in favor of the appellants were initially void under Section 42 - However, due to the unreasonable delay in filing the suit for cancellation, the appeal was allowed on grounds of limitation. [Paras 41-42]

Referred Cases:

State of Punjab and Others Vs. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd., (2007) 11 SCC 363

Triveni Shyam Sharma Vs. Board of Revenue and Others, AIR 1965 Raj 54

Nathuram v. State of Rajasthan (2004) 13 SCC 585

Administrative Law - Selection Process Irregularities – Civil Appeals against High Court judgment allowing petitions challenging the selection process conducted by TNPSC for Group I Services – High Court found material irregularities in candidates' adherence to examination instructions – Supreme Court upholds High Court’s decision to set aside the selection of candidates who violated examination norms – Emphasizes importance of strict adherence to examination guidelines to ensure fairness and transparency in selection process. [Paras 1-21]

Examination Conduct - Candidates' Misconduct – Analysis – Held – Supreme Court finds substantial evidence of candidates violating specific instructions such as using prohibited colors and religious symbols, making unauthorized markings, and leaving pages blank intentionally – Such actions indicate either gross negligence or deliberate misconduct aimed at revealing identity to examiners – Affirms that candidates who do not follow examination instructions are unfit for selection as officers. [Paras 12-20]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Court dismisses the appeals filed by TNPSC and selected candidates – Affirms the High Court’s judgment quashing the selection list and modifying the selection process due to serious irregularities and malpractices committed by candidates during the examination – No order as to costs. [Paras 21]

Referred Cases:

Union of India v. O. Chakradhar (2002) 3 SCC 146 A.P.

Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra (1990) 2 SCC 669

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417

K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 473

Criminal Law - Default Bail - Right to be Released on Bail - Supreme Court examined the statutory right under Section 167(2) CrPC to be released on bail if the charge-sheet is not filed within the prescribed period of 90 days. The Court clarified that this right is enforceable upon the expiry of the stipulated period, provided the accused applies for bail and is willing to furnish the bail bond. The right does not extinguish upon filing of the charge-sheet if the application for bail was made prior to the filing. [Paras 1-42]

Statutory Interpretation - Section 167(2) CrPC - The Court emphasized that the statutory right to default bail accrues immediately upon the expiry of the prescribed period and must be enforced without delay. The Magistrate has no discretion but to grant bail once the right accrues, provided the accused applies and is willing to furnish bail. Delays in processing the bail application by the Court cannot be used to defeat the accused's right. [Para 41]

Extension of Investigation Period - Judicial Oversight - The Court noted that any extension of the investigation period must be sought and granted before the expiry of the initial statutory period. Filing of an application for extension after the expiry period does not affect the accrued right to bail. [Para 41]

Decision - Bail Granted - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order granting bail to the respondent, stating that the right to bail under Section 167(2) CrPC had accrued due to the non-filing of the charge-sheet within the prescribed period, and subsequent filing did not extinguish this right as the bail application was already made. [Para 42]

Referred Cases:

Union of India (UOI) Vs. Thamisharasi and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 190

Dinesh Dalmia Vs. C.B.I., (2007) 8 SCC 770

Union of India (UOI) Vs. Hassan Ali Khan and Another, (2011) 11 SCR 778

Makhan Singh Tarsikka Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 27

State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ Ayesha Khan, AIR 2002 SC 285

Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi Vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni, AIR 1992 SC 1768

Chaganti Satyanarayana and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 2130

Ram Narayan Singh Vs. The State of Delhi and Others, AIR 1953 SC 277

Naranjan Singh Nathawan Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 106

A.K. Gopalan Vs. The Government of India, AIR 1966 SC 816

Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2001 SC 1910

Ateef Nasir Mulla Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 3293

Sanjay Dutt Vs. State through C.B.I., Bombay, (1994) 5 SCC 410

State through C.B.I. Vs. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and others, AIR 1997 SC 2494

Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1996 SC 2897

State through CBI Vs. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat and Another, (1996) 1 SCC 432

Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 722

Mustaq Ahmed Mohammed Isak and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2772

Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 12 JT 56

Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 SC 1

Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 1994 SC 2623

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ib) – Desertion – Legal Requirements – AnalysisThe Supreme Court emphasized that for desertion to be established under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it must be proven that one spouse has forsaken the other for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The High Court's conclusion that the wife had deserted the husband was not supported by sufficient evidence demonstrating continuous desertion for the required period. The Family Court's finding of no desertion was upheld. [Paras 15-17]

Mental Cruelty – Subsequent Conduct – Legal FrameworkThe Court held that subsequent events could be considered to infer mental cruelty. The wife's conduct, including lodging an FIR under Section 498A and 506 IPC, causing the husband's arrest, and prolonged non-cooperation, constituted mental cruelty. The High Court's decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty was affirmed. [Paras 18-38]

Maintenance – Educational Support for Minor Child – Judicial DutyConsidering the socio-economic status and responsibilities of both parents, the Supreme Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 25,00,000 towards the maintenance and education of their minor son, to be deposited within six months. This amount, alongside prior settlements, aimed to ensure proper education and living standards for the child. [Paras 39-40]

Decision:The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of divorce granted by the High Court on the grounds of mental cruelty. Additionally, the Court directed the respondent-husband to deposit Rs. 25,00,000 for the maintenance and education of the minor son. [Paras 41]

Referred Cases:

Suman Kapur Vs. Sudhir Kapur, AIR 2009 SC 589

Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli, AIR 2006 SC 1675

Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511

U. Sree Vs. U. Srinivas, AIR 2013 SC 415

Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, AIR 2012 SC 2586

Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate Vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, AIR 2003 SC 2462

Savitri Pandey Vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, AIR 2002 SC 591

G.V.N. Kameswara Rao Vs. G. Jabilli, AIR 2002 SC 576

Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani Vs. Meena alias Mota, AIR 1964 SC 40

K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa, AIR 2013 SC 2176

Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs. Arundhati Tripathy, AIR 2005 SC 3297

Praveen Mehta Vs. Inderjit Mehta, AIR 2002 SC 2582

A. Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur, AIR 2005 SC 534

Vinita Saxena Vs. Pankaj Pandit, AIR 2006 SC 1662

Mohinder Singh Vs. Harbans Kaur, AIR 1992 P&H 8

Smt. Indira Gangele Vs. Shailendra Kumar Gangele, AIR 1993 MP 59

K. Narayanan Vs. K. Sreedevi, AIR 1990 Ker 151