Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – Appellant claimed juvenility at the time of the offense – Evidence presented included High School Board Mark-sheet and admission register indicating date of birth as 25.2.1977 – Court found appellant to be 16 years, 6 months, and 2 days old on the date of the incident [Paras 5-7].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy to Murder – Appellant charged under Sections 341, 294, 307 read with Section 34 IPC – Allegation of providing a pistol and exhorting co-accused to shoot the victim – Trial Court convicted under Sections 341, 307 read with Section 34 IPC; acquitted under Section 294 IPC – Sentenced to one month for Section 341 and one year for Section 307 with fines [Paras 2-3].

Appeal Outcome – High Court set aside conviction under Section 341 IPC but upheld conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC – Supreme Court examined juvenility claim – Directed case to Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate sentencing [Paras 4, 7-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence by trial court set aside due to appellant’s juvenility at the time of the offense – Case referred to Juvenile Justice Board for sentencing in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Admissibility of Confessions – Confessional statements made by accused in a separate case (Special Case No. 4 of 2009) sought to be introduced in the present case (Special Case No. 21 of 2006) – Court held that such statements are inadmissible as they do not form part of the same transaction and are not spontaneous reactions to the fact in issue – Statements made two years after the incident lack immediacy and live link to the bomb blasts [Paras 25-31].

Evidence Law – Hearsay Rule and Res Gestae – Statements made by accused to police officers two years post-incident do not qualify as "res gestae" – Not contemporaneous with the fact in issue and hence inadmissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act – Confessional statements are also inadmissible as they do not satisfy the requirements under Sections 24, 25, 26, and 30 of the Evidence Act [Paras 17-21, 29].

Admissibility under Section 11 of Evidence Act – Facts inconsistent with the prosecution case can be relevant but require primary evidence – Oral evidence must be direct – Confessional statements made to police officers and not by direct witnesses are inadmissible as they are hearsay and fail the primary evidence test under Section 60 of the Evidence Act [Paras 32-34].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order allowing summoning of witnesses to prove confessional statements set aside – Confessional statements recorded in Special Case No. 4 of 2009 are inadmissible in Special Case No. 21 of 2006 [Para 8, 34].

Lokayukta Appointment – Review of Judgment – Review petitions filed against Supreme Court judgment on appointment of Lokayukta under Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 – Petitioners cited a subsequent Supreme Court judgment interpreting the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 – Court distinguished between provisions of Gujarat and Karnataka Acts – Held that the Chief Justice's primacy in the consultation process under Gujarat Act was correctly interpreted in the original judgment [Paras 2-16].

Consultation Process – Distinction between State Acts – Gujarat Act requires consultation with Chief Justice and Leader of Opposition, giving primacy to Chief Justice's opinion – Karnataka Act involves broader consultation with multiple dignitaries, but Chief Minister’s advice is primary – Court upheld the interpretation of respective statutes based on their distinct legislative frameworks [Paras 5-10].

No Ground for Review – Court found no apparent error in the original judgment – Review petitions dismissed as the grounds raised were already considered and addressed in the original judgment – Difference in statutory language and context between Gujarat and Karnataka Acts was emphasized [Paras 16].

Decision – Review petitions dismissed – Original judgment upheld – Distinctive statutory provisions of Gujarat and Karnataka Acts recognized, affirming the primacy of the Chief Justice's opinion under the Gujarat Act [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Appellant convicted under Sections 304B and 498A IPC – FIR alleged physical and mental torture by appellant and his relatives for dowry – Demand of Rs. 50,000/- claimed to be for purchasing a computer and starting a business – Court held such demand not connected with marriage and not a dowry demand within the meaning of Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Conviction set aside [Paras 6-7].

Evidence Law – Suicide Note – Appellant produced a suicide note allegedly written by the deceased, absolving him and blaming her parents – Trial Court and High Court disbelieved note without comparing handwriting or seeking expert opinion – Court held failure to properly evaluate the note created reasonable doubt on prosecution’s case – Appeal allowed [Paras 8-9].

Demand of Dowry – Definition and Scope – Demand for money six months after marriage for setting up business held not to be in connection with marriage – Penal provisions to be strictly construed – Demand for computer purchase not covered under dowry [Paras 6-7].

Burden of Proof – Harassment and Cruelty – Prosecution failed to prove specific acts of cruelty or harassment beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence of general harassment insufficient to convict under Sections 304B and 498A IPC – Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act not applicable without proving harassment or cruelty soon before death [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC set aside – Bail bond discharged [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Appellant acquitted by trial court – High Court reversed acquittal based on evidence of fresh dowry demands and harassment – Demand for television, fridge, and cooler found to be dowry demands as per Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC upheld by High Court – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6-9].

Evidence Law – Delay in FIR – Trial Court questioned the credibility of prosecution due to 51-hour delay in lodging FIR – High Court did not find delay sufficient to reject prosecution case – Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act applied due to proven demand and harassment soon before death [Paras 6-9].

