Criminal Law - Sentencing - Death Penalty - Confirmation and commutation - Conviction of appellant for multiple heinous crimes including rape, murder, attempted murder, and robbery upheld by the Supreme Court - Examination of the appellant's motive and circumstances surrounding the crime led to the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. [Paras 1-23]

Death Sentence - Mitigating and Aggravating Factors - Held - The appellant's actions driven primarily by lust and panic, not premeditated intent to murder - Lack of criminal activity in the six years between the crime and arrest - Death penalty deemed inappropriate under 'rarest of rare' doctrine - Sentence commuted to life imprisonment. [Paras 19-23]

Evidence - Reliability - Concurrent findings by Trial Court and High Court - Eyewitness accounts from survivors, medical evidence, and recovery of stolen jewellery from pawn shops corroborate prosecution's case - Conviction of appellant affirmed beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 15-18]

Decision - Commutation of Death Sentence - Supreme Court confirms the conviction and sentences for rape, murder, attempted murder, and robbery, but commutes the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing reformation over capital punishment. [Para 23]

Corporate Law - Recovery Proceedings - Non-obstante Clauses - Interpretation - Civil appeal arising from a conflict between RDDB Act and SICA regarding priority of statutes - Supreme Court held that Section 22 of SICA, providing a stay on proceedings against sick industrial companies, prevails over RDDB Act's recovery provisions due to the specific protection SICA affords to such companies - Legislative intent and purpose analyzed - Parliament's express inclusion of SICA within the non-derogation clause of Section 34(2) of RDDB Act emphasizes SICA's primacy in matters of industrial sickness and rehabilitation. [Paras 17-51] Conflict of Laws - SICA vs. RDDB Act - Harmonious Construction - Supreme Court applied the principle of harmonious construction to resolve the conflict - Found that SICA's aim to rehabilitate sick industries was paramount and must take precedence over RDDB Act's recovery mechanisms, ensuring sick companies are not burdened with additional legal proceedings while under reconstruction. [Paras 36-41] Decision - Dismissal of Writ Petitions - The writ petitions challenging the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) orders were dismissed - The judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had set aside the DRAT order confirming the auction sale, was reversed - Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing SICA's protective measures for sick companies over RDDB Act's recovery proceedings. [Paras 52-54]

Service Law - Equal Treatment of Similarly Situated Persons - Delay and Laches - Appeal against the High Court's affirmation of Tribunal's order granting benefits to respondents whose appointments were canceled in 1987, on the ground of parity with others who successfully challenged similar cancellations - Supreme Court analyzes the principles of equal treatment and the doctrine of delay and laches.

Principles of Equality and Delay - Analysis - Held - When relief is granted to a set of employees by the Court, identically situated persons should generally be treated similarly. Exceptions include cases involving laches, delays, and acquiescence. The court distinguishes between judgments intended to benefit all similarly situated persons (judgments in rem) and those benefiting only parties before the Court (judgments in personam). [Paras 1-11, 23]

Delay and Acquiescence - Application - Held - Respondents acquiesced to the cancellation of their appointments by failing to challenge the orders for nine years. Their claim, filed after learning of the success of similarly situated persons, suffers from unexplained delay and laches. Relief is denied due to the prolonged delay and the impracticality of appointing respondents after 27 years. [Paras 12-25]

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Supreme Court sets aside the High Court and Tribunal's orders. No relief granted to respondents due to delay and acquiescence, maintaining the principle that equity aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. [Paras 24-25]

Criminal Law – Conviction for Abetment of Suicide – Appeal Against Conviction –Criminal appeal challenging the conviction under Section 306 IPC by the trial court, affirmed by the High Court – Allegations of dowry harassment against the appellant (mother-in-law) and other family members – No substantial evidence found against the appellant specifically for demand of dowry or abetment – Conviction based on the deceased's diary entries lacking direct reference to the appellant – Evidence indicated deceased suffered from depression – Courts failed to establish a direct link between alleged harassment and suicide. Held: Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside due to lack of evidence connecting the appellant’s actions directly to the suicide. [Paras 1-18]

Dowry Death – Insufficient Evidence for Dowry Demand and Harassment –Examination of the prosecution witnesses revealed inconsistent and generalized allegations of dowry demands – Deceased’s diary did not specifically implicate the appellant – Other family members acquitted of all charges, including dowry-related harassment – Deceased's pre-existing mental health issues noted – Conviction under Section 306 IPC held unsustainable as per evidence on record. [Paras 11-17]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellant –The Supreme Court, finding no substantial evidence of the appellant’s involvement in abetting the suicide, overturned the lower courts’ judgments – Conviction under Section 306 IPC quashed, and the appellant acquitted. [Para 18]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Negotiable Instruments Act – Director’s Responsibility – Criminal Appeals against High Court Orders Quashing Proceedings – Section 138 read with Section 141 NI Act – Supreme Court clarifies necessary averments in complaints against Directors of a company – High Court must assess presence of basic averments and any unimpeachable evidence against directors – High Court quashed proceedings on insufficient averments about directors’ roles in company’s day-to-day affairs – Supreme Court reinstates complaints against most directors for re-evaluation, citing need for comprehensive complaint review and potential evidence consideration. [Paras 1-35]

