Facts:

The case involves the murder of Hasen Ali on 5.1.2001 at Chapra Beparipara, under Chapar Police Station. The accused formed an unlawful assembly and committed the murder.

Issues:

Powers of the appellate Court in appeals against acquittals.

Sufficiency of testimonies of related witnesses without corroboration from independent witnesses.

Held:

The Supreme Court reiterates the principles regarding the powers of the appellate court in dealing with appeals against acquittals. It emphasizes the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the need for reasons if the appellate court decides to overturn the trial court's decision.

The testimonies of related witnesses, PW-4 and PW-5, should be credible, reliable, and corroborated by other evidence. However, in this case, their testimonies contradicted each other, and there was no corroboration from independent witnesses. Therefore, corroboration by an independent witness was necessary.

Considering the above, the Supreme Court concludes that the Trial Court's decision to acquit the accused was reasonable. It sets aside the High Court's judgment and orders the release of the appellants.

Facts:

Central Bank of India provided a loan to a partnership firm, with C.L. Vimla acting as a guarantor.

Legal proceedings ensued after the firm defaulted on the loan repayment, including before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and Lok Adalat.

A settlement was reached between the bank and the borrower, but the guarantor claimed ignorance of this settlement.

The High Court set aside the auction sale of the mortgaged property, ruling in favor of the guarantor.

The Supreme Court examined the liability of the guarantor under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the validity of the auction sale.

Issues:

Whether the liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor.

Whether the auction sale of the mortgaged property was valid.

Held:

The liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless explicitly stated otherwise in the contract.

The guarantor cannot escape liability based on ignorance of the settlement, especially when the guarantee agreement explicitly states that any judgment or award against the principal debtor would be binding on them.

The conduct of the guarantor and her family members in the legal proceedings, including repeated attempts to stall the recovery process, was noted.

The auction purchaser had acted in good faith and paid the full sale consideration for the property. Considering the equities involved and the conduct of the parties, the auction sale was upheld.

Facts:

The case stems from a dispute between two brothers over land ownership, culminating in the brutal murder of three children. Initially acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the accused Upendra Pradhan was later convicted by the High Court under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Issues:

The credibility of witness testimonies, the application of principles of evidence, the consideration of the accused's claim of juvenility, and the correctness of the High Court's decision to reverse the acquittal.

Held:

The Supreme Court, upon review, holds that the reversal of Upendra Pradhan's acquittal by the High Court was erroneous. It emphasizes the importance of the presumption of innocence and the necessity of considering all reasonable doubts in favor of the accused. The Court also highlights the significance of testimonies from interested witnesses and the principle that no man would be willing to spare the real culprit and frame an innocent person. Moreover, the Court acknowledges Upendra's claim of juvenility at the time of the offense and affirms that he falls within the definition of a "juvenile" under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

Considering these factors, the Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's judgment, ordering Upendra Pradhan's release. This decision aligns with previous rulings emphasizing adherence to juvenile justice laws and the principle of benefiting the accused in case of doubt.

Facts:

The incident occurred on 28.09.1983, where the deceased, Shiv Shanker, was shot and killed.

The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence.

Hari Shanker and three others were accused in the case, with Hari Shanker allegedly firing the first shot.

The High Court acquitted three co-accused due to lack of conclusive evidence but upheld Hari Shanker's conviction.

Hari Shanker appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction.

Issues:

Whether Hari Shanker's conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC is sustainable.

Whether Hari Shanker's individual role in the crime warrants a different conviction.

Held:

In the present case, there is concurrent findings of conviction of the Appellant by the Sessions Court and the High Court on the basis of the statement of eye witness (PW2) and its corroboration by the medical evidence.

Thus, the role attributed to the Appellant becomes proved. He made a gunshot which caused an injury on the right hand wrist of the deceased. Without doubt, this injury could not have caused the death of the Deceased. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court was misplaced in maintaining the conviction of the present Appellant Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. We therefore, alter the conviction of the Appellant to one Under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. We accordingly sentence him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment Under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

Facts:

The appellant, D.T. Virupakshappa, was accused in a private complaint filed by the respondent, C. Subhash, alleging offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The complaint pertained to alleged police excess during the investigation of a criminal case, where the appellant was accused of assaulting the respondent to extract information regarding the death of a person named Sannamma.

The magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the appellant without prior sanction from the State Government under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issues:

Whether the magistrate could have taken cognizance of the offense and issued process without the requisite sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Whether the alleged conduct of the appellant was reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty, warranting the necessity of prior sanction.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court.

The Court held that the alleged police excess, involving the appellant, was reasonably connected with the performance of his official duty.

Referring to previous rulings, the Court emphasized that the question of whether sanction is necessary can arise at any stage of the proceedings.

The Court invoked Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires prior sanction from the State Government for prosecuting government servants for offenses committed while acting in discharge of their official duties.

The judgment clarified that it only addressed the issue of sanction and did not consider the merits of the case.

