Dowry Death – Presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act – Conviction under Section 304B of IPC – Appeal against High Court judgment – High Court reversed trial court's acquittal and convicted the appellant based on dowry harassment and proximate cause of death within seven years of marriage.

Criminal Law – Evidence – Dowry Demand and Harassment – Contradictions and Minor Discrepancies – Minor inconsistencies in witnesses' testimonies do not undermine the prosecution's case when the overall evidence supports the charge – Conviction justified when dowry harassment is established shortly before the death.

Evidence Handling – Chain of Custody – The allegation of tampering with evidence rejected – Court upholds chemical analysis confirming poisoning despite minor procedural lapses – Emphasizes pragmatic approach in dowry death cases.

Delay in Filing FIR – FIR and Special Report – Timely lodging of FIR and reasonable delay in reaching the Magistrate does not vitiate the prosecution's case – Prompt FIR reinforces credibility.

Decision – Conviction Upheld – Supreme Court upholds High Court's conviction of the appellant under Section 304B IPC – Trial court's acquittal termed perverse – Appellant directed to surrender.

Criminal Law - Mandatory Registration of FIR - Interpretation of Section 154 of CrPC - Constitution Bench

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if the information discloses a cognizable offence. The police officer does not have the liberty to conduct a preliminary inquiry to test the veracity of the information before registering the FIR. The term "information" under Section 154 is not qualified by the words "reasonable" or "credible," unlike other sections in the CrPC, indicating that the police officer is duty-bound to register an FIR based on the information received. [Paras 1-25]

Mandatory Nature of FIR Registration - Safeguards Against Misuse - Article 21 of the Constitution

The Court emphasized that the mandate of registering an FIR should not be reduced to a mechanical act. However, safeguards are in place, and if the information does not reveal a cognizable offence, the police officer can take recourse to appropriate legal procedures post-registration. The Court acknowledged that immediate FIR registration could prevent the manipulation of the complaint process and safeguard the victim’s rights. At the same time, it recognized the potential misuse of this process, underlining the balance between the rights of the complainant and the accused. [Para 24-25]

Decision - Guidelines for Preliminary Inquiry

The Court issued guidelines outlining the circumstances under which a preliminary inquiry may be conducted, such as matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, and cases where there is a delay in initiating criminal proceedings. The scope of the preliminary inquiry is limited to ascertaining whether the information reveals any cognizable offence and must be completed within seven days. The appeals were decided in favor of the appellants, affirming the mandatory nature of FIR registration while establishing the scope and limitations of preliminary inquiries. [Paras 26-27]

Service Law - Promotion - Merit-Based Evaluation - Interpretation of Rules and Government Orders

The Supreme Court held that promotions to the post of Director of Medical Health in Uttarakhand must be based solely on merit as stipulated in the U.P. Medical Health (Group A) Service Rules, 1990 and the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Criteria for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2004. The evaluation must follow the criteria outlined in the Government Order dated 16.4.2003, which emphasizes the importance of ACRs over the last 10 years, categorizing candidates into 'excellent,' 'good,' and 'unsuitable'​​ .

Evaluation Criteria - Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) - Government Order Compliance

The Court found that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) incorrectly categorized candidates into 'very good' instead of 'excellent,' contrary to the Government Order dated 16.4.2003. The private respondent, who had predominantly 'excellent' ACRs, was unjustly placed in the same category as the appellant, who had a mix of 'excellent,' 'very good,' and 'good' ACRs. This misclassification led to an improper assessment of merit​​ .

Decision - Setting Aside Promotion - No Recovery of Excess Salary

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the appellant's promotion due to the DPC's failure to adhere to the prescribed evaluation criteria. However, the Court ruled that no recovery of the excess salary paid to the appellant during her tenure as Director was warranted, given the absence of misrepresentation or fraud on her part. The appeals were dismissed, and the respondent was entitled to costs of Rs. 15,000 to be paid by the Government​​ .

Service Law - Pay Protection - Interpretation of Government Memorandum - Retrospective Effect

The Supreme Court held that the appellant, who joined Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) on 23.9.1987, is entitled to pay protection as per the Government Memorandum dated 7th August 1989 from the effective date of 1st August 1989. The Memorandum grants pay protection to candidates recruited from Public Sector Undertakings or Autonomous Bodies who are appointed as direct recruits through proper selection. It was clarified that while the appellant would not get pay protection prior to 1st August 1989, his pay must be protected from that date onwards to ensure he is not disadvantaged compared to his juniors​​.

Application of Office Memorandum - Discrimination - Right to Equality

The Court recognized the appellant's claim of discrimination based on the fact that other teachers who joined before 1st August 1989 were granted pay protection. The respondents' failure to apply the Memorandum consistently constituted a violation of the right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondents were directed to correct the appellant's service record and provide consequential benefits​​.

Decision - Partial Allowance of Appeal - Correction of Service Record

The appeal was partially allowed, directing the respondents to protect the appellant's pay as of 1st August 1989 and to update his service record accordingly. The respondents were given three months to implement this correction. No order as to costs was made​​.

Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Hostile Witnesses

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction based on the dying declaration of the deceased, Gowramma, who implicated her husband, Anjanappa, as the perpetrator. The declaration was recorded by PW-5 HC Ramachari and endorsed by PW-4 Dr. Parthasarathy, confirming Gowramma was in a fit state to make the statement. Despite the parents of the deceased turning hostile and testifying in favor of the accused, the Court found their testimony unreliable and concluded they were likely influenced or intimidated by the appellant. The credibility of the dying declaration was further supported by consistent medical and police evidence​​.

