Consumer Protection Act – Definition of Consumer – Commercial Purpose – Corporate purchase of business automation software held directly connected to profit-generation – Not covered by self-employment exception – Held: Appellant-company is not a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d); complaint not maintainable; appeal dismissed [Paras 15–18, 21–28].

Consumer Law – Commercial Purpose – Dominant Purpose Test – Purchase of Software for Business Automation - Purchase of “Brillio Opti Suite” software by appellant-company engaged in import/export operations had direct nexus with business documentation, tracking shipments, managing export benefits, and improving operational efficiency – Dominant object being profit augmentation—Held: transaction is for a commercial purpose; appellant not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act [Paras 4, 10, 17, 22, 27].

Definition of Consumer – Companies Included but Excluded When Goods/Services Used for Commercial Purpose - Court reaffirms that companies fall within “person” under Section 2(1)(m); however, exclusion clause bars persons availing goods/services for commercial purpose – Corporate use of business-automation software falls squarely within exclusion [Paras 13–14].

Self-Employment Exception – Explanation to Section 2(1)(d) – Inapplicable to Corporations - Exception applies only when goods/services are used exclusively to earn livelihood by means of self-employment – Distinction drawn between individuals earning livelihood and corporations maximising profits – Held: corporate purchaser cannot invoke the exception; software was procured for business expansion and efficiency [Paras 18, 22].

Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Principles – Dominant Purpose – Nexus with Profit – Applicability - Court applies broad principles: identity of purchaser or value of transaction irrelevant; what matters is dominant purpose – If purchase is linked to profit-generation, it is commercial – Automation of business processes is aimed at reducing costs and increasing profits; hence commercial [Paras 15–16].

Reliance on Sunil Kohli and Paramount Digital – Distinguished - Those decisions involved unemployed individuals purchasing goods for livelihood – Present case involves a well-established corporation already engaged in commercial activity – Therefore, precedents on self-employment do not assist the appellant [Paras 19–21].

Business-to-Business Transactions – Software Licence – Not a Consumer Dispute - Consumer Protection Act primarily addresses business-to-consumer relationships; business-to-business purchases used for profit are excluded from consumer jurisdiction – Software licence here was a B2B commercial tool [Para 10].

Harsolia Motors Clarified – Goods/services with direct nexus to profit-generation constitute commercial purpose; only purchases unrelated to profit (e.g., office AC, refrigerator) fall outside commercial purpose; present purchase directly tied to business operations and profitability [Paras 24–26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant not a Consumer - Held: Software purchased for automating business processes and maximising profits constitutes commercial purpose – State Commission and NCDRC right in dismissing complaint as not maintainable – Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs [Paras 28–30].

Insurance Law – Boiler & Pressure Plant Policy – Repudiation of Claim – Explosion in registered boiler occurred during currency of fitness certificate – Insurer failed to prove suppression or pre-existing defects – Exclusion Clause 5 not attracted where defects surface only after explosion – NCDRC order set aside; claim restored for determination of quantum [Paras 23, 30–33, 37–41, 43–44].

Insurance Claim – Repudiation – Explosion – The appellant alleged a boiler explosion; insurer did not traverse the specific plea of explosion; survey reports did not conclusively rule out explosion – Held: Explosion deemed established; claim could not be rejected on assumption of mere tube slippage [Paras 23, 30–32].

Contract of Insurance – Duty of Disclosure – No evidence that proposer concealed material facts; no enquiry sought by insurer on age/condition of tubes; boiler validly registered and certified for use under the Boilers Act – Held: No failure of utmost good faith; repudiation unsustainable [Paras 27, 29–36].

Exclusion Clause 5 – Interpretation – Clause excludes defects due to wear, corrosion, deterioration etc. unless such defects “result in explosion” – Where explosion is not denied and defects surface only after the event, exclusion clause cannot apply – Held: NCDRC erred in applying clause 5; clause to be construed to uphold main purpose of policy [Paras 22, 37–41].

Boiler Registration – Evidentiary Value – Boiler had a valid certificate under the Boilers Act; accident occurred during subsistence of certificate – Held: Heavy burden on insurer to displace presumption of fitness; insurer showed no proof of unfitness or fraud; post-accident corrosion findings irrelevant [Paras 25, 32–33, 39].

