Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant, Harivadan Babubhai Patel, was convicted for wrongful confinement, murder, conspiracy, and destruction of evidence. The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, recovery of the deceased's body at the appellant's instance, and medical evidence confirming the homicidal nature of death. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, noting the sufficiency and reliability of circumstantial evidence, and the appellant's failure to provide an explanation under Section 313 CrPC [Paras 1-24].

Last Seen Theory and Recovery of Evidence – The deceased was last seen with the appellant and others, and the dead body was recovered from a place within the appellant's special knowledge. The Court emphasized the validity of the last seen theory and the admissibility of recovery evidence under Sections 8 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The recovery of the dead body and other articles substantiated the prosecution's case [Paras 13-16].

Conspiracy and Acquittal of Co-accused – The appellant's conviction under Section 120B IPC was set aside due to the acquittal of co-accused, as conspiracy charges cannot stand against a single accused. However, the concurrent sentences for other offences, including murder, were upheld [Paras 23-24].

Delay in Lodging FIR – The delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the family's efforts to search for the deceased. The Court accepted the explanation and dismissed the argument that the delay undermined the prosecution's case. The credibility of the prosecution's explanation was affirmed based on consistent witness testimonies and circumstances [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentences for wrongful confinement, murder, and destruction of evidence. However, the conviction under Section 120B IPC was set aside due to the acquittal of the co-accused. The sentences for the other offences will run concurrently as directed by the lower courts [Paras 24].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of L. Shivaraman, based on circumstantial evidence including extra-judicial confession, motive, and forensic evidence. The Supreme Court scrutinized the chain of circumstantial evidence, finding inconsistencies and gaps that raised reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt [Paras 1-33].

Extra-Judicial Confession and Corroboration – The prosecution relied on an extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to Kalyan Singh (PW-6). The Supreme Court emphasized that extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated and the exact words used by the accused should be reproduced. The Court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the confession, reducing its reliability [Paras 9-10, 13].

Forensic Evidence and Missing Links – The knife allegedly used in the murder (Ex. P-3) bore the appellant's fingerprints, but another blood-stained knife (Ex. 2b) found with the victim’s clothing was not adequately investigated. The Court noted that the second knife was not shown to the medical examiner to determine if it could have caused the injuries, and there was no forensic examination of fingerprints on the second knife [Paras 23-30].

Procedural Irregularities and Incomplete Chain of Evidence – The Court observed procedural lapses, including the failure to seize the appellant's clothes, which were crucial for establishing the presence of blood stains. The crime scene was cleaned before the investigation, eliminating critical evidence. The non-examination of key witnesses further weakened the prosecution's case [Paras 23-32].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 33].

Illegal Detention – Compensation Claim – The appellant, N. Sengodan, an ex-service man and retired police officer, claimed damages for illegal detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. He was detained based on a complaint alleging incitement to disaffection within the police force through a press statement. The High Court dismissed his writ petition, and the Supreme Court reviewed the factual background, legal provisions, and procedural aspects to determine the validity of the appellant's claims [Paras 1-15].

Malafide Intention and Lack of Evidence – The Supreme Court found that the appellant's press statement did not incite disaffection or public disorder as alleged. The press statement sought the formation of a police association for addressing grievances and did not violate any legal provisions. The Court noted the lack of evidence to support the allegations against the appellant and criticized the authorities for acting with malafide intention to punish him without proper justification [Paras 16-33].

Procedural Irregularities and Advisory Board's Findings – The detention order was revoked by the Advisory Board, which found no sufficient cause for detention. The Supreme Court highlighted procedural irregularities, including the failure to file a charge sheet and the absence of credible evidence. The Court also noted that the respondents did not provide a valid explanation for the detention, supporting the appellant's claim of malafide actions [Paras 34-42].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and directed the State of Tamil Nadu to pay Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation to the appellant within two months. The Court emphasized the need for adherence to legal procedures and protections against wrongful detention [Paras 50-51].

Jurisdiction of Gram Panchayats – Serious Criminal Offences – The appellants sought anticipatory bail and contended that the Gram Panchayat had exclusive jurisdiction over the offence under Section 420 IPC, thereby barring police investigation and regular criminal court proceedings. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the Constitution, and the CrPC, concluding that serious criminal offences like cheating (Section 420 IPC) should be investigated and tried by regular criminal courts, not Gram Panchayats [Paras 1-19].

Police Investigation and Panchayat Jurisdiction – The Court affirmed that there is no bar for the police to investigate offences, including those listed under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act. The police have the authority to arrest and investigate cognizable offences. Gram Panchayats can take cognizance of certain minor offences suo moto, but not serious offences unless transferred by a Magistrate after investigation [Paras 10-16].

Procedural and Legal Interpretation – The Supreme Court highlighted that the Gram Panchayat lacks the qualification and power to deal with serious criminal offences, emphasizing that the powers of the police and ordinary criminal courts remain intact. The investigation and trial of serious offences, especially those involving substantial sums of money and fraud, must be conducted by competent legal authorities to ensure justice and proper legal procedure [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Appeals dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decisions, stating that the investigation and trial of serious offences like Section 420 IPC should be handled by the regular criminal courts. The Court directed that the police investigation should proceed, and the Gram Panchayat does not have exclusive jurisdiction over such offences [Paras 18-19].

