Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India and Ors. (2024) 

Date of Judgement/Order – 09.12.2024 

Bench Strength – 2 Judges  

Composition of Bench – Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. V. Viswanathan 

Case In Brief:

• Background: 
  • Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel was commissioned as a Short Service Commission Officer in the Army Dental Corps in 2008. 
  • Under original regulations, she was entitled to three chances for taking the departmental examination for permanent commission. 
  • In March 2013, policy amendments removed certain age relaxation provisions, effectively depriving her of her third chance. 
  • Other similarly situated officers challenged this in AFT (Armed Forces Tribunal) and received relief through age relaxation. 
  • The appellant couldn't join the original litigation due to her pregnancy and maternity leave. 
• Key contentions: 
  • Appellant's Contention: 
    • She was similarly situated to officers who received relief through AFT's judgment 
    • She deserved the same benefits without needing separate litigation 
    • Her inability to join original litigation was due to legitimate personal circumstances 
  • Respondent's (Union of India) Contention: 
    • The AFT's relief was limited only to original petitioners 
    • The appellant was not entitled to benefits as she wasn't part of original litigation 
    • Reduction in chances for consideration didn't deprive any right 

Verdict:  

• Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed grant of permanent commission to the appellant 
• Set aside AFT Regional Bench's order that had denied relief 
• Benefits granted to litigating parties must extend to similarly situated non-litigating individuals 
• Separate litigation isn't required for same relief already granted to similar cases 
• Exception exists only when court explicitly prohibits extension of benefit 
• Ordered appellant be given permanent commission from same date as other beneficiaries 
• Directed all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion, and monetary benefits 
• Mandated implementation within four weeks 
• Extended benefits retroactively to match those given to successful litigants in original case 

[Read Original Judgement] 

 Kunhi Muhammed @ Kunheethu v. State of Kerala (2024) 

Date of Judgement/Order – 06.12.2024 

Bench Strength – 2 Judges  

Composition of Bench – Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale 

Case In Brief: 

• Background: 
  • The case originated from political violence between UDF and LDF supporters in Kerala in April 2006 
  • On 11th April 2006, the appellant (accused no. 1) and the other accused attacked Subrahmannian and Vasudevan Ramachandra. 
  • The incident began with the appellant attempting to beat the deceased with a tamarind stick. 
  • When the deceased snatched and used the stick against him, the appellant stabbed him with a knife multiple time. 
  • The appellant also stabbed CW-1 (Vasudevan) when he tried to intervene. 
  • The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 324, and 326/34 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. 
• Key Contentions: 
  • Appellant's Arguments: 
    • The murder was not premeditated or pre-planned 
    • There was no mens rea (criminal intent) for culpable homicide amounting to murder 
    • The knife was used only after the deceased overpowered him with the stick 
    • Being 67 years old with multiple ailments and having served 12.5 years, sentence should be reduced 
  • State's Arguments: 
    • The appellant carrying a knife and multiple assaults showed clear intention to murder 
    • Both Trial Court and High Court had concurrently found it to be a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder 
    • The nature and number of injuries proved murderous intent 

Verdict: 

• Supreme Court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC 
• Rejected the argument that lack of premeditation reduces culpability 
• Under Section 300(3) IPC, lack of intention to murder is irrelevant if:  
  • Bodily injury is present 
  • Nature of injury is proved 
  • Intention to inflict that injury exists 
  • Injury is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course 
• Court's Reasoning: 
  • Use of lethal weapon on vital organs (heart and lungs) showed clear intent 
  • Spontaneous nature of incident doesn't reduce gravity of offense 
  • Nature and location of injuries, weapon choice, and attack circumstances established murder liability 
  • Dismissed plea for leniency based on lack of premeditation 

Relevant Provision:

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 101: Murder. 

• Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,– 
• (a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; or  
• (b) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused; or 
• (c) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or  
• (d) if the person committing the act by which the death is caused, knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. 

[Read Original Judgement] 

State of Telangana v. C. Shobha Rani 

Date of Judgement/Order – 03.12.2024 

Bench Strength – 2 Judges  

Composition of Bench – Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar 

Case In Brief:  

• The case involves criminal charges filed by the State of Telangana against C. Shobha Rani (defendant).   
• The original charges against the defendant included multiple serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) 
  • Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property)  
  • Section 467 (forgery of valuable security)  
  • Section 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating)  
  • Section 471 (using forged document as genuine)  
  • Section 120B (punishment for criminal conspiracy)  
• Additionally, there were charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:  
  • Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and (d), which typically relate to criminal misconduct by a public servant.  
• A charge sheet was filed after an investigation into these allegations.  
• The case went through multiple legal stages:  
  • Initially, charges were filed against the defendant.  
  • A sanction (legal permission) process was involved.  
  • The High Court previously quashed the criminal proceedings.  
  • The State of Telangana then appealed to the Supreme Court.  
• The key dispute centered around two main issues:  
  • The validity of the sanction process  
  • The merits of the criminal charges against the respondent 

