Criminal Law – Sections 302, 376, 394 and 449 IPC - Circumstantial Evidence – Murder, Rape, and Robbery – Conviction Reversed – Appellant convicted for rape, robbery, and murder of 85-year-old woman – Prosecution case based solely on circumstantial evidence – Trial court and High Court convicted appellant based on alleged recovery of gold bangles and testimony of ‘last seen’ witness – Held: No eyewitness – Chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete – No forensic link between appellant and crime scene or victim – Guilt not established beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 1-4, 17-18, 24, 32-33]

Recovery Evidence – Credibility – Doubt Cast – Prosecution claimed recovery of gold bangles from appellant’s pocket at hospital following arrest – Appellant alleged police torture and false implication – Held: Recovery at 4:00 a.m., three days after incident, appears planted – Unlikely accused would carry stolen jewellery so long after crime – No evidence of proper seizure process or identity of informant leading to arrest – Recovery held unreliable [Paras 11, 22-23, 29]

Witness Testimony – Last Seen Theory – Weak Evidence – Prosecution relied on Senthil Kumar (PW-5) who saw appellant exiting compound at 2:45 a.m. – Did not see him exiting victim’s house – Did not find appellant suspicious – Akash Saksena (PW-6) stated appellant went out at 2:00 a.m. and returned perturbed – Held: Last seen evidence insufficient and uncorroborated – No link established between presence and commission of crime [Paras 8, 20, 28]

Investigation – Material Witness Not Examined – Marcus, who went with appellant to smoke at 2:00 a.m., never examined – Held: Marcus was last person seen with appellant before alleged time of offence – His omission casts serious doubt – Prosecution claim that he was not a material witness rejected – Non-examination of critical witness undermines prosecution case [Paras 21, 30]

Criminal Procedure – Deficiencies in Identification and Arrest – Prosecution failed to record identity or statement of informant who led to appellant’s arrest – No sketch or identification process followed – No test identification parade conducted – Held: Arrest narrative doubtful – Supports defence claim of earlier illegal custody and torture – Benefit of doubt to be given [Paras 22-23, 29]

Forensic Evidence – Absence of Corroboration – Sniffer dog, fingerprint and forensic teams visited crime scene – No fingerprints of appellant found – No biological samples (hair, blood, semen) linked to accused – Held: Lack of scientific evidence fatal in circumstantial case – Prosecution failed to connect accused to crime scene or victim [Paras 7, 24-25, 27]

Legal Principles – Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Must Be Complete – Reiterated: Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof – Missing links in chain fatal to conviction – Applied principles in Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala and Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh – Held: Conviction unsustainable in absence of cogent and conclusive evidence [Paras 17, 26, 31-32]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 376, 394 and 449 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case [Para 33]

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Acquittal Reversed – Appellant convicted for the murder of her niece-in-law by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze – Trial court acquitted the appellant due to inconsistencies in three dying declarations – High Court reversed acquittal relying on the first dying declaration made to an independent medical officer (PW-3) supported by forensic and medical evidence – Held: First dying declaration clear, voluntary, medically certified, and corroborated by recovery of kerosene container and burn pattern – Conviction under Section 302 IPC justified [Paras 1-3, 6, 10-12]

Dying Declarations – Admissibility – Multiple Versions – Discrepancies – Prosecution relied on three dying declarations made by deceased victim, two of which had minor inconsistencies – First dying declaration made before doctor (PW-3), a neutral witness, clearly implicated the appellant – Supreme Court held: Each dying declaration must be evaluated on its own merit – Merely because other declarations had discrepancies, the first declaration cannot be discarded if found truthful and voluntary – Statement corroborated by medical certificate and kerosene smell from body and site [Paras 6, 10, 13]

Medical Evidence – Corroboration of Dying Declaration – PW-3 (In-charge Medical Officer) testified that deceased was conscious, fit to speak, and provided consistent history implicating appellant – Medical Certificate (Exhibit 20) and Yadi to police corroborated dying declaration – Body of deceased had 100% burns and strong kerosene odour – Postmortem (Exh. 25) and physical evidence including empty kerosene container and kerosene-soaked soil further supported prosecution version – Held: High Court rightly relied on medical evidence to convict [Paras 6, 7, 10-12]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference by Appellate Court – Trial court acquitted appellant citing benefit of doubt due to minor inconsistencies – Supreme Court held: Where only one view is possible on evidence and trial court failed to properly appreciate key facts, High Court justified in reversing acquittal – First dying declaration proved and corroborated – High Court rightly convicted under Section 302 IPC [Paras 4, 6, 13-14]