Surveyor’s Reports – Weightage – Surveyor’s report placed for first time before NCDRC, years after filing – Though expert opinion must be given due weight, belated production and ambivalence regarding explosion cannot defeat claim – No definite finding of pre-existing defects – State Commission justified in adverse inference [Paras 17, 30–32, 38].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability under Article 136 – Insurer argued appeal not maintainable due to alternate remedy of writ – Held: No inherent bar; matter fully pleaded and ready; relegation would delay justice; Supreme Court may exercise jurisdiction [Para 42].

Relief – Order of NCDRC set aside – Appeals before NCDRC restored for consideration of quantum of compensation only – All other issues closed – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 43–45].

Environment & Wildlife Protection – Saranda Forest – Mandamus directing Jharkhand to notify 31,468.25 ha (minus six mining-zone compartments) as Wildlife Sanctuary – State’s shifting stands deprecated – FRA rights fully protected – Mining prohibited within 1 km of boundary – Ancillary SAIL infrastructure unaffected [Paras 45–47, 72, 83–101, 102–105].

Wildlife Sanctuary – Mandatory statutory duty – Sections 18 & 26A WPA – State repeatedly admitted 31,468.25 ha (126 compartments) had no mining and high ecological significance – Held: area satisfies S.26A(1)(b) and must be notified as Wildlife Sanctuary – Reduction to 24,941.64 ha unjustified [Paras 12, 45–47, 60–67, 72].

State Conduct – Contradictory affidavits – Prima facie contempt – State shifted between 31,468.25 ha, 57,519.41 ha and 24,941.64 ha; constituted committee citing mining interests; Court held State attempted to mislead – Chief Secretary summoned [Paras 13, 17–20, 23–31].

Expert Evidence – WII Report (2025) – Saranda is critical elephant corridor and biodiversity hotspot; 70% intact forest; vital for Simlipal connectivity – Strong scientific basis for full sanctuary declaration [Paras 61–67].

Mining Impact – Shah Commission Report & MPSM – Mining causes hydrological damage, biodiversity loss, stream drying; critical conservation compartments identified as no-mining zones – State wrongly excluded even these from proposed sanctuary [Paras 74–82, 83–85].

Tribal Rights – FRA 2006 – Apprehensions of displacement unfounded – Sections 3 & 4 FRA and Section 24(2)(c) WPA protect individual/community habitation, cultivation, MFP, grazing and public infrastructure – State criticised for invoking tribal rights without educating communities [Paras 42, 46–48, 86–97].

Constitutional Mandate – Articles 48A & 51A(g) – State obliged to protect forests and wildlife; National Forest Policy 1988 and National Wildlife Action Plan 2017–31 recognised as having statutory flavour – Protected area expansion required [Paras 68–72].

Mining Restrictions – Court reiterates prohibition on mining inside sanctuaries and within one kilometre from boundaries – Direction of 26.04.2023 applied pan-India [Para 102(ii)].

Ancillary Mining Infrastructure – SAIL – Dams, reservoirs, railway lines fall under permissible rights under FRA/WPA – Activities unaffected by sanctuary declaration – IA disposed [Paras 104–105].

Mandamus – State directed to notify entire 1968 Game Sanctuary area (31,468.25 ha) excluding six compartments (KP-2, KP-10, KP-11, KP-12, KP-13, KP-14) as Wildlife Sanctuary within three months – State free to propose additional areas later [Paras 101–102(i)].

Publicity Direction – State to widely publicise that FRA rights (individual and community) remain intact and no displacement will occur [Para 102(iii)].

Decision – IAs disposed – Mandamus issued – Mining restrictions reaffirmed – SAIL IA disposed.

– Aggravated sexual assault on 4-year-old – Conviction under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO based on cogent testimony of mother and surrounding circumstances upheld despite absence of external injuries and failure of traumatized child to depose – Maximum sentence of 7 years RI reduced to 6 years RI considering period already undergone and overall circumstances – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 2-3.2, 4-5.6, 7-9].

