Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 – Murder – Robbery – Common intention – The appellant and co-accused were convicted of murder and robbery based on witness testimonies and recoveries made from them. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed [Paras 2-8, 18-36].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 309 – Day-to-Day Trial – The Court reiterated the importance of conducting trials on a day-to-day basis as mandated by Section 309 CrPC. The trial court's failure to adhere to this provision, resulting in a two-month adjournment for cross-examination, was criticized. The Supreme Court emphasized that such adjournments should be avoided to ensure a fair and speedy trial [Paras 25-35].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 155 – Credibility of Witnesses – The appellant challenged the credibility of witnesses, particularly PW.20, who made inconsistent statements. The Supreme Court held that the trial court and the High Court correctly relied on the initial testimony of PW.20 and the recoveries made from the appellant, which were duly identified by the complainant [Paras 11-21].

Day-to-Day Trials – Judicial Instructions – The Court directed all High Courts to ensure compliance with Section 309 CrPC through appropriate circulars and to use their State Judicial Academies to train judicial officers in adhering to this mandate. The aim is to prevent undue delays in criminal trials and ensure justice is served promptly [Paras 33-35].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Held – The conviction and life sentence for murder and ten years' rigorous imprisonment for robbery, along with fines, were upheld. The Supreme Court directed the High Courts to implement and monitor compliance with procedural mandates for day-to-day trials [Paras 18-36].

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Dying Declaration – The appellant was seen by prosecution witnesses (PWs) throwing acid on the deceased. The prosecution's case was corroborated by medical evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life sentence imposed by the lower courts, dismissing the appeal. The absence of any injury on the appellant, despite taking precautions, and not sending the deceased's clothes for chemical examination were considered isolated factors that did not affect the prosecution's case [Paras 1-3, 24-26].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161 – Dying Declaration as 161 Statement – The Supreme Court held that a statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, which subsequently assumes the character of a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, can be relied upon if it meets the statutory requirements. The Court emphasized that procedural lapses, such as the absence of respectable witnesses during the recording, do not necessarily invalidate the dying declaration [Paras 16-22].

Reliability of Witnesses – The Court rejected the defense's contention that PWs-1 and 3 were stock witnesses, noting that their presence at the crime scene and their testimonies were credible and consistent. The Court also dismissed the argument that the deceased could not have made a statement due to his injuries, based on medical evidence confirming that he remained conscious for some time after the attack [Paras 6-13].

Procedural Aspects – The Court addressed the contention that procedural guidelines were not followed in recording the dying declaration. It held that while guidelines such as those in police regulations are important, they do not override statutory provisions or invalidate evidence that meets the criteria under the Evidence Act and CrPC [Paras 15-18].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Held – The conviction and life sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC are upheld. The Supreme Court affirmed the reliability of the dying declaration and the credibility of witness testimonies, dismissing procedural objections raised by the defense [Paras 31-32].

Land Acquisition – Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act – Dispute over the necessity to acquire land under Chapter VII, Section 126 of the MRTP Act after the finalization of a Town Planning Scheme – High Court held the Town Planning Scheme provisions self-operative, rejecting the need for separate acquisition under Section 126 once the scheme is sanctioned – Supreme Court affirmed High Court’s decision, emphasizing the scheme’s provisions for compensation and land vesting in the Planning Authority as adequate [Paras 18-21, 45-49].

Town Planning Scheme – Vesting of Land – Analysis of statutory vesting of land under the MRTP Act – Court observed that once the scheme is finalized and sanctioned, land required for public purposes vests in the Planning Authority automatically under Section 88, eliminating the need for separate proceedings under Section 126 – Emphasized no discrimination or denial of equal protection under Article 14 [Paras 19, 39-41, 43-44].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the compensation and land acquisition provisions under the finalized Town Planning Scheme, affirming the High Court’s interpretation of the MRTP Act’s self-contained adjudicatory mechanism [Para 49].

Criminal Procedure – First Information Report (FIR) – A cryptic telephonic information cannot be treated as an FIR – The telephonic message received from an unknown person about an unknown person's murder lacks the formal requirements under Section 154 of the CrPC – The complaint made by PW-1 Susanta Sarkar treated as FIR [Paras 35-42].

