Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – Appeal against High Court's affirmation of conviction under Section 302 IPC – Conviction based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence – Appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of discrepancies in evidence and wrongful identification – High Court upheld trial court’s findings, citing consistency in key witness testimony and corroborative medical evidence – Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal, dismissed. [Paras 1-23]

Evidence – Hostile Witness – Analysis of Testimony – Held: Testimony of hostile witnesses partially reliable where consistent with prosecution's case – Court evaluated evidence of hostile witness Paulmeli (PW.2) to the extent it supported the prosecution – Other testimonies, including that of the deceased's wife (PW.1), were found credible – Application of legal principles regarding hostile witnesses upheld. [Paras 15-17]

Delay in FIR – Consideration – Prompt lodging of FIR established – High Court and trial court findings confirmed the absence of delay in FIR registration – Evidence showed immediate action by police and proper communication to magistrate – FIR deemed promptly lodged, lending credibility to prosecution’s timeline. [Para 14]

Discrepancies in Evidence – Minor Discrepancies – Examination – Minor discrepancies in witness testimony did not undermine the core prosecution case – Court emphasized the need to differentiate between significant inconsistencies and minor inaccuracies – Legal precedent affirmed that minor discrepancies do not discredit overall witness reliability. [Paras 18-22]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court found concurrent findings of lower courts to be consistent and well-supported by evidence – Appellants’ arguments regarding discrepancies and wrongful identification were rejected – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 IPC upheld. [Paras 23]

Referred Cases:

Atluri Brahmanandam (d), Thr. LRs. Vs. Anne Sai Bapuji, AIR 2011 SC 545

Subbu Singh Vs. State by Public Prosecutor, (2009) 6 SCC 462

State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Prasad Misra and another, (1996) 10 SCC 360

C. Muniappan and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567

Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 777

Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1991) 3 SCC 627

Zwinglee Ariel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 15

Laxmibai (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Another Vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 97

Himanshu @ Chintu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (2011) 2 SCC 36

Appabhai and Another Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696

Balaka Singh and Others Vs. The State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 511

Bhagwan Singh Vs. The State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389

Syad Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30

Shri Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233

Sucha Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643

Sukhdev Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 86

Sarvesh Narain Shukla Vs. Daroga Singh and Others, (2007) 13 SCC 360

Criminal Law - FIR and Ante-timing - Benefit of Doubt – Criminal Appeal against High Court judgment upholding conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – FIR alleged to be ante-timed – Complainant’s conduct of approaching an Advocate instead of police, and lodging FIR at a different police station raised suspicion – Supreme Court finds FIR ante-timed and not recorded promptly – Held, appellants entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside. [Paras 1-24]

Procedural Lapses in FIR - Impact on Conviction – Analysis – Held – FIR not dispatched to the Magistrate within the required time – Names of accused not disclosed to investigating officer at the scene – Inquest report did not mention names of assailants – These procedural lapses indicated manipulation and delay in recording FIR – Evidence raised significant doubt about the involvement of appellants. [Para 12-22]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellants – Court allows appeal – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside – Appellants to be released forthwith unless required in another case. [Para 23-24]

Referred Cases:

Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Supply of UPSC Advice - Requirement - Natural Justice - Rule 32, CCS Rules - Interpretation - Appeal against High Court judgment holding that non-supply of UPSC advice before finalizing disciplinary action violated principles of natural justice. Supreme Court affirmed High Court’s view, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and opportunity for representation. The Office Memoranda dated 06.01.2014 and 05.03.2014 were noted to be in consonance with the judicial pronouncements, thus ensuring adherence to natural justice. [Paras 1-29]

Natural Justice - Opportunity to Represent - Disciplinary Action - Supreme Court reiterated that the advice from UPSC, if relied upon for disciplinary action, must be supplied to the delinquent officer in advance to enable a fair opportunity for representation. This aligns with principles of natural justice as elaborated in B. Karunakar’s case. [Para 23-24]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - The appeal by the Union of India was dismissed, with the Supreme Court upholding the High Court’s judgment that mandated the supply of UPSC’s advice to the delinquent officer before the imposition of any penalty. [Para 29]

Referred Cases:

Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. T.V. Patel, (2007) 4 SCC 785

Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, (1994) 1 SCC 727

Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589

S.N. Narula Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 591

State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912

Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs., (1989) 2 SCC 754

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation and Another, (1995) 4 SCC 96

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 694

A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and Another, (1988) 2 SCC 602

Disciplinary Proceedings – Necessity of Written Opinion – Regulation 60 Interpretation – The respondent, a District Manager at FCI, faced disciplinary proceedings under Regulation 60 for alleged dereliction of duty causing financial loss to FCI. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty without forming a written opinion on whether a full inquiry was necessary. The High Court quashed the penalty, emphasizing the requirement for a written opinion as mandated by Regulation 60(1)(b).