Defence – Accidental Fire Theory – Rejected – Defence claimed incident was accidental – However, victim's 4-year-old son who slept beside her suffered only 10-12% burns – Victim had 100% burns – Supreme Court held: Pattern of injury inconsistent with accidental fire – Appellant’s theory unsupported by evidence – Strong smell of kerosene on clothes, body, and site corroborated deliberate act [Paras 6, 11-12]

Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed conviction under Section 302 IPC – Held: Trial court wrongly disbelieved trustworthy dying declaration given to doctor – Medical and circumstantial evidence support prosecution – High Court’s judgment restored – No interference warranted [Paras 14-15]

Family Law – Divorce – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Parties living separately since April 2010 – Multiple litigations and failed reconciliation attempts – Held: Relationship has irretrievably broken down – No purpose in perpetuating a legally defunct marriage – Supreme Court exercises powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage [Para 8–9].

Maintenance – Domestic Violence Act and CrPC – Trial Court granted monthly maintenance, education expenses, residence rights, and compensation to wife and child under DV Act – Family Court also granted additional maintenance under Section 125 CrPC – High Court set aside Family Court’s order and partly allowed husband's revision – Held: In light of comprehensive settlement, all prior orders merged into final alimony award – All pending proceedings quashed [Paras 3.5, 3.7–3.9, 8–9].

Permanent Alimony – Settlement – Respondent-husband offered Rs.1 crore as full and final settlement for all claims by wife and minor son – Supreme Court found the amount fair and reasonable considering income, duration of litigation, and circumstances – Directed payment within three months – Upon receipt, no further claims to be raised by either party [Paras 7–9].

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Scope – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to do complete justice – Dissolved marriage, settled all pending disputes, and quashed all civil/criminal proceedings arising from the matrimonial relationship – Held: Appropriate case for Article 142 relief due to protracted litigation and impossibility of marital reconciliation [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Marriage dissolved under Article 142 – Respondent-husband directed to pay Rs.1 crore as permanent alimony and final settlement to appellant-wife within 3 months – All civil and criminal proceedings between the parties arising from the marriage quashed – No further claims maintainable thereafter – Appellant to provide bank details – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 9–12].

Service Law – NIT Recruitment – One-Time Relaxation – Appellants recommended for promotion under one-time relaxation granted via GoI letter dated 06.10.2017 – Relaxation initially held ultra vires by High Court for lacking statutory support – Later validated by incorporation into First Statutes via Statute 9 of 2023 Statutes approved by the President – Held: Statute 9 has clarificatory and retrospective effect validating the 2018 selection process – High Court erred in holding amendment prospective and ordering fresh recruitment [Paras 13–18, 35–38].

Constitutional Law – Separation of Powers – Validating Legislation – Legislature cannot override court judgments but may remove statutory basis of judgment – Held: Amendment through Statute 9 did not overreach prior judgment but cured the procedural defect by incorporating relaxation into law – Action was legally valid and within legislative competence [Paras 32, 36].

Statutory Interpretation – Clarificatory Statute – Retrospective Effect – Statute 9 was explanatory of the executive relaxation dated 06.10.2017 and intended to validate the prior selection process – Held: Clarificatory statutes are presumed retrospective unless otherwise stated – Statute 9 permitted NIT Kurukshetra to complete the 2018 recruitment drive [Paras 28–31, 36].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review of Policy – High Court held 2023 amendment could not revive 2018 selection – Supreme Court held this view erroneous as the statutory change was clarificatory and lawful – Directed NIT Kurukshetra to act upon earlier recommendations [Paras 36–38].