Witness Protection - Judicial Concern

The Court highlighted the urgent need for a witness protection program, emphasizing that the absence of such measures often leads to witnesses turning hostile, as seen in this case. The Court referenced the observations made in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat regarding the critical role of witnesses in the justice system and the necessity of protecting them to prevent miscarriages of justice​​.

Decision - Conviction Upheld - Appeal Dismissed

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision to convict the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The Supreme Court acknowledged the High Court's leniency in sentencing the appellant to six years of rigorous imprisonment, given the severity of the crime. The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the conviction under Section 304 Part II was unsustainable due to a lack of explicit reasoning, noting that the High Court had provided adequate justification for its decision​​.

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act - Evidence Analysis

The Supreme Court held that Bhola Ram was wrongly convicted by both the Trial Court and the High Court due to lack of specific evidence implicating him in demanding dowry or treating Janki Devi with cruelty. The Court emphasized the necessity for specific allegations and not merely omnibus statements to uphold a conviction under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. The prosecution failed to prove Bhola Ram's active or passive involvement in demanding additional dowry or in any cruel treatment that led to the dowry death​​.

Dowry Prohibition Act - Joint and Several Liability - Burden of Proof

The Court highlighted that while dowry deaths often involve the entire family, the degree of involvement may vary. The presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be stretched to implicate every family member without specific evidence. The prosecution must provide suggestive evidence to implicate a relative in dowry demands and harassment, which was lacking in this case. The High Court's reliance on the presumption under Section 113B without considering the individual roles was misplaced​​.

Decision - Acquittal - Setting Aside Conviction and Sentence

The appeal was allowed, and Bhola Ram was acquitted of the charges under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. The Court found no evidence of his active complicity in the dowry death of Janki Devi. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and Bhola Ram's bail bonds were cancelled​​.

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act - Rebuttal of Presumption

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Suresh Kumar under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC, based on the evidence that he had demanded dowry in the form of a motorcycle and subjected his wife, Sulochana, to cruelty. The presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act was applied, and Suresh Kumar failed to rebut this presumption by not providing adequate evidence to prove that Sulochana's death by electrocution was accidental​​.

Acquittal Reversal - Scope of Appellate Court's Interference - Jurisdictional Error Correction

The High Court's decision to reverse the trial court's acquittal was deemed justified due to the trial court's erroneous exclusion of an accidental death from the purview of Section 304B IPC. The Supreme Court affirmed that an accidental death could still constitute a dowry death if the other ingredients of Section 304B IPC were satisfied. The High Court correctly corrected this jurisdictional error, leading to the conviction of the appellant​​.

Decision - Conviction Affirmed - Appeals Dismissed

The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's conviction of Suresh Kumar under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellant's contention that the conviction was unsustainable. The bail bond of Suresh Kumar was cancelled, and he was directed to be taken into custody to serve out the remainder of his sentence​​.

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act - Evidence Analysis

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Bhupendra under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC, based on the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The Court noted that Geeta Bai's death occurred within seven years of marriage and was caused by suspected poisoning following a demand for additional dowry that could not be met. The evidence included testimonies from her father, PW-1 Bhika Ram, and other family members who corroborated the harassment and cruelty faced by Geeta Bai due to dowry demands. The defense's claim of death by food poisoning was dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence​​.

Dying Declaration - Judicial Scrutiny - Witness Credibility

The Court emphasized that while a dying declaration is a significant piece of evidence, its reliability must be scrutinized. In this case, the oral testimonies and the surrounding circumstances provided a coherent narrative that supported the prosecution's case. The High Court found no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of Geeta Bai's family members, despite their familial ties, as their statements were consistent and credible​​.

Mutual Exclusivity of Sections 304B and 306 IPC - Legal Interpretation

The appellant's argument that Sections 304B and 306 IPC are mutually exclusive was rejected. The Court clarified that Section 306 IPC covers the abetment of suicide, while Section 304B IPC addresses dowry deaths under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, making them applicable in different contexts. Therefore, a conviction under both sections is legally sustainable if the evidence supports such findings​​.

Decision - Conviction Upheld - Appeal Dismissed

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's conviction of Bhupendra under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. The Supreme Court found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Bhupendra's bail bond was cancelled, and he was directed to be taken into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence​​.

Service Law - Eligibility for Appointment - Academic Qualifications - Interpretation of Advertisement

The Supreme Court held that the appointment of Ganapath Singh as a Lecturer in MCA at Gulbarga University was invalid because he did not possess a postgraduate degree in MCA. The advertisement for the post clearly stipulated the requirement of a postgraduate degree in the relevant subject, which in this context is MCA. The contention that a Masters in Mathematics qualifies as a relevant subject was rejected, as Mathematics is not interchangeable with MCA. The Court emphasized that the language of the advertisement must be given its clear and explicit meaning, and it should not be interpreted to include degrees in related but distinct subjects​​ .

Judicial Review - Role of Expert Bodies - Limits on Judicial Interference

The Court acknowledged the deference typically given to the decisions of expert academic bodies. However, it clarified that such deference does not extend to allowing appointments that violate clearly stated eligibility criteria. The Court underscored that judicial review is warranted when an expert body’s decision is manifestly arbitrary or in contravention of statutory provisions. The Court highlighted that accepting an expert body's decision without scrutiny could lead to unqualified appointments, which is against the principles of fairness and merit​​ .

Decision - Appointment Quashed - Mandamus Issued for Reconsideration

The appeal by Ganapath Singh was dismissed, and his appointment as Lecturer in MCA was quashed. The Court directed the University to reconsider the appointment process and evaluate eligible candidates, including the respondent Shivanand, who possessed a postgraduate degree in MCA. However, the Court modified the High Court's order mandating the direct appointment of Shivanand, stating that the proper procedure should be followed to ensure fairness to all eligible candidates​​ .