Formation of Opinion by Disciplinary Authority – Held, the disciplinary authority must form a written opinion regarding the necessity of holding an inquiry before imposing a minor penalty. The opinion must be based on objective criteria and demonstrate application of mind. The discretion under Regulation 60(1)(b) is reviewable and cannot be arbitrary or capricious. Compliance with this requirement is essential to uphold the integrity of the disciplinary process and ensure fairness. [Paras 9-10]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the absence of a written opinion by the disciplinary authority vitiated the proceedings. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the necessity for procedural compliance as per the FCI Staff Regulations. [Paras 10-11]

Referred Cases:

Food Corporation of India Hyderabad And Others v. A. Prahalada Rao And Another, AIR 2001 SC 51

Contempt of Court - Alleged Violation of Supreme Court Order - Contempt Petition against Respondent No. 6 for allegedly violating the Supreme Court's order dated 14th February 2014 - Supreme Court directed that the next meeting of the Board of Trustees be held at Hotel Taj Lands End, Bandra, and a notice be given to all trustees entitled to participate - Respondent No. 6 failed to provide such notice to Petitioner - Supreme Court finds Respondent No. 6 acted under a bona fide belief that certain individuals were not trustees and thus not entitled to notice - Held that no willful disobedience was established - Contempt proceedings dropped. [Paras 1-11]

Trust Governance - Interim Arrangement - Supreme Court recalls the order dated 14th February 2014 and issues notice in SLP to all respondents - Interim arrangement ordered wherein an interim Board of Trustees comprising two undisputed permanent trustees and Mr. Justice J.N. Patel as Chairman - Justice J.N. Patel entitled to a fee of Rs. 1,00,000 per meeting - Interim arrangement to continue until disposal of the Special Leave Petition. [Paras 10-11]

Decision - Recall of Previous Order and Interim Relief - Court recalls the order dated 14th February 2014 in SLP (C) No. 3772 of 2014 - Notice issued to all respondents with interim arrangement in place - Contempt proceedings against Respondent No. 6 dropped. [Paras 9-11]

Referred Cases:

Pritam Pal Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar, AIR 1992 SC 904 : (1992) CriLJ 1269 : (1992) 1 Crimes 1012 : (1992) 2 JT 41 : (1992) 1 SCALE 416 : (1993) 1 SCC 529 Supp : (1992) 1 SCR 864

Constitutional Law – Property Rights – Definition of Forest Land: Civil Appeal against the High Court's conclusion that land notified under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLPA, 1900) is 'forest land' under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Supreme Court holds that inclusion of land under PLPA, 1900 does not automatically classify it as 'forest land.' [Para 15-16]

Administrative Law – Validity of Notifications and Records – Assessment: Analysis of government records showed that land in Village Karoran was recorded as under the control of the Forest Department due to its notification under PLPA, 1900. High Court's reliance on these records without considering the exact legal status of the land at the time of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 enactment was erroneous. [Para 12-13]

Environmental Law – Interpretation of Forest and Forest Land: Interpretation of 'forest land' as per Supreme Court’s judgment in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India. Court reiterates that 'forest land' includes areas recorded as forest in government records irrespective of ownership, but stresses correct legal classification of land based on historical records and statutory definitions. [Para 16]

Decision – Remand for Fresh Hearing: Supreme Court sets aside High Court’s finding that entire land in Village Karoran is 'forest land' under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Orders fresh hearing to accurately determine the classification of land based on government records as of 25.10.1980. Associated directions from the High Court's judgment are also set aside. Investigation by CBI as directed by the High Court remains intact. [Para 18]

Referred Cases:

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2008) 1 SCC 407

Criminal Law - Conviction for Rape and Criminal Intimidation - Appeal Dismissed:The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC, dismissing the appeal which challenged the findings of both the Trial Court and the High Court. The case centered on the prosecutrix’s testimony and medical evidence corroborating the occurrence of rape. The appellant’s defense of false implication was rejected for lack of substantive proof. [Paras 1-20]

