Facts:

Appellants sought enhanced compensation for their acquired land.

Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 11,000/- per cent initially.

Reference Court did not grant enhancement, despite reliance on A4 and A14 documents.

Issues:

Whether the Appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation for their acquired land.

Validity of the High Court's decision to decline consideration of A4.

Held:

The Appellants are entitled to land value for the acquired land fixed at Rs. 17,250/- per cent.

The acquired land is not wet land but reclaimed dried land.

The court disagreed with the High Court's decision to decline consideration of A4, emphasizing that factual inaccuracies in the owner's description are not grounds for discarding relevant evidence.

Fixation of land value should be based on factual positions revealed from documents, and the witness's conduct in court is not a decisive factor.

Appeals are allowed accordingly.

Facts:

The appellant was allotted a plot in Sector 64, Faridabad, by HUDA.

The appellant deposited 10% earnest money and 15% of the sale consideration.

HUDA issued a demand notice for an additional amount, which the appellant failed to pay, resulting in the denial of possession.

The appellant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

Issues:

Deficiency on the part of HUDA in delivering possession.

Acceptance of a refund amount by the appellant.

Validity of the orders passed by lower forums.

Held:

The District Forum initially allowed the complaint, directing re-allotment of the plot to the appellant.

The State Commission set aside the award, stating the appellant was no longer a consumer after accepting a refund.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, directing HUDA to permit the appellant to retain the plot on the condition of paying the current HUDA rate (Rs. 10,500/- per sq. mtr.).

Facts:

The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for a murder that took place on 13.01.2002. The prosecution's case involved the appellants' common intention in committing the crime, with a witness, Sandipan Majumdar-PW6, providing crucial testimony.

Issues:

Whether the evidence presented, especially that of the witness PW6, established the common intention of the appellants in committing the murder.

Held:

The court emphasized that it could rely on the testimony of a single witness if found reliable, and this applied even if uncorroborated. Section 34 IPC, embodying the principle of joint liability, required the establishment of common intention, which could be inferred from the conduct of the accused or attendant circumstances. The court found that there was a prior concert among the appellants, and they acted in furtherance of a common intention. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Referred Cases:

Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs. State of W.B., (2010) 12 SCC 91

Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150

Prithipal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10

Sunil Kumar Vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 11 SCC 367

Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614

Facts:

The accused, Patchimala Vigneswarudu, was charged with the murder of his wife, Pachimala Ganga.

The marriage faced strain due to the accused's suspicion of contracting a venereal disease from his wife.

The accused allegedly murdered his wife after taking her to a night show of the movie 'Eduruleni Manishi.'

Issues:

Whether the chain of circumstances presented in the case establishes the guilt of the accused for the murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

Whether the High Court's acquittal was based on relevant considerations.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the chain of circumstances was complete, leading to the conclusion that the accused alone committed the murder.

The High Court's view, based on the absence of proof regarding the accused's drunkenness and the transmission of venereal disease, was deemed irrelevant.

The accused's admission of suffering from balanoposthitis in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC was considered crucial.

The trial court's order of conviction and sentence was restored, and the accused was to be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Facts:

Dispute over irrigating fields led to a violent incident.

Accused, including Darshan Singh, faced charges under IPC sections.

Injured eye witnesses provided specific details about Darshan Singh's role.

Defense raised a plea of alibi, claiming Darshan Singh was not present.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal.

Validity of Darshan Singh's alibi plea.

Held:

The High Court's judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court. Darshan Singh's plea of alibi was rejected. The Court found the prosecution's evidence, including the testimony of injured eye witnesses and medical reports, to be credible and upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. The appeal was dismissed, and Darshan Singh was directed to be taken into custody to serve the remaining part of the sentence.

Facts:

In connection with the investigation of F.I.R. No. 287 of 1999 (Jessica Lal Murder Case), the police sought an expert opinion from the State Forensic Science Laboratory. The appellant, a Deputy Director of the Laboratory, provided a report with the opinion that a definite conclusion could only be given with the examination of the suspected firearm. The High Court initiated proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC against the appellant, alleging a shift in the expert's stand during the trial.

Issues:

Whether the expert's opinion and subsequent court questioning warranted perjury charges under Section 340 of CrPC.

The admissibility and reliability of the expert's opinion in the criminal proceeding.

Held:

The court quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 340 of CrPC. The judgment emphasized that the expert had consistently maintained that a definite opinion required examination of the suspected firearm. The court noted that rejection of expert evidence alone does not warrant perjury charges. The expert's opinion was based on the court's insistence to provide an opinion without examining the firearm, and there was no somersault or shift in the stand taken by the appellant. The appeal was allowed.