Role of Directors – Necessary Averments – Held – Complaints under Section 138 NI Act must specify directors' responsibility for company’s conduct at the relevant time – Basic averment sufficient for process issuance – High Court must evaluate if complaints are substantively valid or if additional evidence justifies quashing – Resignation or lack of involvement must be demonstrated with clear evidence to quash proceedings against directors. [Paras 26-30, 33]

Decision – Remittance for Fresh Consideration – Quashing of proceedings against elderly director upheld – Cases against other directors remitted for re-evaluation by High Court – High Court to consider complaints and any provided evidence independently and expeditiously. [Paras 34-35]

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet - High Court's Power under Section 482 CrPC - Criminal Appeal against High Court's order quashing final report by police - Allegations of unlawful assembly, house trespass, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation - High Court quashed final report against primary accused citing lack of substantial evidence - Supreme Court finds prima facie case against accused based on statements and seizure records - Held that quashing the final report at this stage is premature and amounts to abuse of process of law - High Court's order set aside, criminal proceedings against respondent to continue. [Paras 1-18]

Inherent Powers of High Court - Section 482 CrPC - Exercise of power to quash proceedings - Scope and limitations - Court should refrain from quashing proceedings if prima facie case is made out - Supreme Court reiterates that power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and cautiously - Emphasizes that prima facie allegations warrant a full-fledged trial to determine guilt or innocence. [Para 14-16]

Decision - Restoration of Criminal Proceedings - High Court's quashing of final report reversed - Supreme Court directs trial to proceed expeditiously - Judicial Magistrate instructed to conclude trial without being influenced by observations in this judgment. [Para 17-18]

Land Acquisition - Market Value Determination - Comparable Sales Method:The Supreme Court held that the method of determining the market value of land through comparable sales is appropriate. The High Court's approach of averaging sale prices from perpetual lease deeds and adjusting for development deductions was found reasonable. The market value was ultimately fixed at Rs. 14,974/- per sq. yard. The principles for ascertaining fair market value, including necessary adjustments for leasehold to freehold conversion and competitive bidding factors, were emphasized. [Paras 10-40]

Interest on Compensation - Sections 34 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act:The Supreme Court reiterated that interest under Section 34 is mandatory and must be awarded from the date of possession till payment. The application of Section 28 regarding interest on enhanced compensation amounts was clarified. The High Court's award of interest at 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum thereafter was upheld. [Paras 42-49]

Award of Costs - Section 27 of the Land Acquisition Act:The Supreme Court supported the High Court's discretion in awarding proportionate costs, considering the partial success of the appellants. It was held that the appellants are not entitled to full costs and court fees as claimed. The High Court's award of proportionate costs, over and above Rs. 20,000/-, was deemed equitable. [Paras 50-55]

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Compensation of Rs. 14,974/- per sq. yard awarded by the High Court maintained. Proportionate costs upheld.

Civil Procedure - Review and Application of Law – The tribunal’s failure to follow precedent – The appellants’ challenge to vesting proceedings under Chapter IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, due to non-applicability in transferred territories – Tribunal’s error in not adhering to the final judgment of a single judge in Pradip Kumar Maskara's case – Supreme Court finds the tribunal’s refusal to correct records based on an erroneous application of subsequent contrary judgments – High Court's affirmation of the tribunal’s decision also found erroneous – The tribunal directed to follow the precedent established by the High Court's earlier unchallenged decision – Orders of High Court and tribunal set aside. [Paras 1-30]

Applicability of Land Reforms Legislation - Transfer of Territories - Effect of Notifications – Analysis – Held – Provisions of Chapter IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act not extended to transferred territories from Bihar due to lack of requisite notifications – Earlier judgments supporting non-applicability upheld – Tribunal’s deviation from established legal precedent found improper – High Court's endorsement of tribunal’s decision without sufficient basis also incorrect. [Para 25-27]

Decision – Orders of Tribunal and High Court set aside – Directions for the tribunal to follow High Court’s earlier decision in appellants’ case – Review application based on subsequent contrary decisions declared impermissible – Appeals allowed. [Para 29-30]

Constitutional Law – Interpretation of Promotion Rules – Overriding Effect – Rule 2 of the Uttaranchal Government Servants (Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "2004 Rules") provides that these rules have an overriding effect over any contrary service rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution. The 2004 Rules were notified on 15.06.2004 and apply to recruitment by promotion to posts where consultation with the Public Service Commission is not required. The Supreme Court held that these rules take precedence over any previous rules. [Paras 4-5]

Promotion Criteria – Seniority and Fitness – Rule 4 of the 2004 Rules states that promotions to the post of Head of Department and certain high-ranking posts shall be based on merit, while other promotions, including from Group 'D' to Group 'C', shall be based on seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit. The Supreme Court emphasized that while seniority is crucial, the suitability of candidates must also be assessed to ensure they are fit for promotion. [Para 7]

Government Orders – Validity – The Supreme Court reviewed the validity of two Government Orders dated 17.07.2004 and 08.11.2004, which set forth criteria for assessing the fitness of Group 'D' employees for promotion to Group 'C'. The Court found that these orders were intended to determine the fitness of employees, thus falling within the ambit of Rule 4 of the 2004 Rules. Consequently, the orders were held valid. [Paras 10-11]

Decision – Setting Aside High Court Orders – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court orders that had quashed the Government Orders dated 17.07.2004 and 08.11.2004. The Court held that these Government Orders were in line with the 2004 Rules and were necessary to assess the suitability of candidates for promotion. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court’s decisions were reversed. [Para 12]