POCSO – Aggravated Sexual Assault – Conviction – Evidence of Mother – Four-year-old Victim – FIR and Medical Evidence – Concurrent Findings – Appellant convicted by Special Judge (POCSO) under Sections 9(m) and 10 POCSO and sentenced to 7 years RI and fine – High Court confirmed conviction and sentence – Prosecution case that appellant, a neighbour, returned with victim’s father from forest after collecting wood, consumed liquor at their house, and later was found by victim’s mother (PW-3) wearing only half shorts and sitting near the legs of the sleeping 4-year-old victim whose underwear was down to knees and frock pulled up to chest – Child was crying, complained of pain in private part and her private part was found wet – FIR registered the same day, victim sent for medical examination, statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded, chargesheet filed and date of birth established as 13-02-2017 (age 4–5 years) – Held: narrative of PW-3 and consistent account of father (PW-2) form a clear and reliable account of the incident; no reason to disbelieve the mother’s testimony – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court on guilt under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO sustained [Paras 2-3.2, 5-5.1, 6-7].

Evidence Law – Ocular vs Medical Evidence – Absence of External Injury – Redness in Vagina – Effect on Prosecution Case – Defence contention that absence of external injury or bleeding on victim’s private part and possibility of redness due to rubbing or infection entitled appellant to benefit of doubt – Medical Officer (PW-6) found no external injuries and no bleeding but noticed redness in the vagina – Another Medical Officer (PW-8) opined that appellant was capable of sexual intercourse – Court reiterates that where ocular evidence is consistent and cogent, medical evidence, even if not fully corroborative, takes a backseat – In present case, medical evidence (redness in vagina) does not negate, and in fact is consistent with, the prosecution version – Held: submissions based on alleged deficiency in medical evidence rejected; conviction can rest on trustworthy ocular testimony of PW-3 supported by surrounding circumstances [Paras 4, 5.2, 7].

Child Witness – Four-year-old Victim – Inability to Depose due to Trauma and Fear – Conduct in Court as Corroborative Circumstance – Victim (PW-1), aged about 4 years and studying at Anganwadi, was produced as a witness – On being shown the accused, who removed his mask in court, the child became frightened, refused to look at him, and did not answer questions – Evidence had to be stopped, victim sent out, and even after intervals and presence of mother, she only cried and did not speak – Trial court therefore closed her examination with no cross-examination – Held: sequence of events in the courtroom demonstrates that the child was in a frightened and traumatized state upon seeing the accused – Her behaviour is a “tale-telling” circumstance reflecting the continuing shock of the incident and operates as a pointer towards truth of the prosecution case – Failure of such a young victim to give verbal testimony in court is not fatal to prosecution when there is otherwise cogent evidence [Paras 5.3-5.6].

POCSO – Sections 7, 8, 9(m), 10 – Aggravated Sexual Assault – Penetration Not Sine Qua Non – Child Below 12 Years – Section 7 POCSO defines sexual assault, Section 8 prescribes punishment, Section 9 defines aggravated sexual assault and Section 10 provides punishment, including for assault on child below 12 years [Section 9(m)] – Appellant convicted under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 for sexually assaulting a 4-year-old child – Argument for appellant that absence of allegation or proof of penetration should result in acquittal, as offence under POCSO not made out – Court not impressed; given the evidence of victim’s undressed state, appellant’s position near her legs, complaint of pain and wetness in private part, and age of victim, ingredients of aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) are satisfied – Held: for Section 9(m) read with Section 10, penetration is not indispensable; proved acts of sexual assault on child below 12 years suffice to sustain conviction [Paras 6-8].

Criminal Law – Appreciation of Evidence in Sexual Offences Against Children – Role of Parental Testimony – Both parents (PW-2 and PW-3) were consistent in deposing about accused accompanying father to forest, returning to house, consuming liquor, presence in house when child was sleeping, and discovery of accused by mother near the legs of the child with her clothes disarranged – Mother immediately raised alarm, father attempted to apprehend accused and assaulted him with stick as he fled – Court holds parental testimony, particularly that of mother witness to immediate post-occurrence circumstances, to be natural, prompt and trustworthy – No motive suggested for false implication of neighbour – Held: Trial Court and High Court’s appreciation of this evidence is “eminently legal and proper”, calling for no interference [Paras 5-5.2, 7].