Witness Testimony – Examination Delay – Delay in examination of a witness does not necessarily make the prosecution's version suspect – The testimony of PW-7 Sanatan Sarkar rejected due to delayed examination without explanation – PW-8 Achintya Sarkar's testimony accepted despite the delay as he successfully withstood cross-examination [Paras 43-62].

Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC – Despite the severe injuries inflicted, the intention to murder was not proven beyond doubt – Conviction altered from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC [Paras 70-72].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 304 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years – Fine and default sentence awarded by the Trial Court maintained [Para 72-73].

Agricultural Land Ceiling – Determination of Excess Land – The State of Gujarat contended that the respondent held lands in excess of the ceiling limit under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960. The respondent argued that the lands were covered under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The Single Judge of the High Court accepted the respondent's stand, which was upheld by the Division Bench [Paras 2-4].

Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation – Interaction of Land Ceiling Laws – The case explores the constitutional validity and interaction between the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, particularly in light of amendments and legislative intent [Paras 6-12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, confirming that the lands in question were governed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and not the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960. The proceedings initiated under the latter were deemed null and void [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Procedure – Plea Bargaining – High Court's acceptance of the concession by counsel regarding non-challenge to conviction without evaluating the merits is impermissible – Courts must satisfy themselves of the correctness of the conviction even if the counsel concedes – A plea bargain cannot dictate the outcome of a criminal case as it undermines the judicial process [Paras 15-22].

Legitimate Expectation – Right to Appeal – A convicted person has the legitimate expectation of a full hearing on the merits of the case – It is the duty of the courts to ensure justice by thoroughly examining the evidence and the conviction, regardless of concessions made by the defense counsel – Fundamental rights under Article 21 necessitate this due process [Paras 16, 21].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and remitted the case to the High Court to be decided on merits – The appellants were to be released on bail pending the final decision of the High Court [Para 22].

Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Even with a hostile eyewitness, circumstantial evidence can lead to a conviction if all facts and circumstances point to a single conclusion – The appellant's conduct and recovery of a bloodstained cloth were significant – The conviction was modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of intent to kill [Paras 22-40].

Hostile Witness – Credibility and Corroboration – The testimony of a hostile witness need not be rejected outright – The court should assess the credibility and look for corroboration – The eyewitness's partial testimony was accepted and corroborated by medical evidence and other facts [Paras 23-33].

Intention to Kill – Evaluation of Evidence – The court determined that the appellant did not have the intent to kill but had knowledge that his actions could likely cause death – Thus, the conviction was altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC, Part II [Paras 35-40].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 304 IPC, Part II – Sentenced to the period already undergone, which was over eight years [Paras 41-43].

Criminal Procedure – Sentence Reduction – The appellants were convicted under Section 8(1) read with Section 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine – The High Court reduced the sentence from three years to 18 months – The Supreme Court further reduced the sentence to one year and reduced the default sentence for failure to pay the fine to fifteen days – The Court noted that the appellants were small-time operators and not the masterminds behind the illicit trade [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Discretion – Fine Imposition – Section 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act prescribes a minimum fine of Rs. 100,000 without an upper limit, leading to discrimination against poor offenders who cannot pay the fine and thus face extended imprisonment – The Court suggested the desirability of judicial discretion in fine imposition to avoid such discrimination [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed to Limited Extent – Sentence of imprisonment reduced to one year – Default sentence for failure to pay the fine reduced to fifteen days – Relief extended to accused No. 1, who did not appeal, due to similar circumstances [Paras 11-14].

Auction Sale – Deposit of Purchase Money – Compliance with Order 21 Rules 84 and 85 CPC – The auction purchaser deposited 25% of the bid amount on the date of the auction and the remaining 75% within the statutory period – The auction was confirmed by the Executing Court and upheld by the High Court – The appellant's contention of non-compliance was rejected as the deposits were made within the time frame allowed by law [Paras 8-14].

Judicial Interpretation – "Immediately" – The term "immediately" in Order 21 Rule 84 CPC interpreted to mean with all reasonable speed considering the circumstances – The Court held that in high-value auctions, immediate payment in cash is not feasible, and reasonable time is allowed for preparing demand drafts [Para 14].

Application to Set Aside Sale – Order 21 Rule 89 CPC – The appellant's application to set aside the sale was dismissed due to failure to deposit the required amount within the specified time – The deposit under Rule 89 must be unconditional, and the application cannot be entertained without compliance [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the Executing Court and the High Court – The belated offer to deposit the amount was rejected [Para 22].