Assessment of Evidence – Contradictions and Omissions – Trial Court disbelieved witnesses due to improvements in their statements – High Court found discrepancies not significant enough to discredit entire testimony – Evidence showed consistent demand for dowry and related harassment [Paras 7-8].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Section 113B Evidence Act – Appellant claimed natural death due to rheumatic pain – Failed to produce treating doctor as witness – Presumption of dowry death not rebutted – Conviction under Section 304B IPC upheld [Para 9].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment of conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC upheld – Appellant directed to be taken into custody to serve remaining sentence [Para 10].

Arbitration Law – Enforcement of Foreign Award – Respondent obtained arbitral award in U.S. against subsidiary of petitioner – Respondent sought execution of award in India – Petitioner contended award needed confirmation by U.S. court under Federal Arbitration Act before execution – Court held that confirmation not required due to provisions of New York Convention and Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Petition dismissed [Paras 2-10].

Double Exequatur – Requirement Abolished – Court noted the elimination of double exequatur requirement under New York Convention – Observed that additional procedural steps for enforcing foreign awards are unnecessary and cause delays – Upheld enforceability of award without U.S. court confirmation [Paras 7-10].

Binding Nature of Award – Paragraph 7 of consent order specified award as final and binding – No challenge issued by petitioner within stipulated notice period under U.S. law – Submission that confirmation was needed found untenable [Paras 2, 10].

Decision – Special Leave Petition dismissed – Delhi High Court’s order on execution of foreign arbitral award upheld – No error found in rejecting petitioner’s objections based on lack of U.S. court confirmation [Para 10].

Examinations – Errors in Model Answer Key – High Court found 45 out of 100 answers in model key erroneous – Directed fresh examination for Junior Engineers – Appellants, selected based on faulty evaluation, challenged the order – Supreme Court held re-evaluation with correct key preferable to fresh examination [Paras 2-8, 16].

Re-Evaluation – Corrected Answer Key – Supreme Court directed re-evaluation using correct key prepared by experts – Ordered drawing of fresh merit list based on re-evaluation – Appointments to be offered to candidates based on revised merit list [Paras 19].

Relief to Appellants – Continuation in Service – Supreme Court allowed current appointees to retain positions even if they fall below cut-off after re-evaluation – Recognized their long service and lack of fraud/misconduct – Directed their placement at bottom of new merit list if they do not make the grade [Paras 17-18].

Seniority and Appointments – Revised Merit List – Appointments based on re-evaluation to relate back to initial appointment date – No back wages or other benefits for new appointees – Ensured continuity of service and seniority for affected candidates [Paras 19].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – High Court order modified – Re-evaluation of answer scripts with correct key directed – Fresh merit list to be drawn – Appointments to be adjusted as per revised merit list – Current appointees to continue in service if they fall below cut-off [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC – High Court upheld trial court's conviction – Supreme Court found no evidence of direct cruelty or harassment by Appellant Nos. 2 and 4 – Conviction based on silence and non-involvement in dowry dispute settlement insufficient to establish guilt under Sections 304B and 498A IPC [Paras 5-9].

Harassment and Cruelty – Definition and Proof – Section 304B IPC requires proof of cruelty or harassment soon before death – Section 498A IPC necessitates specific acts of cruelty – Silence and non-participation in dowry settlement not equated with cruelty or harassment – Conviction of Appellant Nos. 2 and 4 set aside due to lack of direct evidence [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC set aside for Appellant Nos. 2 and 4 – Bail bonds discharged [Para 9].

Representing Advocates:

Raghenth Basant, Goutam Khanzanchi, and Senthil Jagadeesan for the Appellant

Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent

Collective Investment Scheme – Definition and Scope – SEBI determined PGF Limited’s sale and development of agricultural land as a collective investment scheme – High Court upheld SEBI’s order – Supreme Court affirmed, finding scheme met criteria under Section 11AA: pooling of investor contributions, management on behalf of investors, and lack of day-to-day control by investors [Paras 6-7, 35-37].

Legislative Competence – Validity of Section 11AA SEBI Act – PGF Limited challenged validity, arguing agricultural land transactions fall under State List Entry 18 – Supreme Court rejected argument, holding collective investment schemes fall under Parliament’s purview via Entry 97, List I (residuary powers) – Objective is investor protection, not regulation of agricultural land per se [Paras 30-34, 36-40].

Investor Protection – Need for Regulation – Court emphasized importance of regulating schemes to prevent fraud and protect investors – Collective investment schemes must be registered with SEBI to ensure transparency and accountability – Reaffirmed Parliament's intent to curb exploitative schemes and protect vulnerable investors [Paras 38-42].

Constitutional Validity – Upholding SEBI’s Authority – Section 11AA found constitutionally valid – Court held the provision appropriately aimed at safeguarding investor interests and regulating schemes promising high returns under agricultural development pretexts – SEBI’s order directing PGF Limited to refund investors’ money upheld [Paras 43, 53].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Section 11AA of the SEBI Act upheld as constitutionally valid – PGF Limited’s activities classified as collective investment scheme subject to SEBI regulation – Company directed to comply with SEBI’s refund order [Para 53].