Criminal Appeal – Conviction based on events of 7^th November 2003 – Appellant, accused no.6, convicted for various offenses – Sole eyewitness testimony of PW­2 Gitaben questioned – Test identification parade not held – Identification after two years of the incident and in a large mob raises doubts – Evidence not wholly reliable – Conviction of appellant set aside. [Para 6-8]

Parity Principle – Accused nos. 2, 3, and 4 similarly placed with accused nos. 1, 5, and 13 – All convicted based on testimony of PW­25 and PW­26 – Coordinate Bench of Supreme Court discarded their testimony – Benefit of this finding extended to accused nos. 2, 3, and 4 – Principle of parity applied. [Para 15-16]

Review of Previous Order – Accused no.2’s special leave petition summarily dismissed earlier – His case identical to acquitted accused – Doctrine of merger not applicable to non-speaking orders – Order recalled, and leave granted to accused no.2 – Benefit of acquittal extended to him. [Para 18-19]

Acquittal and Release – Appellant acquitted, bail bonds canceled – Accused nos. 3 and 4 acquitted and to be set at liberty – Accused no.2 acquitted, granted leave, and to be released unless detained for other offenses – Appeal allowed on these terms. [Para 21]

Criminal Appeal – Reversal of Acquittal – The Supreme Court examines the legality of the High Court's decision to reverse the Trial Court's acquittal of the appellant-accused under Section 302 of IPC and sentence him to life imprisonment. The appeal questions whether the reversal is valid given that the Trial Court had acquitted the appellant based on his plea of insanity. [Para 1-4]

Prosecution Case – Homicide of Grandfather – The prosecution alleges that the appellant killed his 81-year-old grandfather, Krishna Bahadur Rai, using a sharp-edged weapon. The FIR was lodged by the deceased's daughter, Reeta Rai (PW-1). [Para 2]

High Court's Rejection of Insanity Plea – The respondent argues that the High Court rightly rejected the plea of insanity, after thoroughly examining medical records and other evidence. [Para 7]

Central Issue – The Supreme Court focuses on whether the case falls within the exceptions laid down under Section 84 of IPC. [Para 8]

Eyewitness Accounts – Testimonies of Reeta Rai (PW-1) and Geeta Chettri (PW-13) confirm the appellant-accused's involvement in the crime. Medical Evidence – Autopsy reports and medical examinations corroborate the violent nature of the crime and the cause of death of the deceased [Para 10-14]

Insanity Defense – Plea of insanity raised by the appellant-accused supported by the testimony of the mother and corroborated by medical evidence – Appellant's abnormal behavior at the time of the incident and thereafter cited. [Para 15-18]

Medical Evidence – Central Referral (Manipal) Hospital records and the testimony of Dr. Netra Thapa confirm the appellant-accused had been treated for acute and transient psychotic disorder and major depressive disorder with psychotic feature – The possibility of relapse acknowledged. [Para 16, 20]

Legal Precedents – Reference to previous Supreme Court judgments outlining the standards for proving insanity under Section 84 of the IPC – Distinction made between legal insanity and medical insanity – Burden of proof lies on the accused to a level of 'reasonable doubt.' [Para 19-23]

Judgment Reversal – High Court reversed the Trial Court’s acquittal without finding perversity – Question on the legality of the High Court's approach in overturning the acquittal based on reappreciation of evidence rather than finding perversity. [Para 24-25]

Section 84 IPC – Scope and interpretation of Section 84 of the IPC which deals with the act of a person of unsound mind – Emphasis on the need for the court to adopt a remedial approach in such cases, as outlined in previous Supreme Court judgments. [Para 19, 23]

Appellate Review – Principles governing the reversal of an acquittal judgment by the Appellate Court outlined – Emphasis on the need for finding perversity rather than reappreciation of evidence for reversing an acquittal. [Para 24-26]

Civil Appeal – Restoration of Miscellaneous Civil Applications – Appellants challenge the High Court's decision allowing the restoration of a dismissed MCA – History of repeated dismissals for non-prosecution in the High Court – Appellants argue against the casual approach of the High Court in allowing the restoration. [Para 1, 6-8]

Employment and Property Rights – Respondent was an employee with the Appellants and claimed irrevocable license over property – Varied judgments through multiple courts, culminating in the Second Appeal No. 84 of 1997 where Appellants were favored. [Para 2-3]