Sentence – POCSO – Section 10 – Reduction from 7 Years RI (Maximum) to 6 Years RI – Factors Considered – For offence under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO, Trial Court imposed 7 years rigorous imprisonment (maximum under Section 10) and fine, which was affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court notes that appellant has already undergone about 4 years 5 months of imprisonment – While upholding conviction, Court considers “totality of facts and circumstances” and reduces sentence of rigorous imprisonment from 7 years to 6 years – Fine of Rs 6000 and default sentence of 1 year simple imprisonment maintained – High Court judgment modified to this limited extent – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 2.1, 9-11].

Criminal Law – Second FIR Quashed – Abuse of Process – Appellant was prosecution witness in CBI case involving bribe to GST officials – Following his adverse deposition against university management, second FIR registered accusing him of harboring the accused – Police filed cancellation report but Magistrate took cognizance on protest petition – Supreme Court held second FIR and summoning order unsustainable – Found it to be vindictive prosecution and abuse of process [Paras 2–4, 7].

Criminal Law – Sections Misapplied – Magistrate took cognizance under IPC Sections including forgery and IT Act provisions – Supreme Court held that even if allegations were accepted on face value, only offence under Section 212 IPC (harboring offender) could possibly arise – Attempt to introduce unalleged offences without foundation impermissible – Held: Cognizance order and High Court judgment upholding it are legally flawed [Paras 5–6].

Evidence – Forgery Not Made Out – No specific act of forgery or falsification of electronic records alleged – Appellant was neither author nor user of any allegedly false document – Held: No ingredients of Sections 465–471 IPC or IT Act offences made out [Paras 5–6].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Protection Against Harassment – Court reiterated that prosecution cannot be weaponized to harass or retaliate against witnesses – Vindictive FIRs to suppress testimony undermine rule of law – Cancellation report rightly accepted [Paras 6–8].

Criminal Procedure – Protest Petition – Magistrate’s acceptance of protest petition to reverse cancellation report must be based on cogent material – Present case involved no such material and the complainant’s allegations contradicted the FIR’s own narrative [Paras 3–5].

Civil Law – Counterclaim – Co-defendant – Specific performance – Plaintiff sued sole defendant for specific performance of oral agreement for 0.93 acres – Subsequent impleadment of defendant Nos. 2 & 3 claiming agreement to purchase same land and raising counterclaim for conveyance against defendant No. 1 – Trial Court and High Court permitted counterclaim to avoid multiplicity – Supreme Court applying Rohit Singh and Rajul Mano Shah holds counterclaim under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC must be directed against plaintiff and not co-defendant – Counterclaim of defendants 2 & 3 held not maintainable, found lacking concrete and timely enforceable claim in any event – Liberty to file separate suit declined as claim already barred by limitation – Appeal allowed – Counterclaim set aside and parties relegated to trial on remaining issues [Paras 2, 5-8, 9-15, 16].

Civil Procedure – Counterclaim under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC – Direction of claim – Counterclaim cannot be maintained against co-defendant – Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance against sole defendant for 0.93 acres based on oral agreement and payment of consideration – After impleadment, defendant Nos. 2 & 3 raised counterclaim for transfer of entire land against defendant No. 1 alone – Relying on Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar, (2006) 12 SCC 734 and Rajul Mano Shah @ Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel, (2025) 10 SCR 152, Court reiterates that though counterclaim may be based on a different but connected cause of action, it has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff and cannot be directed against a co-defendant – Counterclaim of defendant Nos. 2 & 3 therefore unsustainable in law [Paras 2, 4-7, 9-11, 14].

Civil Procedure – Specific performance suit – Impleadment of persons in possession – Non-joinder of necessary parties – Effect – Sole defendant pleaded that defendant Nos. 2 & 3 were in possession of part of the suit property – They were impleaded on their own application – Court holds that once such parties are impleaded, the suit no longer suffers from defect of non-joinder of necessary parties on the ground of possession – Their presence is necessary so that, if decree for specific performance is granted, plaintiff may also seek recovery of possession – However, such impleadment does not legitimise an otherwise incompetent counterclaim against a co-defendant [Paras 6-7, 12, 14].