Service Law – Notional Appointment – Relief Granted – Appellants to be considered for notional appointment as Associate Professors effective post 27.11.2018 – No financial or experiential benefit for promotion – Continuity allowed for terminal benefits only [Paras 38–40].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court judgment modified – NIT Kurukshetra to consider and process appointments of appellants/intervenors recommended under Advertisement No. 03/2018 – Appointments to be notional, without back wages or promotional experience – One-time relaxation deemed exhausted thereafter – No impact on NIT Jalandhar [Paras 38–45].

Motor Vehicles – Compensation – Fatal Accident – Reassessment of Income – Deceased died in road accident due to negligent driving of bus which deviated from its permitted route – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 18.86 lakhs based on notional income of Rs. 8,000/month – High Court reassessed income at Rs. 15,750/month with 40% future prospects, applying multiplier of 16 and appropriate deductions for dependents – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 31.84 lakhs – Held: High Court correctly applied settled principles for assessing loss of dependency and consortium benefits [Paras 4–5.1].

Motor Vehicles – Insurance Liability – Route Permit Violation – Appellant-owner’s bus did not have permit to enter Channapatna City where accident occurred – High Court applied ‘pay and recover’ principle relying on Amrit Paul (2018) 7 SCC 558 – Held: Driving vehicle outside permitted route is a fundamental breach of policy – Insurer must first compensate third parties, but entitled to recover from insured – Deviation from permit route justifies application of ‘pay and recover’ principle [Paras 5.2–10].

Motor Vehicles – Insurance Law – 'Pay and Recover' Doctrine – Applicability – Court reaffirmed that in cases involving lack of valid permit, fake or no driving license, or unauthorized goods carriage, insurer is liable to third party but can recover from owner – Cited precedents in Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, Kamla (2001) 4 SCC 342, Parminder Singh (2019) 7 SCC 217, S. Iyyapan (2013) 7 SCC 62 – Held: Principle balances rights of victims with contractual limitations of insurers – High Court’s direction upheld [Paras 7–10].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Compensation enhanced – Insurer directed to pay and recover from owner – No order as to costs [Para 11].

POCSO – Conviction – Quashed Under Article 142 – Appellant convicted under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act – During pendency of appeal, appellant married victim and they had a child – Victim (now wife) expressed desire to live peacefully with appellant and opposed continuation of proceedings – Complainant (victim's father) raised no objection – Held: Though offence under POCSO is serious and ordinarily not compoundable, in unique facts, continuation of proceedings would defeat justice and harm victim and child – Criminal proceedings quashed in exercise of powers under Article 142 to render complete justice [Paras 1-3, 5, 9-11, 14-15].

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Extraordinary power invoked to balance justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation – Court emphasized justice must not be rigid, but responsive to human realities – Appellant’s act found to be one of love, not lust – Continuation of punishment would irreparably harm familial life and cause injustice to dependent wife and child – Power under Article 142 used to override statutory bar on compounding serious offences in interest of social harmony and restorative justice [Paras 6-10, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Compromise in Heinous Offences – Statutory bar to compounding offences under POCSO Act not a constraint on constitutional power under Article 142 – Court clarified that in exceptional and unique circumstances, it may quash criminal proceedings despite statutory prohibition if continuation undermines the ends of justice – Decision not to be treated as precedent [Paras 9, 15].

Conditions Imposed – Quashing Conditional on Marital Responsibility – Court imposed continuing obligation on appellant to not desert wife and child and to maintain them with dignity – Non-compliance may invite future action – Interim relief converting exemption from surrender into absolute discharge of bail bonds granted [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act quashed – Appellant discharged from bail bonds – Directions issued to ensure welfare of victim and child – Order passed in unique circumstances and not to be treated as precedent [Paras 11-15].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance – Appellant, a Labour Officer, allegedly demanded ₹9,000 bribe and accepted ₹3,000 for license renewal – Trap set by ACB, tainted currency recovered from drawer of appellant's desk – Trial Court acquitted appellant citing inconsistencies in complainant’s account, procedural lapses, negative phenolphthalein test, and credible defence witnesses – High Court reversed acquittal – Held: Acquittal based on plausible view grounded in evidence – High Court failed to consider key contradictions and defence version – Demand and acceptance not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption under Section 20 PC Act not attracted [Paras 1, 10–14, 18–20, 33].

