Facts:

The case involved the killing of the deceased, who was the Sarpanch of the village, and causing injuries to another individual.

The prosecution charged the accused under several sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The appellants alleged that the FIR was ante-dated and that they were falsely implicated. They also pointed out inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Issues:

Whether the FIR was ante-dated and if the appellants were falsely implicated.

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was consistent and credible.

Held:

The court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants against their conviction. The bench found no merit in the appellants' arguments regarding the alleged ante-dating of the FIR and inconsistencies in the evidence.

The court determined that there were contemporaneous documents and actions supporting the timing of the FIR and that the injuries sustained by the witness were genuine. Despite minor discrepancies, the prosecution's case was deemed credible.

The delay in forwarding the Express Report to the Magistrate was considered inconsequential as it did not prejudice the appellants' case. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, affirming the appellants' conviction and dismissing their appeals.

Facts:

The appellant challenges the High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent, who is accused of serious offenses including murder. The High Court granted bail based on parity and without adequate consideration of the respondent's criminal history.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in granting bail without considering the respondent's criminal antecedents and the seriousness of the offenses.

Held:

The Court found that the High Court's decision to grant bail was erroneous due to its failure to consider the respondent's criminal history and the gravity of the offenses. The court emphasized the need for judicious exercise of discretion in bail matters, especially in cases involving heinous crimes.

Consequently, the High Court's order granting bail was set aside, and if the respondent is at large, he is to be taken into custody immediately. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed.

Facts:

The case involves an incident of mob violence resulting in the death of one person and injuries to others. During the trial, nine eyewitnesses, including injured eyewitnesses, turned hostile as regards the identity of the accused persons. The prosecution primarily relied on the testimony of PW12, the wife of the deceased, while the accused were defended by their advocates.

Issues:

The key issues in this case revolve around the reliability of the sole eyewitness testimony, the application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code regarding vicarious liability in cases of mob violence, and the identification and conviction of the accused based on the evidence presented.

Held:

The testimony of PW12, being the sole eyewitness, is pivotal in this case. It is held that a conviction can be founded upon the testimony of a sole witness, provided it is confidence-inspiring, beyond suspicion, and corroborated by other evidence.

PW12's deposition is deemed reliable and trustworthy, as it is natural, devoid of exaggeration, and corroborated by other material on record.

The recovery of weapons of offense at the instance of the accused, supported by the investigating officer's testimony, further strengthens the prosecution's case.

Regarding vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC, the Court emphasizes that membership in an unlawful assembly is sufficient to hold individuals liable for offenses committed by other members, provided there is a common object.

In cases of mob violence, determining the existence of a common object can be challenging. However, those who share the common object are liable for the acts committed by others in the assembly.

The trial court's reliance on the testimony of PW12 is deemed justified, and the High Court's decision to acquit based on doubts about her testimony is overturned.

Out of the eight accused found guilty by the trial court, six are identified as directly responsible for the fatal assault, while two are acquitted due to doubts about their involvement.

Decision: The Court partly allows the appeal, confirming the conviction of six accused based on the reliable testimony of PW12 and other supporting evidence, while acquitting two accused due to doubts about their involvement.

Facts:

The respondent, Gu Rappa (deceased), represented by legal representatives, had filed a suit (O.S. No. 255 of 1984) which was subsequently dismissed. Thereafter, another suit (O.S. No. 39 of 1993) was filed by the respondent with certain modifications in parties and description of the suit property. The Trial Court framed issues and examined documents in the first suit, but the parties, subject matter, and the decision on merits were different in both suits.

Issues:

Whether the subsequent suit (O.S. No. 39 of 1993) filed by the respondent is barred by res judicata?

Whether a notice under Section 80 of CPC was necessary when filing a suit against a Municipal Council?

What is the burden of proof in a suit for declaration of title and possession?

Held:

The principle of res judicata, codified under Section 11 of CPC, aims to provide finality to judicial decisions and prevent multiplicity of proceedings between the same parties and on the same subject matter. For res judicata to apply, the parties, subject matter, and the decision on merits must be identical in both suits.

In this case, since the parties, subject matter, and decision on merits were different in the previous suit and the subsequent one, the subsequent suit (O.S. No. 39 of 1993) cannot be held barred by res judicata.

A notice under Section 80 of CPC is not necessary when filing a suit against a Municipal Council, as it is not considered a public officer.

In a suit for declaration of title and possession, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish their title independently. Mere failure of the defendant to prove their title does not automatically result in a decree in favor of the plaintiff.

Decision: The subsequent suit (O.S. No. 39 of 1993) filed by the respondent is not barred by res judicata. Additionally, no notice under Section 80 of CPC was necessary when filing the suit against the Municipal Council. However, in a suit for declaration of title and possession, the plaintiff must independently prove their title, and the burden of proof lies upon them.

Facts:

Chintaman Namdev Patil (the appellant) filed a suit against Sukhdev Namdev Patil and others (the respondents) seeking declaration and perpetual injunction over a land dispute.