Specific performance – Competing claims over same property – Lack of concrete and consistent plea by subsequent purchasers – Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 first asserted an agreement to purchase entire land for Rs.5,50,000 with part-payment of Rs.2,95,000 – They also conceded that 43 decimals out of same land were agreed to be conveyed to plaintiff’s father for Rs.2,55,000 and alleged fraudulent alteration in receipt from 43 to 93 decimals – Ultimately claimed at least 50 decimals be conveyed to them based only on part-payment, without a clear agreement for that part – Court finds their stand shifting and “no concrete claim” against property, even for purposes of counterclaim [Paras 5-8, 13].

Limitation – Counterclaim for specific performance – Belated claim – Liberty to file separate suit – Cause of action for defendants 2 & 3 claimed to have arisen on 02.12.2002 – Their impleadment application and counterclaim filed only in 2006 – Court holds that at the time of filing counterclaim, claim for specific performance was already barred by limitation – Consequently, no reason to grant liberty to file a separate suit at this stage when claim is “grossly delayed” and already time-barred – Liberty to institute independent proceedings refused [Paras 7-8, 13, 15].

Civil Procedure – High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 – Approach disapproved – High Court dismissed plaintiff’s Article 227 petition on ground of avoiding multiplicity and observed that maintainability of counterclaim could be decided in the suit – Supreme Court holds that when law is settled that counterclaim cannot be directed against co-defendant, permitting such counterclaim to proceed is impermissible – Order of Trial Court and High Court upholding counterclaim set aside [Paras 3-4, 9-11, 14, 16].

Civil Procedure – Trial to proceed on remaining issues – Scope preserved – While setting aside counterclaim of defendant Nos. 2 & 3, Court clarifies that impleadment of said defendants continues to save suit from defect of non-joinder on ground of possession – No finding is rendered on possession – Trial Court to determine possession and, if so appropriately sought, grant recovery of possession in favour of plaintiff – All contentions except validity of counterclaim kept open for adjudication at trial [Paras 12, 14, 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Trial Court and High Court permitting counterclaim by defendant Nos. 2 & 3 set aside – Counterclaim rejected as not maintainable against co-defendant and as time-barred and lacking concrete basis – Defendants 2 & 3 to remain as parties for purposes of adjudication of possession and other issues – Parties relegated to Trial Court to agitate all contentions except that of counterclaim of defendants 2 & 3, which stands finally negatived – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 14-17].

Environmental Law – Protection of Delhi Ridge – Directions for Statutory Constitution and Functioning of DRMB – Supreme Court directs Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to constitute the Delhi Ridge Management Board (DRMB) as a statutory body under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Earlier, DRMB functioned under court orders without statutory backing – Held: Without statutory authority, effective and accountable functioning of DRMB was not possible – Further directed constitution of a Standing Committee for daily functioning and mandated DRMB to act as single-window authority for all issues relating to Delhi Ridge and Morphological Ridge [Paras 41-47, 50-52, 57].

Forest Conservation – Final Notification under Section 20, Indian Forest Act – Non-notification of Delhi Ridge deprives area of legal protection – Although preliminary notifications under Section 4 were issued in 1994 and 1996, final notification under Section 20 still pending – NGT (2021) and High Court (2024) directed GNCTD to issue notification – Court held delay unjustified – Ridge must be notified as Reserved Forest for its ecological integrity to be preserved [Paras 4, 5, 34, 35].

Environmental Degradation – Encroachment on Delhi Ridge – CEC Report and court-appointed authorities noted rampant encroachments – Court observed lack of active steps from GNCTD – Held: Encroachments defeat purpose of ecological protection – Directed DRMB to ensure removal of encroachments from both Delhi Ridge and Morphological Ridge [Paras 8, 36, 54, 57(iii)(c)].

Ecological Preservation – Morphological Ridge – Ridge-like areas outside notified Ridge require equal protection – Affirmed legal necessity for their identification and conservation – Held: Morphological Ridge must be preserved in same manner as notified Ridge – Committee formed by Court in 2023 directed to complete identification process – DRMB to ensure protection and ecological restoration of the Morphological Ridge [Paras 11-14, 37, 38, 57(iii)(d)-(e)].