Evidence – Hostile Witness – Credibility – Office attendant (PW-4) turned hostile, admitted to pressure from ACB and supported defence in contemporaneous letter – Defence witnesses (DW-1, DW-2) corroborated absence of accused during alleged bribery moment – High Court unjustifiably rejected their testimony – Held: Defence version plausible, supported by consistent independent evidence – Cannot be discarded merely due to official relationship with accused [Paras 26–30].

Criminal Procedure – Reversal of Acquittal – Appellate Interference – Appellate court must show perversity or grave error in Trial Court's view – High Court failed to address material inconsistencies, speculative reasoning on motive – Suspicion cannot replace proof – Held: Trial Court’s acquittal restored as it was reasonable and based on cogent evaluation of record – No justification for appellate reversal [Paras 11–13, 33].

Public Servants – Legal Authority – Inspection of Registers – High Court held demand for registers by appellant was coercive tactic – Held: Such findings unwarranted – Labour Officers empowered by law to call for records – Written notice issued by appellant validated his actions – No illegality in procedure followed [Para 34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside – Acquittal restored – Bail bonds discharged [Para 35].

Criminal Law – Double Homicide – Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Boundary dispute between related villagers escalated into a violent clash – Appellants armed with sharp-edged spades (phawaras) attacked complainant side causing instantaneous death of two persons and grievous injuries to others – Evidence revealed appellants came armed and initiated attack – Held: Assembly had common object to commit murder and cause injuries; findings of guilt under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC fully justified – No perversity in concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court [Paras 29-31, 45, 51-52].

Appellate Review – Scope under Article 136 – Concurrent findings on fact and law – Supreme Court reiterates that interference is warranted only when findings are manifestly perverse, based on no evidence, or result in grave miscarriage of justice – Since both courts below had examined the evidence threadbare and reached concurrent conclusions supported by record, no ground to interfere made out [Paras 23-25].

Evidence – Ocular vs Medical – Injured Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – PW-2 (injured eyewitness) sustained multiple wounds consistent with prosecution case – Presence at scene admitted even by defence – Her version corroborated by medical evidence and by PW-3 and PW-4 – Minor discrepancies or omissions in narration do not dilute overall credibility – Medical evidence fully supports ocular account regarding use of sharp weapons and location of injuries – Held: Injured eyewitness testimony has greater evidentiary value and cannot be discarded on trivial inconsistencies [Paras 33-41].

Motive – Not Sine Qua Non where Direct Evidence Exists – Existence of long-standing enmity over partition of agricultural fields and a recently demolished ridge (mendh) established motive for assault – Court reiterates that where credible eyewitness evidence is available, motive assumes secondary importance – However, motive here corroborates the prosecution narrative, showing premeditated aggression by accused party [Paras 42-43].

Culpable Homicide – Section 300 Exception 4 – Plea of Sudden Fight and Free Fight Rejected – The incident was not a spontaneous brawl but a deliberate attack by armed assailants – The nature of injuries on vital parts such as skull and head, inflicted with lethal implements, demonstrates intention and knowledge necessary to constitute murder – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC not applicable – Conviction rightly under Section 302 IPC and not reduced to Section 304 IPC [Paras 44-45].

FIR – Delay in Lodging – Explanation Acceptable – Cross-FIR filed after taking injured to hospital in Chandigarh – Delay reasonably explained and caused by priority of medical care – Law well settled that delay in lodging FIR is not fatal when satisfactorily explained – Held: Delay in filing cross-case does not undermine prosecution version supported by consistent eyewitness and medical evidence [Paras 46-48].

Investigation – Non-Recovery of Weapon – Not Fatal to Prosecution Case – Though weapons (phawaras and lathis) were not recovered, the ocular testimony and post-mortem reports conclusively established use of such instruments – Non-recovery or non-production of weapons not fatal when other evidence is unimpeachable – Prosecution evidence found natural, consistent, and trustworthy [Paras 49-50].

Defence Plea – Self-Defence and Suppression of Genesis – Defence plea of self-defence and suppression of genesis rejected – No convincing evidence to show complainant side was aggressor – Injuries on accused were superficial and not contemporaneous – Held: Defence version an afterthought and cannot displace consistent prosecution case [Paras 27-30, 34].