Verdict

• The Supreme Court made the following observations:  
  • On the Sanction Issue:  
    • The Court agreed with the High Court that the subsequent sanction was problematic.   
    • The new sanction was based on the same material as the previous one.   
    • Without any new contrary material, the subsequent sanction cannot be legally sustained.   
  • On the Criminal Charges:  
    • The Court found merit in the State of Telangana's argument that the High Court did not adequately examine the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC  
    • The Supreme Court noted that no sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was necessary for these specific charges.  
  • Procedural Observations:  
    • The Court was critical of the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings without examining the merits of the case.  
    • The Court observed that a chargesheet had already been filed after investigation.  
  • The Supreme Court partially allowed the State of Telangana's appeal and remitted the matter back to the High Court.  
    • Requested the High Court to reconsider the case, especially the applicability of the mentioned IPC sections.   
    • Directed the High Court to expedite the disposal of the Criminal Petition, preferably within four months.  
    • Temporarily dispensed with the respondent's appearance until required by the Trial Court.  
• The Supreme Court essentially found that the High Court's previous order needed review, particularly regarding the criminal charges against the defendant. 

Relevant Provision:

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Section 218: Prosecution of Judges and public servants 

(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013—  

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;  

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government:  

Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central Government" were substituted:  

Provided further that such Government shall take a decision within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of the receipt of the request for sanction and in case it fails to do so, the sanction shall be deemed to have been accorded by such Government:  

Provided also that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77, section 78, section 79, section 143, section 199 or section 200 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.  

(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.  

(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression "Central Government" occurring therein, the expression "State Government" were substituted.  

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no Court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.  

(5) The Central Government or the State Government, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held. 

[Read Original Judgement] 

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda 

Date of Judgement/Order – 19.12.2024 

Bench Strength – 1 Judge 

Composition of Bench – Justices Saurabh Srivastava 

Case In Brief: 

The petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) got married on July 31, 2021, in Pune according to Hindu rites, and it was a second marriage for both parties.  

• The respondent is a US citizen working in IT consultancy, while the petitioner has degrees in Finance, Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences.  
• Marital discord began over issues related to the respondent's involvement with his children from first marriage, ex-wife, and ailing father.  
• Multiple divorce petitions were filed - first under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act (withdrawn), second by mutual consent (dismissed), and third on grounds of cruelty (contested).  
• The petitioner filed two FIRs in December 2022 - one against respondent's employee and another against respondent and his father alleging various criminal offenses including rape, domestic violence, and IT Act violations.  
• The respondent was arrested at Mumbai airport based on a Look Out Circular and spent nearly a month in custody before getting bail in January 2023.  
• The petitioner filed a transfer petition seeking to move the divorce proceedings from Bhopal to Pune Family Court.  
• The respondent filed an application under Article 142(1) seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of irretrievable breakdown, claiming the wife demanded large sums of money (initially Rs. 8 crores, later Rs. 25 crores) for mutual consent divorce.  
• The wife contested this, claiming discrimination from husband and in-laws, and alleged pressure from respondent's ex-wife and children were behind his divorce attempts.  

Verdict

• The Supreme Court held that a divorced wife cannot seek permanent alimony merely to achieve equal wealth status with her ex-husband, expressing serious reservations about the trend of using maintenance claims as a means of wealth equalization.  
• The Court established that while a wife is entitled to maintain her matrimonial lifestyle as far as possible, the husband cannot be perpetually obligated to maintain her according to his evolving financial status post-separation.  
• The Court questioned the inconsistency in maintenance demands, noting that parties seek wealth equalization only when the spouse is financially prosperous, but such claims are notably absent when the spouse's wealth has diminished post-separation.  
• The Bench noted that maintenance law's primary objective is to empower the destitute and achieve social justice and individual dignity, rather than serve as a mechanism for wealth redistribution.  
• The Court clarified that determination of maintenance should be based on multiple factors including the wife's income, reasonable needs, residential rights, and other relevant circumstances, rather than solely on the husband's income or previous settlements.  
• In addressing the specific case, the Court expressed surprise at the petitioner's attempt to seek equalization not only with the respondent but also with his ex-wife's settlement.  
• The Bench noted that alimony disputes typically become the most contentious aspect of marital proceedings, often accompanied by numerous accusations aimed at uncovering the opposing party's assets and income.  
• The Court ultimately determined that maintenance claims must be evaluated based on factors specific to the case at hand, rather than comparative analysis with previous settlements or solely based on the husband's current financial status. 

Relevant Provision 

Section 23 of the Hindu Adoption & Marriage Act, 1956 

(1) It shall be in the discretion of the court to determine whether any, and if so what, maintenance shall be awarded under the provisions of this Act, and in doing so the court shall have due regard to the considerations set out in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), as the case may be, so far as they are applicable.  