Environmental Governance – Multiplicity of Monitoring Bodies – Presence of overlapping committees (CEC, NGT Oversight Committee, High-Powered Committees) causing duplication and conflicting decisions – Court directed MoEF&CC to consolidate functions into a single authority – DRMB reconstituted with statutory status and given sole monitoring authority – Standing Committee constituted under DRMB for efficient functioning [Paras 25-27, 39, 40, 50-52, 57].

Legal Accountability – DRMB's Statutory Status and Judicial Review – Held: DRMB must have statutory status to ensure transparency, accountability, and judicial scrutiny – Orders of DRMB would be subject to challenge before NGT under Section 14 of NGT Act or before High Court under Articles 226/227 – DRMB to function under environmental rule of law ensuring participatory governance [Paras 42-46].

Institutional Framework – Composition and Functions of Statutory DRMB – DRMB to consist of 13 members including Chief Secretary, GNCTD (Chair), representatives from MoEF&CC, DDA, civic bodies, civil society, and CEC – DRMB directed to undertake scientific management, ecological restoration, and prevent fragmentation of Ridge – Required to submit six-monthly reports and maintain transparency through public notices, consultations and website publication [Paras 57(i), 57(iii)(a)-(h)].

Judicial Supervision – Role of CEC in DRMB – Representative of Central Empowered Committee to be permanent member of DRMB – To submit quarterly reports to Supreme Court on DRMB’s performance – Held: CEC’s long-standing role in Ridge protection justifies its formal inclusion in DRMB [Paras 48, 49, 57(iv)].

Decision: Directions issued – MoEF&CC to notify DRMB under Section 3(3) of EP Act – DRMB to be sole authority for Ridge issues – Standing Committee to be constituted – Identification and notification of Morphological Ridge to be completed – Encroachments to be removed – Periodic reports to be submitted to Supreme Court.

Criminal Law – Curative Petition – Acquittal – Petitioner convicted and sentenced to death in the Rimpa Haldar murder case based on a Section 164 CrPC confession and alleged recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Subsequent acquittals in 12 companion cases based on same evidentiary foundation – High Court and later Supreme Court found the confession inadmissible and recoveries unreliable – Held: Manifest miscarriage of justice as identical facts yielded inconsistent judicial outcomes – Curative jurisdiction rightly invoked to preserve judicial integrity [Paras 1, 5, 10, 16]

Curative Jurisdiction – Scope and Principles – Narrowly limited to correcting gross miscarriage of justice and abuse of process – Not a second review – Triggered where outcomes are irreconcilably inconsistent on same factual substratum or where natural justice is violated – Finality yields to constitutional duty in cases of manifest injustice – Reaffirmed that this jurisdiction arises ex debito justitiae and flows from Articles 129, 137, 142 of the Constitution and Order XLVIII of Supreme Court Rules – [Paras 2, 3, 4]

Confession under Section 164 CrPC – Voluntariness and Admissibility – Confession by petitioner found inadmissible in 12 other cases – Petitioner was in continuous police custody for ~60 days before confession – No meaningful legal aid – Investigating Officer’s proximity compromised voluntariness – Repeated references in confession to coercion and tutoring – Magistrate failed to record unequivocal satisfaction on voluntariness – Bar under Section 24 of Evidence Act attracted – Same confession cannot be treated as voluntary in present case when judicially discredited elsewhere [Paras 8.2, 11]

Discovery and Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Alleged recoveries made from open public areas already under excavation – No contemporaneous disclosure memo proved – Contradictions in remand and seizure records – Public and police had prior knowledge of recovery sites – Recovery site not under exclusive domain of petitioner – Held: Essential elements of legal discovery missing – Section 27 inapplicable – Findings already accepted in companion acquittals apply equally here [Paras 8.3, 12]

Forensic Evidence – Insufficiency and Inconsistency – No human bloodstains, tissue, or trace evidence recovered from D-5 despite claims of multiple homicides and dismemberment – DNA analysis aided identification but not authorship – Knives and axe recovered bore no incriminating material – No expert evidence linking implements to injuries or petitioner’s capability to commit acts alleged – Circumstantial chain incomplete – Forensic gaps fatal to prosecution case [Paras 8.4, 8.5, 13]