Review Applications – History of multiple review applications filed by the Respondents and dismissed by the High Court for non-prosecution – Contention that High Court's permission was not specific, yet review applications continued to be filed. [Para 4-5, 8]

Judicial Discretion and Misuse of Legal Processes – Critique of High Court's casual and unexplained approach in allowing vexatious applications, despite a series of dismissals – Emphasis on litigants not being permitted to misuse the legal process. [Para 8]

Decision – High Court's order set aside, noting its casual and unjustified approach in allowing the restoration of MCA No. 03 of 2019 – Appeal allowed; respondents directed to deposit cost as previously decided by the High Court. [Para 9]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code – Appellant acquitted by the Trial Court, convicted by the High Court – Eyewitness account of the appellant's involvement in a stabbing incident – Contradictions and discrepancies in witness statements – Importance of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases – Medical evidence and opinion of the autopsy surgeon – Discrepancies in the number of injuries – Corroboration of eyewitness accounts – Inconsistent position of the deceased after collapsing – Principles regarding discrepancies in witness testimonies – Ocular evidence vs. medical expert opinion – Benefit of doubt to accused co-accused persons – Dismissal of the appeal – Cancellation of bail and directive for appellant's surrender within four weeks. [Para 1-

Civil Appeal – Suit for Specific Performance – Limitation – Agreement to sell land – Payment of advance amount – Refusal by the seller to perform the contract – Notice of refusal – Commencement of limitation period – Second part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Whether notice of refusal given – Suit filed beyond limitation period – Suit for specific performance barred by limitation – Decree set aside. [Para 20-27]

Civil Procedure – Constructive Res Judicata – Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Whether principles of constructive res judicata or Order II Rule 2 applicable – Not decided – Suit barred by limitation – Decision based on limitation – Setting aside of decree for specific performance. [Para 19]

Contract Act – Promise to extend time for performance – Section 63 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Refusal and forbearance – Opposites – Refusal to perform contract – Notice of refusal – Commencement of limitation period – Suit filed beyond limitation period – Suit for specific performance barred by limitation – Decree set aside. [Para 24]

Civil Procedure – Specific Performance – Allotment of Trust property eastwards – Bearing on performance of contract – No bearing – Suit for specific performance not conditional on disposal of partition suit – Suit for specific performance not barred. [Para 25-26]

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Exercise of powers to do substantial justice – Settlement between parties – Direction for payment of Rs. 50,00,000 as settlement amount – Directions for payment of interest in case of non-compliance – Exercise of power under Article 142. Appeal Allowed.  [Para 29]

Conviction and Appeal – Original Conviction and Subsequent Appeals

The appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 341, 302 read with 34 of IPC for the murder of Smt. Keshari Mahato. The High Court affirmed the decision. Special Leave Petition was filed, and leave was granted for A-1 (Bhaktu Gorain) and A-3 (Bandhu Gorain). [Para 2-3]

Circumstances of Offense – Factual Background and Witnesses

On the morning of September 27, 1993, five accused persons allegedly surrounded and assaulted the deceased, Smt. Keshari Mahato, resulting in her death. Multiple family members witnessed the event and subsequently testified. [Para 4-5]

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility and Consistency

The testimonies of Lakshmi Mahato (PW-1), Sudhir Mahato (PW-2), Rampada Mahato (PW-3), and Bijali Mahato (PW-4) were deemed credible, consistent, and corroborative of each other. All these witnesses survived cross-examination without significant discredit. [Para 6-11]

Additional Witnesses – Post-Occurrence and Chance Witnesses

Raghu Mahato (PW-6) as a post-occurrence witness, and Dr. A.K. Hazari (PW-9) as the medical examiner, provided additional corroborative evidence that supported the case of the prosecution. [Para 12, 13]

Forensic Evidence – Post-mortem Examination and Injuries

Dr. A.K. Hazari (PW-9) detailed the severe injuries on the deceased, confirming they were consistent with the weapons described and were sufficient to cause death. [Para 14]

Common Intention – Appellants’ Pre-planned Act

The accused had a common intention to commit the crime, rejecting the submission that they simply wanted to 'teach a lesson' to the deceased for her alleged witchcraft activities. The presence of deadly weapons and the nature of the injuries caused confirmed this common intention. [Para 16-18]

Decision – The argument that the appellants lacked a common intention to kill the deceased was rejected. Their prior altercation and the severe nature of the inflicted injuries showed premeditation and common intent. The convictions were thus upheld. [Para 17-18]

Territorial Jurisdiction Dispute – Section 138, 142(2)(a)N.I. Act -  The case involves a jurisdictional dispute regarding dishonoured cheques. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, erroneously held no territorial jurisdiction, denying the appellant a chance to remedy the situation. Procedural defects should not obstruct substantial justice.