Evidence - Corroboration - Medical Testimony and Chemical Examination:The Court relied on the medical testimony of Dr. Meenu Kapoor, who confirmed the presence of human semen on the prosecutrix's undergarments, and Dr. Sudhir Khurana, who documented injuries on the appellant suggestive of a struggle. These findings were consistent with the prosecutrix's account, negating the defense’s argument of false implication and lack of injuries on the victim. [Para 16]

Defense - False Implication - Lack of Corroboration:The appellant’s claim that the prosecutrix had a motive to falsely implicate him due to a prior altercation was unsupported by credible evidence. The Court noted that the defense witnesses and the complaint filed by the appellant’s father did not sufficiently corroborate the claim of false implication. [Para 16]

Delay in Lodging FIR - Not Unusual:The Court found no merit in the argument that the delay by the prosecutrix in lodging the FIR undermined her credibility, recognizing that immediate reporting to the police is not expected in every rape case. [Para 17]

Decision-The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant’s conviction and sentence for rape and criminal intimidation were upheld. The appellant, out on bail, was ordered to surrender to serve the remainder of his sentence. [Paras 18-20]

Referred Cases:

Ramanarayan Popli v. CBI (2003) SCC (Crl.) 869

P.K. Narayanan v. State of Kerala (1995) 1 SCC 142

Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC Online SC 784

Hari and Anr. v. State of UP 2021 SCC Online SC 1131

Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat (1999) 8 SCC 624

State through Superintendent of Police v. Nalini & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 253

Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1

Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 11 SCC 1

State of Haryana v. Krishan (2017) 8 SCC 204

Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 1256

Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SCCOnline 1364

Chandran v. State of Kerala (2011) 5 SCC 161

P.N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala 1995 Supp (2) SCC 187

Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P. (2022) 8 SCC 253

Ravasaheb and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023) 5 SCC 391

Civil Law – Probe Committee – Appointment – Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitution of a probe panel by BCCI to investigate allegations of betting and spot-fixing in IPL 2013 – High Court ruling the panel's constitution not in accordance with Operational Rules – High Court refusing to constitute fresh panel – Supreme Court's intervention – Appointment of Justice Mudgal Committee for investigation. [Paras 1-5]

Investigations – Scope and Jurisdiction – Allegations against Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan, the team principal of Chennai Super Kings, and the team owner of IPL Franchise Rajasthan Royals – Role of Mr. N. Srinivasan, President of BCCI – Justice Mudgal Committee to investigate betting and spot-fixing allegations – Committee’s findings indicating the need for further investigation – Directions for a new probe committee led by Justice Mudgal with specific investigators. [Paras 3-7]

Decision – Continuation of Justice Mudgal Committee – Committee to be assisted by a team led by Shri B.B. Mishra, IPS – Central and State Governments directed to cooperate – BCCI to bear the expenses – Strict confidentiality to be maintained – Report submission directed by the end of August 2014 – Interim arrangements for BCCI presidency. [Paras 5-9]

Referred Cases:

Not applicable

Civil Procedure - Pension Eligibility – Civil Appeal against High Court judgment dismissing the appellant's claim for retiral benefits – Appellant’s service in a non-governmental agency (Fish Farmers Development Agency) deemed non-qualifying for pension – Supreme Court reaffirms lower courts' findings – Held that the appellant’s service in the non-governmental agency cannot be counted for pensionary benefits as per Punjab Civil Services Rules, being a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-16]

Service Law - Non-Governmental Service and Pension - Held – Appellant’s service in a non-governmental organization does not qualify for pension under government rules – Not entitled to pension for service before absorption into government department – Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision denying retiral benefits upheld. [Para 7-9]

Negative Equality - Illegality and Article 14 – Supreme Court clarifies that Article 14 does not perpetuate illegality or confer entitlement to benefits based on wrongful or inadvertent grants in other cases – Reiterates principle of positive equality – Prior erroneous benefits do not justify similar relief for others. [Paras 11-15]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Court dismisses the appeal, denying retiral benefits to the appellant for his service in the Fish Farmers Development Agency, holding that such service cannot be considered for pensionary benefits – No costs ordered. [Para 16]

Referred Cases:

Basawaraj and Others v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746

The District Collector, Srikakulam and Others v. Bagathi Krishna Rao and Another, AIR 2010 SC 2617

Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others, (2010) 6 JT 210

Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786

Chandigarh Administration and another v. Jagjit Singh and another, AIR 1995 SC 705

Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. v. The Collector and Others, AIR 2003 SC 1805

K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. and Others, AIR 2006 SC 898

Shri Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi and Another, AIR 1977 SC 1701

Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 2005 SC 565