The trial court dismissed the suit, but on appeal, the District Judge-3, Aurangabad, decreed in favor of the appellant.

The respondents filed a second appeal before the High Court, which admitted the appeal on two substantial questions of law.

The High Court's judgment lacked proper discussion of the issues, findings of lower courts, and failed to address the legal arguments adequately.

Issues:

Whether the High Court properly exercised its jurisdiction in deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC?

Whether the High Court's judgment satisfies the legal requirements for deciding a second appeal?

Held:

The Court held that the High Court failed to fulfill its legal obligations in deciding the second appeal. It emphasized the necessity for the High Court to properly set out the case of the parties, summarize the findings of the trial court and first appellate court, analyze the legal provisions, and address the arguments of the parties before answering the questions framed. Since the High Court did not fulfill these requirements, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with the law.

The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case and instructed the High Court to decide the appeal without being influenced by any observations made in its judgment. Additionally, considering the age of the case, the Supreme Court requested the High Court to expedite the hearing and dispose of the case preferably within six months.

Facts:

The appellant, K.P. Singh, appealed against his conviction under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The High Court had affirmed his conviction but reduced his sentence from 2 years to 1 year imprisonment with a fine.

The appellant argued that his conviction was erroneous, especially in light of the acquittal of the main accused and the lack of evidence against him.

Issues:

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was justified.

Whether the sentence imposed by the High Court was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Held:

The Court, after considering the arguments and evidence, The Supreme Court, after careful consideration of the evidence and legal contentions, modified the sentence imposed on the appellant. They held that the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant would suffice as the sentence for the conviction against him.

Justice T.S. Thakur concurred with the judgment, emphasizing the need to consider various factors in determining the adequacy of the sentence and citing relevant legal precedents.

The Court referred to several legal precedents where sentences were adjusted considering factors like delay in legal proceedings, mitigating circumstances, and the amount of bribe involved. These precedents supported the decision to modify the sentence in the present case.

Facts:

Samar Pal Singh, the appellant, is the owner and landlord of a house in Mowana, District Meerut.

The house was let out to Nawab Singh, the respondent's father, through a rent note executed on February 15, 1975.

The appellant alleged that the respondent stopped paying rent after August 1981 and initiated eviction proceedings.

The respondent contested the suit, denying default in rent payment and claiming protection under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act, 1972.

The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, ordering eviction and payment of arrears of rent and mesne profits.

The High Court set aside the eviction order, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the respondent is entitled to protection under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act, 1972.

Interpretation of the proviso to Section 20(4) regarding the acquisition of residential buildings.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 20(4) does not deprive a tenant of protection solely based on property acquisition but specifically applies to the acquisition of residential buildings. It was noted that the purpose of Section 20(4) is to protect tenants who have acquired residential-cum-commercial properties. Therefore, the High Court's decision was erroneous, and the appellant's appeal was allowed, restoring the trial court's decree for eviction (Para 12-14).

Facts:

The case involved disputes over land acquisition by the BDA for the formation of Hosur Road, Sarjapur Layout. The landowners claimed ownership through inheritance or purchase, while the BDA asserted its ownership after legally acquiring the land.

Issues:

Whether the landowners could establish adverse possession over the acquired land and whether the sales of land after the issuance of the preliminary notification for acquisition were valid.

Held:

The Court held that the claimants failed to establish adverse possession as they had not possessed the land for the statutory period of 12 years and lacked the necessary intent to possess as owners. The sales of land after the issuance of the preliminary notification for acquisition were deemed void, and the claimants could only seek compensation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals filed by the claimants, except for one, where it allowed the appeal filed by the BDA.

Facts:

Tata Steel Ltd. was granted 350 acres of land by the State of Bihar in 1969 for setting up an industry. One of the conditions of the grant stipulated that the land must be used for the specified purpose within one year, failing which the lease could be terminated. Subsequently, the Bihar Industrial Areas Development Authority Act, 1974, was enacted, and a show cause notice was issued to Tata Steel for surrendering unutilized land.

Issues:

The interpretation of the terms of the land grant, the applicability of relevant laws such as the Government Grants Act, 1895,

The authority's power to cancel allotments under the Bihar Industrial Areas Development Authority Act, 1974.

Held:

The court emphasized that the rights and obligations stemming from government land transfers are not governed by the Transfer of Property Act, but by the specific terms of the documents of transfer.

The court clarified that the Bihar Industrial Areas Development Authority Act, 1974, grants the authority the power to cancel allotments only in cases where it made the allotment, not for land transferred by the state prior to the Act.

The court ruled that the clause in the grant document regarding termination of the lease only applies in cases of total failure to utilize the land for the specified purpose.

The court allowed Tata Steel's appeal, stating that the authority couldn't invoke the clause for surrendering unutilized land, as it only applies in cases of total failure to utilize the land for the specified purpose.