Exercise of Constitutional Powers – The Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Section 406 of the Code to rectify the jurisdictional error. The Court recognized the lapse in providing proper legal guidance to the appellant and ordered the trial to continue in Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.

Non-Precedential Nature – The order was passed in consideration of the unique circumstances of the case and is not to be treated as a precedent.

Limitation Period – Controversy arises concerning the effective date of service of summons for computing the limitation period for filing a written statement in the Delhi High Court’s Commercial Division. Examination of two different modes of service. [Para 1-5]

Service of Summons – Code of Civil Procedure, Order V Rule 2 – Service of summons should include a copy of the plaint, as contended by the petitioner. The Court agrees with this legal interpretation. [Para 6-9]

Fact and Law – The High Court’s disbelief in incomplete service of the plaint is maintained by the Supreme Court, stating it is a question of fact that they do not wish to reappreciate at this stage. [Para 10-12]

Decision – The petition is dismissed, and pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. [Para 13]

Mining Lease - Dispute over the grant of mining lease for Dolomite - Multiple applications filed by different parties - Various orders issued by state authorities - Confusion over the status of the land and the mining lease - Appellants challenging the grant of mining lease to Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih. [Para 1-2]

Background - A detailed account of the historical applications, orders, and disputes related to the mining lease for Dolomite in the specified area - Repeated applications, rejections, and recalls of orders - Legal proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih to obtain the mining lease. [Para 2.1-2.14]

Mining Lease - Eligibility under Concession Rules and MMDR Act, 1957 - Interpretation of Rule 61 of the Concession Rules, 2016 and Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 - Rule 61 of Concession Rules, 2016 makes applications for mining lease of minor minerals ineligible if received prior to the rules' effect, with an exception if a Grant Order or Letter of Intent had been issued - Analysis of whether the respondents' case falls under the proviso to Rule 61 - High Court's findings that the proviso does not apply to the facts of the case. [Para 5-8]

Policy Change and Revocation of Orders - Impact on eligibility - Reference to a policy specifying the mandatory requirement of a Conversion Certificate for mining lease - Dismissal and revocation of earlier orders - Irrelevance of earlier orders after revocation - Disposition of Writ Petition No. 7505 (W) of 2003 exparte - Claim that the application dated 06.03.1998 should be considered in accordance with the law. [Para 9-10]

Amendment Act, 2015 - Object and purpose - Shift towards auctioning mineral resources - Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 mandates ineligibility of applications received before 12.01.2015 - Exceptions for specific situations - Protection for applications under Section 11-A, reconnaissance permit or prospecting license holders, and those with previous approvals or Letters of Intent issued before the Amendment Act. [Para 14]

Mining Lease – Interpretation of the State Government's letter of approval – Whether the letter constitutes a Letter of Intent – Examination of legal definitions and relevant cases – Rejecting the contention that the letter is a Letter of Intent due to the lack of previous Central Government approval – Clarification that the letter was recommendatory and not a commitment to enter into a future contract – Not covered by clause (c) of Section 10-A of the Act. [Para 15-16]

Raiyat Land – Restrictions on the use of Raiyat land for mining – Provisions of the WBLR Act, 1955, regarding Raiyat land and its usage – The contradiction in classifying land as 'Dungri' and granting it as Raiyat land for cultivation – Legal issues surrounding the consent letters of landowners (Raiyats) and changes in ownership – Uncertainty regarding the Respondent's eligibility for Rule 61 benefits – Non-impleadment of WBMDTCL – The remand order is not appropriate at this stage. [Para 17-19]

Ownership of Land – The appellants' claim of ownership of 20.87 acres of the land in question – No obstacle to granting a mining lease for this portion to Respondent No. 1 – The remainder of the claim is rejected – No costs awarded. [Para 20-22]

Appeal is partly allowed, and the impugned judgment is set aside, with directions for the execution of a mining lease for 20.87 acres of land in favor of Respondent No. 1. The rest of the claim by Respondent No. 1 is dismissed. No costs are awarded. [Para 22]