Facts:

The Respondents were retired government college teachers, who were granted Lecturers (Selection Scale) before 1.1.1986 and retired between 1991 to 2004. They had completed three years of service in the said pay-scale prior to 1.1.2006. The government revised pay scales for college teachers in 1999 and issued a circular in 2008 for the revision of pension/family pension of pre-1.9.2006 pensioners. Disputes arose regarding the applicability of revised pay scales and pension rules to the Respondents.

Issues:

Whether the Respondents were entitled to the revised pay scale and pension benefits.

Interpretation of pension rules and circulars issued by the government.

Applicability of UGC regulations and guidelines.

Held:

The Division Bench held that the Respondents were entitled to the revised pay scale and pension benefits as per the applicable rules and circulars. It was observed that pension is a right and not a bounty, and the government is obligated to provide it based on the rules in force. The Bench emphasized that the language in the rules may vary, but the essence remains the same, as seen in a similar case decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The financial burden on the state was not considered a valid reason to deny the pension benefits to the Respondents. The appeals were dismissed, and the state was directed to extend the benefits to the Respondents within three months, failing which interest would be payable.

Facts:

The case involved the murder of a boy named Akash, with the respondents accused of the crime. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of a single witness, PW2 Mewa Ram, who claimed to have seen the respondents taking the victim inside their baithak and later discovering the victim's dead body in a pool of blood.

Issues:

Whether the testimony of the sole witness could be relied upon to establish the guilt of the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt.

Held and Decision:

The Court found several inconsistencies and gaps in the testimony of PW2. Firstly, there was no corroboration of his presence at the scene or the events he described. Secondly, there was no evidence regarding the movements of the victim prior to the incident, nor were other potential witnesses examined to confirm the victim's presence with the respondents. Thirdly, the prosecution failed to establish the direct involvement of the respondents in the crime beyond the testimony of PW2. Additionally, no blood-stained clothes or significant evidence linking the respondents to the crime scene were recovered. Considering the gravity of the charges and the lack of conclusive evidence against the respondents, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision to acquit them. The court emphasized the need for stricter scrutiny in cases involving capital punishment and concluded that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Facts:

The case involved a prematurely born baby girl who suffered the loss of eyesight. The parents alleged medical negligence against the State of Tamil Nadu, its government hospital, and two government doctors, contending that the child was not screened for Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) as required.

Issues:

Whether the respondents were negligent in their duty towards the child's medical care?

What compensation should be awarded for the loss suffered by the child and her family?

Held:

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) findings regarding the respondents' negligence were upheld. The respondents failed to screen the child for ROP within the mandated period, leading to a breach in their duty of care.

The court acknowledged the lifelong impact of the child's blindness and awarded compensation for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages, and future care needs. The compensation was calculated considering inflationary trends.

The State of Tamil Nadu and the hospital were held vicariously liable for the damages caused by the negligence of their employees. Therefore, they were directed to pay the awarded compensation.

Decision: The court directed the respondents to pay a specified amount in compensation, including a fixed deposit in the name of the child to cover future medical expenses and generate interest for her care. Failure to comply within the stipulated period would attract penal interest.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over land between the appellant, Jagtar Singh, and the deceased's family members. The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing the death of Surinder Singh, the deceased.

Issues:

The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence, arguing lack of motive, severity of the injury, and the reliability of witness testimonies.

Held:

The court found clear evidence that the appellant was the aggressor, leading to the victim's death. Eyewitness testimonies supported this conclusion. The court also established the existence of a motive, stemming from the land dispute and the appellant's resentment towards the deceased's family. The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part II of IPC, considering the nature of the injury and the cause of death. The court declined to reduce the sentence, deeming the five-year imprisonment appropriate given the circumstances.

Facts:

The case pertains to Contempt Petitions (Civil) filed in connection with Civil Appeal Nos. 9813, 9833 of 2011 and Civil Appeal No. 8643 of 2012. The issue revolves around the encashment of a bank guarantee provided by Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. and others.

The bank guarantee format lacked a trigger point for encashment, leading to the court's examination of options to stipulate conditions for encashment. Most properties owned by Sahara group remained frozen by the court's order, necessitating time for the contemnors to deposit the balance amount.

Issues:

The trigger point for encashment of the bank guarantee provided by the contemnors. Additionally, the court must consider how to ensure compliance with its orders regarding the deposit of the outstanding balance.

Held:

The court, after careful consideration, accepts the bank guarantee format furnished by the contemnors. It grants them time to deposit the remaining balance in accordance with the court's directions. The trigger point for encashment of the bank guarantee shall be the default by the contemnors in depositing the balance amount as per the court's directives.