The Court directed that the proceedings initiated by the magistrate be quashed, highlighting that the respondent could approach the State Government for sanction under Section 197.

Facts:

The case involved the transfer of a criminal case from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka. The State of Karnataka appointed a Special Public Prosecutor for the trial. Subsequently, the State of Tamil Nadu appointed the same prosecutor to represent the state in appeal proceedings before the Karnataka High Court.

Issues:

Whether the State of Tamil Nadu had the authority to appoint the Public Prosecutor for the appeal proceedings.

Whether the invalid appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor necessitates a de novo hearing of the appeal.

The role and duties of the appellate judge in cases related to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Held:

The Court held that the State of Tamil Nadu lacked the authority to appoint the Public Prosecutor for appeal proceedings. The sole prosecuting agency, in this case, was the State of Karnataka, authorized to appoint the Public Prosecutor.

The appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor for trial did not extend to representation in appeal proceedings before the High Court.

Despite the invalidity of the appointment, the Court decided against ordering a de novo hearing of the appeal. Instead, it directed the appellate judge to consider written submissions from both parties and make a judgment based on the existing record.

The appellate judge's duty was emphasized, particularly in cases related to corruption, to comprehensively evaluate the case and ensure justice is administered fairly. The appeal stands disposed of.

Facts:

The case involves a fatal assault where the victim was stabbed multiple times by accused individuals armed with weapons. The victim eventually succumbed to his injuries after three days, while one witness managed to escape the assault.

Issues:

Whether the evidence establishes the presence of an unlawful assembly.

Whether witness testimonies and the dying declaration of the victim are reliable.

Whether the plea of alibi by one of the accused can be accepted.

Whether the offense should be classified as murder under Section 302 IPC.

Held:

The evidence on record clearly establishes the presence of an unlawful assembly, with each accused being aware of their involvement. Therefore, the submission regarding non-framing of charges under Section 149 IPC is deemed insignificant.

Witness testimonies and the dying declaration of the victim are found to be reliable, despite attempts to discredit them. The prosecution successfully established the presence of witnesses at the scene of the crime, and the dying declaration was deemed credible and conscious.

The plea of alibi by one of the accused is rejected, as evidence proves their presence at the scene of the crime. The burden shifts to the accused to establish the plea of alibi, which was not done convincingly.

Considering the nature of injuries inflicted on the victim and the previous animosity, the offense is not downgraded from murder under Section 302 IPC to a lesser charge. The court concludes that it is not a fit case for such conversion.

Facts:

Col. A.N. Kapur obtained perpetual leasehold rights for a vacant plot from the Government of India in 1962.

He sold his rights to the first Defendant-Firm in 1963, who entered into an agreement of sale in 1973 with Smt. Ram Pyari.

Possession of the property was transferred to Smt. Ram Pyari on the agreement date, with the sale deed execution scheduled for December 2, 1973.

Extensions for executing the sale deed were sought by Defendants citing the need to obtain permission from the lessor, with the last extension expiring on February 1, 1977.

In 1985, sons of the second Defendant filed a suit claiming the property as ancestral, which was dismissed in 1989.

Plaintiffs claimed the cause of action arose after August 1991 when the Defendants began avoiding them.

The suit for specific performance was filed on April 29, 1994.

Issues:

Whether the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

Held:

The Court observed that Article 54 of the Limitation Act provides a three-year limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance from the date fixed for performance or from the date of notice of performance refusal.

The last extension for performance expired on February 1, 1977, and the suit was filed on April 29, 1994, beyond the three-year limit.

The Court noted that the Plaintiffs' claim of a later cause of action after 1991 did not extend the limitation period, as the original cause of action arose on the date fixed for performance.

Delay in filing the suit, despite knowledge of the suit filed by the second Defendant's sons in 1985, further supported the conclusion of the suit being time-barred.

The High Court's decision to set aside the Trial Court's order rejecting the plaint was found to be erroneous, and the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the Trial Court's order.

Facts:

Vinod Kumar Subbiah (Appellant) filed a divorce petition against Saraswathi Palaniappan (Respondent) under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging various instances of cruelty.

The Trial Court granted divorce to the Appellant based on evidence of cruelty by the Respondent.

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's decision, considering the allegations as ordinary wear and tear of married life.

Issues:

Whether the instances of cruelty alleged by the Appellant warrant divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the divorce petition on grounds of ordinary wear and tear of married life.

Held:

We have carefully considered the matter, and find that we are unable to uphold the conclusions of the High Court. The Appellant had duly pleaded instances of mental cruelty which he proved in evidence and documents. An examination of the divorce petition makes it abundantly clear that various allegations of cruelty were made out and a number of incidents were mentioned therein...After a cursory discussion of the evidence which the Trial Court had discussed threadbare, the High Court was not justified to set aside the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court without giving substantiated reasons.

We thus allow these Appeals and set aside the Impugned Order, but desist from imposing costs. The Trial Court's decision granting dissolution of the marriage between the parties is hereby restored.