Criminal Law - Conviction for Rape and Intimidation – Appeal against High Court judgment upholding conviction – Prosecutrix, a minor, alleged rape by appellant, supported by circumstantial evidence and delay in filing FIR explained – Court rejected appellant’s defense of false implication due to previous enmity and examination stress – Importance of victim's consistent testimony and Section 114A of Evidence Act emphasized – Held: Conviction and sentence affirmed. [Paras 1-17]

Credibility of Victim's Testimony – Analysis – Held – Victim's testimony found credible despite medical report indicating intact hymen – Delay in lodging FIR satisfactorily explained by trauma and fear – Section 114A presumption applied to uphold lack of consent. [Paras 12-15]

Circumstantial Evidence – Role in Sexual Assault Cases – Held – Circumstantial evidence and victim's consistent statements support prosecution's case – Delay in FIR and medical inconsistencies do not negate reliability of victim's account. [Paras 13-16]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – Appeal dismissed with reaffirmation of trial and High Court judgments – Emphasis on legislative intent behind Section 114A of the Evidence Act to strengthen victim's testimony in rape cases. [Paras 17]

Civil Procedure - Substantial Question of Law - Formulation - Appeal against High Court’s judgment allowing a second appeal by setting aside concurrent findings of lower courts - High Court formulated substantial question of law post-admission but before hearing - Appellants argued error in formulation at a late stage - Held, formulation at a later stage permissible if fair opportunity provided to opposing party - No prejudice caused to appellants by delayed formulation - High Court's judgment upheld. [Paras 5-12]

Property Law - Boundary vs. Area Discrepancy - Dispute over land boundaries and area in conveyance deed - High Court held boundary description prevails over area description - Findings of lower courts on adverse possession and ownership overturned - High Court correctly interpreted conveyance deed dispute in favor of respondents. [Paras 3-4, 7]

Procedure - Rules of Justice - Substantial question of law can be framed at a later stage provided fair notice and opportunity given - High Court’s judgment valid despite late formulation - Over-technical objections to procedure should not override justice. [Paras 8-11]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - No merit found in appellants' challenge - High Court's judgment upheld - No costs awarded. [Para 13]

Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation - Misuse of Public Funds for Political Advertising – Writ petitions filed under Article 32 by registered societies seeking to prevent the misuse of public funds for political advertising – Supreme Court held that such use of public funds is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution – Court noted the lack of existing guidelines to regulate government advertisements – Directed the formation of a committee to draft appropriate guidelines to regulate government advertising until the legislature enacts a relevant law – Committee to submit guidelines within three months. [Paras 1-26]

Maintainability of Writ Petitions – Objection to maintainability on grounds of res judicata and previous decisions in similar cases – Supreme Court overruled the objections, emphasizing the significant public interest and the need for judicial review in cases of misuse of public funds. [Paras 6-9]

Guidelines for Government Advertising – Examination of existing DAVP guidelines found them inadequate to address the misuse of public funds for political purposes – Comparative analysis of guidelines from other jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada highlighted the need for depoliticizing public advertising – Committee formed to suggest new guidelines based on best practices from other jurisdictions. [Paras 10-25]

Decision – Formation of Committee to draft guidelines – Committee consisting of Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon, Mr. T.K. Viswanathan, and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, with the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as Member Secretary – Committee to submit guidelines within three months – Matter to be posted for further directions post submission of guidelines. [Paras 24-26]

Criminal Law – Framing of Charges – Criminal Appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court, affirmed by the High Court, quashing charges under Sections 307 and 386 IPC – Appellant assaulted by a group of persons armed with deadly weapons, causing multiple injuries – Supreme Court finds sufficient prima facie evidence of intention to kill – Held that the charges under Section 307 IPC were improperly quashed – Appeal allowed, and the matter remanded for trial on all charges. [Paras 1-18]

Intention to Kill – Prima Facie Evidence – Held – The statements of witnesses and the nature of the injuries support the appellant’s claim that the accused intended to kill – The presence of sharp weapons and the context of the assault indicate knowledge and intention of causing death – Courts below failed to appreciate the prima facie evidence – Charges under Section 307 IPC reinstated for trial. [Para 16-17]

Decision – Reinstatement of Charges under Section 307 IPC – The Supreme Court sets aside the decisions of the Sessions Court and the High Court, reinstating the charges under Section 307 IPC – Matter remanded for trial on all charges including Sections 307 and 386 IPC – The trial court to determine the final outcome based on the evidence presented. [Para 18]

Service Law - Termination and Regularization - Ad-hoc Employees-Civil appeals by the State of Jharkhand challenging the High Court's order setting aside the termination of ad-hoc engineers employed since 1987. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming the regularization of the employees who had served continuously for more than 10 years without any disciplinary proceedings against them. The court noted that the termination of services was arbitrary and violated Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, amounting to a deprivation of livelihood. [Paras 1-25]

Doctrine of Regularization - Long Continuous Service - Application of Uma Devi’s Case- The Supreme Court applied the principles from Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and Others, holding that employees who had served for more than 10 years without court intervention were entitled to regularization. The Court observed that terminating such employees after decades of service without providing an opportunity for regularization was unjust and arbitrary. [Para 20]

Jurisdiction - High Court’s Power - Regularization Orders-The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court's jurisdiction and discretion in ordering regularization, noting that the employees had been performing permanent nature duties and were paid salaries without objection from the CAG. The Court emphasized that interference under Article 136 should be sparing and only in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case. [Paras 23-24]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeals-The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Jharkhand, directing the continuation of the respondents in their services and extending all benefits as granted by the High Court. [Para 25]