Decision: The court disposes of the case, acknowledging the bank guarantee provided by the contemnors and granting them time to fulfill their obligations. The bank guarantee will become encashable upon default by the contemnors in depositing the balance amount as directed by the court.

Facts:

The case involved a petition seeking the annulment of the Pre-Medical and Pre-Dental Entrance Test 2015-16 conducted by the CBSE due to malpractices and unfair means employed during the examination.

Issues:

Whether the examination should be annulled due to the use of deceitful means and malpractices, despite the time schedule set by previous Supreme Court rulings?

Whether holding a fresh examination is necessary to uphold the integrity of the examination system and ensure fairness to all candidates?

Held:

The examination indeed suffered from a deep-rooted conspiracy involving a syndicate using electronic devices to access answer keys during the test, providing an unfair advantage to certain candidates.

Despite only 44 candidates being identified initially, it was believed that many more had benefited from the malpractice, compromising the integrity of the examination (Para 15).

The examination could not be sustained as it was denuded of its sanctity and fairness due to the pervasive impact of the malpractices.

Departing from the time schedule set by previous court rulings was justified in the extraordinary circumstances involving pervasive malpractices.

The CBSE was directed to conduct a fresh examination within four weeks to uphold the integrity of the examination system and ensure fairness to all candidates.

Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the CBSE to annul the Pre-Medical and Pre-Dental Entrance Test 2015-16 and hold a fresh examination within four weeks.

Facts:

The case revolved around the murder of Nand Karan, a retired Master, in his residence.

The prosecution alleged that Indra Dalal, Bijender @ Vijay, and Mahabir conspired to murder Nand Karan due to a grudge stemming from a previous criminal trial.

The assailant, identified as Udeyveer, shot Nand Karan twice before fleeing on a scooter.

Confessional statements were obtained from the accused while they were in police custody, implicating them in the conspiracy.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution had proved the involvement of the accused in the conspiracy to murder Nand Karan with the aid of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

The admissibility and evidentiary value of the confessional statements and the recovery of the scooter from Indra Dalal's house were also questioned.

Held:

The confessional statements made by the appellants while in police custody were deemed inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, as they were made to a police officer.

The recovery of the scooter from Indra Dalal's house lacked sufficient evidence to prove ownership, casting doubt on its relevance to the case.

The disclosure/confessional statement made by Jaibir in another case was considered irrelevant to prove the charge of conspiracy, as it was made after the alleged crime, and common intention had ceased to exist.

The prosecution failed to prove the charge of conspiracy against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgment and sentence were set aside.

The bail bonds of Indra Dalal were discharged, and Bijender @ Vijay and Jaibir were ordered to be released from jail unless required in any other case.

Facts:

Shabnam and Salim were co-accused in a murder case involving seven members of Shabnam's family.

They were convicted and sentenced to death by the Sessions Court, a decision upheld by the High Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Issues:

The legality of issuing death warrants immediately after the dismissal of criminal appeals.

The necessity of allowing convicts to exhaust all legal remedies, including review petitions and mercy petitions, before execution.

Held:

The court emphasized the importance of exhausting all legal remedies available to the convicts before execution. The right to file a review petition, as provided under Article 137 of the Constitution, is of high procedural sanctity.

The right to file mercy petitions to the Governor and President, as enshrined in Article 72 and Article 161 of the Constitution, remains intact. The power to pardon death sentences is a constitutional remedy independent of the judiciary.

Execution of death warrants before the exhaustion of all legal remedies would violate Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

Human dignity is a fundamental aspect recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution, which extends beyond the confirmation of a death sentence. The process from confirmation to execution must uphold human dignity to a reasonable extent.

The court quashed the death warrants issued by the Sessions Judge, emphasizing the need to follow prescribed procedures and guidelines laid down by both the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Facts:

The prosecution alleged that the appellants assaulted and caused the death of Basavaraj over a land dispute. However, the Trial Court found the prosecution witnesses' testimonies unreliable, citing unnatural conduct and inconsistencies. Specifically, it noted that the witnesses, despite claiming to witness the assault, did not intervene to help Basavaraj and returned home even after the assailants fled the scene. Additionally, they made no attempt to provide aid to Basavaraj, who was left injured for several hours until the police arrived.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt?

Whether the conduct of the prosecution witnesses renders their testimonies unreliable?

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, finding the prosecution's version of events unpersuasive. It highlighted various inconsistencies, including the destruction of the original complaint and the introduction of a new narrative by the police. The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges. Consequently, the appellants were to be released from custody immediately unless required for any other case.