Investigation – Deficiencies and Fairness – Investigation found seriously flawed – Disclosure not contemporaneously recorded – Remand papers contradicted prosecution theory – No medical documentation during long custody – Confession recording process lacked independence – Failure to investigate key leads (e.g., organ trade angle flagged by Ministry) – Witnesses from household and vicinity not examined – Held: Investigative lapses corroded fairness, reliability and integrity of process [Paras 8.6, 14, 18]

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 and 21 – Right to Equality and Fair Procedure – Conviction cannot stand on evidentiary basis already held legally inadmissible in identical matters – Upholding conviction would violate Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (life and personal liberty) – Like cases must be treated alike – Disparity in identical records undermines rule of law – Held: Principles of equality and fairness demand relief under curative jurisdiction [Paras 9, 15, 16]

Presumption of Innocence – Grave Suspicion vs Legal Proof – Court reaffirms that criminal conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt – Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legal evidence – Especially vital where capital sentence is imposed or serious consequences follow – [Para 17]

Final Relief – Curative Petition allowed – Supreme Court judgment dated 15.02.2011 affirming conviction and death sentence set aside – Review order dated 28.10.2014 also recalled – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 364, 376, 201 IPC quashed – Petitioner acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case – Connected SLPs disposed as infructuous [Paras 19–25]

Decision: Curative Petition allowed – Conviction and sentence under IPC set aside – Petitioner acquitted – Release directed – All related proceedings disposed of as infructuous.

Tenancy Law - Rent Control – Eviction on Ground of Wilful Default – Lessee initially paid rent at Rs.33,000/- p.m. against landlord’s claim of Rs.48,000/- – Rent Controller fixed fair rent at Rs.2,43,600/- p.m. with effect from 01.02.2005 – Lessee neither sought nor obtained stay of fair rent order – Lessee continued paying lower amount despite finality of fair rent order – Arrears accumulated and full settlement only made on 11.01.2013 – Held: Failure to pay fair rent despite judicial determination and absence of stay constitutes wilful default – Eviction rightly ordered [Paras 21, 22, 24, 28, 32]

Rent Control – Determination of Wilful Default – Fair rent fixed by Rent Controller not stayed at any stage of appellate or revisional proceedings – Despite confirmation by appellate authority and partial modification by High Court, lessee delayed payment for several years – Payments made only in instalments and belatedly – Held: Such conduct evidences deliberate and conscious default – Explanation to Section 10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act does not require notice as mandatory precondition – Rent Controller retains discretion to assess wilfulness even in absence of notice [Paras 21–28]

Civil Procedure – Effect of Appeal Without Stay – Appeal or revision against order fixing fair rent does not by itself operate as stay – Lessee cannot claim protection merely due to pendency of appeal when no stay was obtained – Judicial finality attaches to Rent Controller’s order unless stayed or overturned – Held: Non-payment during pendency without stay cannot absolve lessee of wilful default [Paras 23, 24, 29–31]

Interpretation of Statutes – Explanation to Section 10(2)(i), Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act – Two-month notice by landlord creates statutory presumption of wilful default – However, absence of such notice does not bar eviction – Rent Controller may still determine wilfulness based on tenant's conduct – Wilful default inferred from deliberate non-payment despite judicial directions – [Paras 25–27]

Tenant’s Conduct – Instalment Payments and Arrears – Tenant cleared arrears only after dismissal of SLPs and after six years from fair rent order – Arrears not cleared promptly despite legal notice and judicial pronouncements – Held: Belated payments do not negate wilfulness where delay is deliberate and unexplained – Pendency of appeal not sufficient justification [Paras 22, 29–31]

Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court’s Interference – High Court rightly declined interference with concurrent findings of appellate authority on wilful default – No jurisdictional error or perversity shown – Held: Revisional court need not re-appreciate facts absent material error or illegality – [Para 32]

Final Relief – Appeal dismissed – Eviction order affirmed – Appellants granted six months' time to vacate subject to filing of usual undertaking within two weeks – In default, landlord entitled to initiate execution [Paras 33, 34]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Eviction upheld – Time of six months granted to vacate upon undertaking – No costs.