Compensation for Motor Vehicle Accident – Loss of Earning and Permanent Disability – The appellant sustained severe injuries resulting in the amputation of his right leg below the knee due to an accident involving a bus owned by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 9,42,822 as compensation, which the High Court reduced to Rs. 6,72,822 by disallowing the amount for permanent disability. The Supreme Court reinstated the compensation for permanent disability and corrected the multiplier used for calculating loss of earning capacity, emphasizing that both heads of compensation are justifiable and should be awarded separately [Paras 1-19].

Determination of Multiplier and Permanent Disability – The High Court had reduced the multiplier from 13 to 10 without valid reasoning. The Supreme Court restored the multiplier to 13, as initially applied by the Tribunal, aligning with the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court upheld that the appellant, who sustained 85% permanent disability due to amputation, was entitled to separate compensation for permanent disability in addition to loss of earning capacity [Paras 13-16].

Legal Precedents and Principles – The Court referenced its previous decisions in Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh and B. Kothandapani v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., which upheld compensation under both heads. The Court emphasized that a broad-based approach and some degree of guesswork are often necessary to determine just compensation in such cases [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed. The Supreme Court awarded an additional Rs. 1,80,000 to the appellant, making the total compensation Rs. 8,52,822 with interest at 9% from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. The High Court's judgment was modified to include compensation for permanent disability and correct the multiplier for loss of earning capacity [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Appellants acquitted for the murder of the deceased by the High Court, reversing the trial court’s conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the child witness, procedural safeguards in the assessment of witness competence, and the adequacy of corroborative evidence [Paras 1-21].

Child Witness – Reliability and Corroboration – The Court discussed the reliability of a child witness and emphasized that such testimony requires adequate corroboration. The evidence of the child witness (PW-1) was found inconsistent and uncorroborated by other evidence, leading to the affirmation of the High Court’s decision [Paras 15-19].

Medical Evidence – Consistency and Interpretation – The medical evidence provided conflicting opinions on whether the death was homicidal or suicidal. The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of corroborative evidence to support medical testimony in criminal cases [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Acquittal affirmed – The Court held that the High Court’s view was reasonable and not perverse, thus no interference was warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution [Para 21].

Criminal Law – Murder and Robbery Conviction – Appellant convicted for murder and theft of a mule cart based on circumstantial evidence, including medical testimony and forensic science reports. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court reviewed the sufficiency of evidence, including witness testimonies and extra-judicial confession [Paras 1-13].Circumstantial Evidence – Sufficiency – The Court held that circumstantial evidence, including the medical evidence of PW-6 and the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution's examination of essential witnesses and the consistency of their testimonies were deemed adequate [Paras 2-7].Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility and Corroboration – The Court discussed the admissibility of the appellant's extra-judicial confession to PW-8, corroborated by other circumstantial evidence. The confession was found credible and supported by forensic evidence [Paras 8-9].Motive – Establishment – The Court found the appellant's motive to commit murder and theft established through the extra-judicial confession and other evidence, dismissing the contention that the prosecution failed to prove the motive [Para 12].Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – The Court found no infirmity in the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, holding that the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction [Para 13].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Conviction and Evidence – Appeal against conviction under Sections 8 and 21(c) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution failed to produce the contraband goods in court, leading to questions about the seizure and handling of evidence. The Court reviewed whether procedural lapses and non-production of seized items affected the conviction's sustainability [Paras 1-13].Non-Production of Contraband – Impact on Conviction – The Court emphasized the necessity of producing contraband goods in court to establish guilt under the NDPS Act. Non-production of the contraband, coupled with contradictory witness statements about the seizure, led to the conclusion that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof [Paras 6-12].Procedural Compliance – Section 52A NDPS Act – The alternative plea that contraband was destroyed without following the procedure under Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act was rejected. The Court highlighted the importance of following statutory procedures for the destruction and documentation of contraband to maintain the integrity of evidence [Paras 6, 9].Witness Testimony – Reliability – The Court found inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses (PW-2, PW-3), further weakening the prosecution's case. Hostile witnesses and lack of direct evidence connecting the accused to the contraband led to the decision to overturn the conviction [Paras 7, 11].Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – The Court ordered the release of the appellants, finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction under the NDPS Act [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Rape and House Trespass – Conviction – Appeal against the conviction under Sections 376 and 450 of IPC. The appellant challenged the findings on the grounds of alleged consent and false implication due to a land dispute. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence of the complainant and her sister-in-law, medical reports, and forensic evidence to determine the validity of the conviction [Paras 1-9].Consent – Definition and Evidence – The Court analyzed the definition of 'consent' under Section 375 IPC, emphasizing that it requires voluntary participation after exercising intelligence based on knowledge of the act's significance and moral quality. The Court found no evidence of consent from the complainant, as she resisted the appellant's advances and her sister-in-law corroborated her testimony [Paras 6-7].False Implication – Examination of Evidence – The appellant claimed false implication due to a land dispute. The Court found no evidence of such a dispute between the families and upheld the trial court's finding that the allegations were not motivated by any grudge [Para 8].Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – The Court upheld the findings of the trial court and the High Court, concluding that the evidence supported the conviction for rape and house trespass [Para 9].