Constitutional Law - Protection of Property Rights – Articles 226, 300A of the Constitution of India – Property rights of borrowers under the SARFAESI Act – Validity of auction sale challenged – Compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under SARFAESI Act and Rules – Held, borrower’s property rights protected under Article 300A necessitate strict adherence to statutory requirements for auction sale – Auction sale conducted without proper 30 days notice in violation of Rule 8 and Rule 9 of SARFAESI Rules invalid – High Court’s setting aside of the auction sale upheld. [Paras 2-27]

SARFAESI Act - Auction Sale - Procedural Requirements - Compliance – Rules 8 and 9 of the SARFAESI Rules – Requirement of 30 days public notice prior to auction sale – Bank’s failure to provide proper notice – Waiver of mandatory requirement not established by borrower’s conduct – Auction sale conducted in violation of mandatory notice period void – Principle that borrower’s waiver must be clear and unequivocal – High Court’s findings affirmed – Appellant to be reimbursed for amounts paid if borrower settles dues. [Paras 12-27]

Waiver - Doctrine of Waiver – Applicability to statutory procedural requirements – Rule 9 of SARFAESI Rules – Established principle that even mandatory statutory provisions can be waived if the party for whose benefit they exist expressly or impliedly waives them – Facts of the present case indicate no waiver by borrower of the mandatory requirement of 30 days notice for auction sale – Borrower’s consistent challenge to the validity of auction notice supports absence of waiver – High Court’s decision upheld. [Paras 17-25]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Auction sale conducted by Syndicate Bank in favour of Appellant set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under SARFAESI Rules – Borrower granted two months to settle dues with the bank – Appellant entitled to reimbursement for payments made towards purchase price, registration fees, stamp duty, and discharge of encumbrances. [Paras 26-28]

Civil Law - Medical Negligence - Application of Res Ipsa Loquitur - Appeal against High Court decision enhancing damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff in hospital premises - Plaintiff, an indoor patient with high fever, found injured due to alleged negligence by hospital authorities - High Court applied res ipsa loquitur, holding hospital liable in absence of due care - Supreme Court upheld findings of negligence and dismissed appeals, affirming enhanced damages. [Paras 1-12]

Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur - Analysis - Held - Court applied the principle that the occurrence of the incident itself indicates negligence by hospital, placing the burden of proof on hospital to show absence of negligence - Hospital failed to prove non-negligence, leading to liability for injuries sustained by plaintiff. [Paras 8-10]

Quantum of Damages - Assessment - Held - Damages assessed under three broad heads: loss of future prospects in employment, cost of attendant, and non-pecuniary loss including pain and suffering - High Court enhanced damages to Rs. 11 lakhs with interest - Supreme Court found assessment reasonable and affirmed quantum of damages awarded. [Paras 7, 11]

Decision - Appeals Dismissed - Both the plaintiff's appeal seeking further enhancement and the defendant hospital's appeal against findings of negligence and quantum of damages were dismissed - Supreme Court upheld High Court's judgment in entirety. [Paras 10-12]

Civil Procedure - High Court's Obligation to Frame Substantial Questions of Law - High Court allowed the second appeal without framing substantial questions of law as required by Section 100 CPC - Held that such failure is a grave procedural error - Judgment and decree of the High Court set aside - First appellate court’s findings reinstated as it properly evaluated evidence and upheld appellant's rights. [Paras 1-9]

Jurisdiction - Bar under Consolidation and Land Reforms Acts - Question of civil court’s jurisdiction under Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of Land Holdings Act and Section 331 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Held that civil court’s jurisdiction not barred as the case involves title and sonship, not mere consolidation issues - Suit not barred under the aforementioned sections. [Para 10]

Fraud and Legality of Consolidation Officer's Order - Order of Consolidation Officer found to be obtained by fraud - Consolidation Officer failed to examine rightful ownership and allowed withdrawal of appellant’s objection without proper verification - Held that order is null and void due to legal malice - Appellant entitled to be recorded as half-share owner in the revenue records. [Paras 11-12]

Decision - Restoring First Appellate Court’s Judgment - High Court’s judgment set aside - First appellate court's judgment restored - Competent authority directed to record appellant's name in revenue records as half-share owner - Appeal allowed. [Paras 13]

Contempt of Court – Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Directions – Contempt Petition against State Government –Supreme Court held that the State Government is in contempt of the Court’s order dated 14.03.2012, which directed the State to recommend the grant of iron ore mines to BPSL as per the MOU. The State Government’s plea of subsequent legal and statutory complications was rejected. The State was given one month to comply with the Court's order by making the requisite recommendation to the Central Government, failing which further contempt proceedings would ensue. [Paras 14-27]

Administrative Law – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Enforcement of MOUs –Supreme Court affirmed that BPSL’s legitimate expectations arising from the MOU dated 15.05.2002 must be honored by the State Government. The State's subsequent actions and disputes, including overlapping applications and statutory notifications, do not negate the obligations established by the MOU and affirmed by the Supreme Court. [Paras 16, 24-25]

Mineral Rights – Overlapping Claims and Simultaneous Consideration –The Court dismissed the State’s argument regarding the complexity of overlapping mining lease applications, emphasizing that the specific direction to recommend BPSL’s application must be honored. Other pending applications must be considered independently, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions and relevant legal principles. [Para 24]

Decision – Contempt Petition Allowed – State Government Directed to Comply –The Supreme Court allowed the contempt petition, mandating the State Government to make the necessary recommendations for mining leases to the Central Government within one month. The State’s failure to comply would result in further contempt proceedings. [Para 27]

Writ Petitions – Maintainability under Article 32 – Liberty to Approach Appropriate Forum –Three writ petitions filed under Article 32 were dismissed on the grounds of maintainability. The Court held that the petitioners must first approach the High Court or other appropriate forums for relief. The Court did not address the merits of the cases, leaving those issues open for adjudication by the appropriate forum. [Paras 29-30]