Principles Reiterated – Credibility of injured witnesses; limited interference under Article 136; delay in FIR not fatal; non-recovery of weapons immaterial when supported by medical and ocular evidence; motive though not indispensable strengthens prosecution version; Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC not attracted in premeditated assault cases [Paras 23-52].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC affirmed – Appellants directed to surrender forthwith; bail bonds cancelled – Liberty granted to seek remission as per statutory policy – Judgment of the High Court upheld in toto [Paras 51-53].

Criminal Law – Threatening Witness to Give False Evidence – Section 195A IPC – Legislative Intent – Section 195A IPC (introduced by Act 2 of 2006) created a distinct offence of threatening or intimidating a witness to induce false evidence – Classified as a cognizable offence in the First Schedule of CrPC – Unlike Sections 193–196 IPC which are non-cognizable – Held: The offence under Section 195A IPC stands outside the procedural fetters of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC – Police can register FIR and investigate under Sections 154 and 156 CrPC without prior complaint from the court [Paras 17–20, 28–30].

Criminal Procedure – Section 195A CrPC – Additional Remedy, Not a Restriction – Section 195A CrPC (introduced by Act 5 of 2009) allows a witness or any other person to file a complaint for the offence under Section 195A IPC – It provides an optional route and does not preclude registration of FIR by police – The word “may” in Section 195A CrPC denotes discretion and not compulsion – Both mechanisms (police FIR and complaint before Magistrate) coexist harmoniously [Paras 19–21, 29].

Interpretation of Statutes – Harmonious Construction – Section 195A IPC and Section 195A CrPC to be construed together to give full effect to legislative intent – Court held that omission to specifically exclude Section 195A IPC from Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC was not a casus omissus – Judicial interpretation should not add words but reconcile provisions logically – Harmonious construction ensures that threat to witness is actionable immediately, preserving the deterrent purpose of the amendment [Paras 27–29].

Cognizable Offence – Registration of FIR – Validity – As Section 195A IPC is cognizable, police officers are empowered under Section 154 CrPC to register FIR and investigate without Magistrate’s order – Filing of court complaint is not mandatory – Delay in registering FIR or confusion among authorities cannot curtail this power – Held: High Courts erred in insisting on procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC [Paras 28–30].

Doctrine – Casus Omissus – Not Applicable – Laxity in legislative drafting cannot justify judicial legislation – Court cannot rewrite statute to create two classes of offences under Section 195A IPC depending on whether threat occurs in relation to court proceedings or outside – Clear statutory language and structure show legislative intent to treat Section 195A IPC independently [Paras 26–27].

Precedents – Divergent High Court Views Resolved – Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, and Calcutta High Courts correctly held that Section 195A IPC is cognizable and police can register FIR – Gauhati and Kerala High Courts wrongly applied Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC – Conflict resolved in favour of wider interpretation recognizing police power to act directly [Paras 21–24, 30].

Statutory Scheme – Historical Context – Chapter XI IPC (“Offences against Public Justice”) includes Sections 191–195A – While Sections 193–196 IPC were non-cognizable and required court complaint, Section 195A IPC, inserted in 2006, was deliberately made cognizable to prevent intimidation of witnesses before or during judicial proceedings – Legislative purpose was to enable swift protection of witnesses through immediate police intervention [Paras 3–10, 17–19, 28].

Case Law – Application of Prior Rulings – Reliance on Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma (2021) 12 SCC 674 rejected as inapplicable; statutory context under Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 distinguished – Followed Salib @ Shalu v. State of U.P. (2023) 20 SCC 194 to clarify that Section 195 CrPC does not control Section 195A IPC [Paras 18, 25].

Constitutional Law – Judicial Restraint – Court reiterates principle that interpretation must give effect to legislative intent without creating procedural barriers defeating substantive justice – Harmonization of CrPC and IPC provisions ensures effective protection of witnesses, fulfilling constitutional obligation under Article 136 jurisprudence [Paras 27–30].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of Kerala and Karnataka High Courts set aside – FIRs and cognizance orders restored – Offence under Section 195A IPC held cognizable and independently triable – Police empowered to investigate without complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC – Accused Suni @ Sunil directed to surrender; liberty to seek bail on other grounds – Proceedings against Basayya Thirakaya Hiremath restored before Trial Court [Paras 30].