Referred Cases:

"Abdul Majeed Vs. State, PLD 1976 Kar. 762

Ali Nawaz Gardezi Vs. Muhammad Yousuf PLD 1963 SC 51

Har Gobind Vs. State of Haryana, (1979) 4 SCC 482

National Justice Compania Naviera SA Vs. Prudential Assurance Co Ltd The ""Ikarian Reefer"", (1995) 1 Lloyd's Rep 455

Pritish Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 1 SCC 253

Ramesh Chandra Aggrawala Vs. Regency Hospitals, (2009) 9 SCC 709

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State NCT of Delhi, (2010) 6 SCC 1

Sqn. Ldr. R Umeed Ali Khan Vs. Dr. Mrs. Sultana Ibrahim, LEX/SCPK/0483/2006

State Delhi Vs. Pali Ram, (1979) 2 SCC 158

Yaqoob Shah Vs. The State, PLD 1976 SC 53"

Facts:

The case involves charges against the appellants for offenses including murder and causing grievous hurt.

The incident occurred on April 3, 1996, where the appellants allegedly obstructed and assaulted the victims with deadly weapons.

Issues:

Whether the participation of each member of an unlawful assembly, as required by Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, was established.

Implication of all five accused based on evidence, despite certain names not being mentioned in the First Information Report (F.I.R.).

Held:

The court emphasized the need to establish the common object of an unlawful assembly under Section 149, requiring proof of the participation of each member. It was noted that specific overt acts by each member are not necessary for invoking Section 149.

The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court and subsequently confirmed by the High Court. The judgment highlighted the significance of eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and corroboration in establishing the guilt of the accused.

Referred Cases:

Ajit Savant Majagvai Vs. State of Karnataka, (1997) 7 SCC 110

Bishna alias Bhiswadeb Mahato Vs. State of W.B., (2005) 12 SCC 657

Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab alias Kuti Biswas, (2013) 12 SCC 796

Rajendran Vs. State of T.N., (2004) 10 SCC 689

Rotash Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 12 SCC 64

Facts:

The appellant, Damodar Lal, sought eviction of the respondents based on unauthorized construction or material alteration in the tenanted premises. The trial court and the first appellate court ruled in favor of the appellant, but the High Court, in second appeal, overturned the decision, questioning the reliability of evidence and the non-appearance of the appellant as a witness.

Issues:

The trustworthiness of evidence regarding structural alteration, the non-appearance of the landlord as a witness, and the validity of the High Court's interference in findings of fact.

Held:

The court emphasized that material alteration is not confined to the exclusive knowledge of the owner but can be proven by any admissible and reliable evidence. The burden of proof was successfully discharged by the plaintiff, and the finding on structural alteration was reasonable.( Paragraph 12)

Even if the finding of fact is wrong, it does not constitute a question of law unless it stems from a complete misreading of evidence or is based on conjectures and surmises. The High Court's interference on a pure question of fact was unwarranted.( Paragraph 13)

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and restoring the decision of the trial court as confirmed by the first appellate court.( Paragraph 16)

The respondents were given time until March 31, 2017, to vacate the premises, and they were directed to file an undertaking and continue to pay use and occupation charges.( Paragraph 17)

Referred Cases:

Babu Vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189

Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao Vs. State of A.P., (2009) 10 SCC 636

Gurvachan Kaur Vs. Salikram Dead, (2010) 15 SCC 530

Krishnan Vs. Backiam, (2007) 12 SCC 190

Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commr. of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10

Kulwant Kaur Vs. Gurdial Singh Mann Dead, (2001) 4 SCC 262

Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Admn., (1984) 4 SCC 635

S.R. Tiwari Vs. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 602

Facts:

The case involves the death of Diganta Sardar in a road accident in Hoogly, West Bengal.

Appellant (Malati Sardar) filed a compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Kolkata.

Tribunal awarded compensation, but the insurance company (Respondent) appealed, claiming lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Issues:

Whether the Kolkata Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the compensation claim.

Whether lack of territorial jurisdiction was a valid ground to set aside the Tribunal's award.

Held:

The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent set in Mantoo Sarkar, emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is wider than that of a civil court. It stated that objections to territorial jurisdiction cannot be entertained unless there is prejudice, as per Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held that a hyper-technical approach in such matters is not appreciated. The judgment clarified that the provision for territorial jurisdiction should be interpreted in line with the objective of facilitating remedies for victims of accidents.

The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Tribunal's award was restored.

Referred Cases:

Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana, (2013) 10 SCC 136

Kiran Singh Vs. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340

Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 2 SCC 244

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kustiswar Pramanik, (2010) 1 TAC 405 Cal

Nirmala Devi Agarwal, (2013) 3 CLJ Cal

Union of India Vs. G.S. Grewal, (2014) 7 SCC 303