(2) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to a wife, children or aged on infirm parents under this Act, regard shall be had to―  

(a) the position and status of the parties;  

(b) the reasonable wants of the claimant;  

(c) if the claimant is living separately, whether the claimant is justified in doing so;  

(d) the value of the claimant’s property and any income derived from such property, or from the claimant's own earnings or from any other source;  

(e) the number of persons entitled to maintenance under this Act.  

(3) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to a dependent under this Act, regard shall be had to―  

(a) the net value of the estate of the deceased after providing for the payment of his debts; (b) the provision, if any, made under a will of the deceased in respect of the dependant;  

(c) the degree of relationship between the two;  

(d) the reasonable wants of the dependant;  

(e) the past relations between the dependant and the deceased;  

(f) the value of the property of the dependant and any income derived from such property; or from his or her earnings or from any other source;  

(g) the number of dependants entitled to maintenance under this Act. 

[Read Original Judgement] 

Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 

Date of Judgement/Order – 02.12.2024 

Bench Strength – 3 Judges 

Composition of Bench – Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih  

Case In Brief: 

• On the morning of 27th May 2009, a tragic incident unfolded in a rural pasture area involving a 10-year-old girl and a tubewell operator.  
• The girl had gone to graze goats with her seven-year-old first cousin when she became thirsty and approached the tubewell cabin to request drinking water from the appellant, who was working as the tubewell operator.  
• The prosecution alleges that he raped the young girl and subsequently murdered her.  
• Her seven-year-old cousin reportedly witnessed the appellant forcibly taking her into the cabin.  
• The young cousin narrated the account to the victim’s father who immediately went to the scene from where the accused had fled.  
• There was immediate registration of First Information Report (FIR).  
• The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376, Section 302 and Section 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.  
• The High Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment with provisions for potential remission or clemency by constitutional authorities.   
• The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant on 20th May 2022, after carefully noting that he had already undergone actual incarceration for approximately 13 years.  
• Throughout the proceedings the court appointed experienced legal counsel to ensure proper representation and fair hearing of the case. 

Verdict  

• The Court observed that the evidence of the seven-year-old cousin cannot be said to be of sterling quality. Thus, the Court considered several circumstantial evidence as well.  
• The following evidence were considered and analyzed by the Court:  
  • The recovery statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) was not accepted in this case as it was doubtful.  
  • There was a failure by the Court to put incriminating circumstances before the accused while examining him under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The Apex Court held that failure to put incriminating circumstances before the accused under Section 313 of CrPC entitles him to acquittal.  
• The Court further observed that a public prosecutor has to play an active role in ensuring that every trial is conducted in a fair manner.  
• The Court also observed that the accused for deprived of his right to proper legal aid.  
• Thus, the Court acquitted the appellants of the offences alleged against him.

Relevant Provision:

• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – (1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court 

(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary; 

(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: 

Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b). 

(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1). 

(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them. 

(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. 

(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section. 

[Read Original Judgement] 

State of Maharashtra v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade & Anr (2024) 

Date of Judgement/Order – 09.12.2024  

Bench Strength – 3 Judges 

Composition of Bench – Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih 

Case In Brief: 

• A female employee was murdered after being picked up for her night shift on 1st November 2007. Two men, Purushottam Borate (Convict No. 2) and Pradeep Kokade (Convict No. 1), were involved in the crime.  
• The victim was brutally killed. The postmortem report revealed severe injuries including skull fractures, rib fractures, and confirmed she was raped before her death.  
• Both convicts were arrested and initially convicted by the Sessions Judge in Pune on 20th March 2012. They were sentenced to death for multiple serious offenses including murder, rape, and criminal conspiracy.  
• The High Court and Supreme Court confirmed their death sentence, categorizing it as a "rarest of rare case" in September 2012 and May 2015 respectively.  
• On 29th  May 2015, the prison authorities informed the convicts about their sentence. The convicts then filed mercy petitions to the Governor of Maharashtra in July 2015.  
• The Governor rejected their mercy petitions on 29th  March 2016. They then filed mercy petitions to the President of India in June 2016.  
• The President rejected their mercy petitions on 26th  May 2017. After this, the prison authorities began seeking execution warrants.  
• After multiple communications between various government departments, the Sessions Court in Pune finally issued execution warrants on 10th  April 2019.  
• The convicts filed separate writ petitions before the High Court for quashing the warrants of execution on the following grounds:  
  • Inordinate and unexplained delay in execution of death sentence  
  • Inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding mercy petitions  
  • The convicts were kept in solitary confinement during pendency of appeals  
  • Rejection of mercy petition was illegal  
• The High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment of total 35 years.  
  • The warrant for execution was therefore set aside by the High Court  
• The matter was thus before the Supreme Court. 

Verdict: 

• The Court held in this case that a convict can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution if there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in the execution of death sentence post-confirmation of the sentence.  
• The Court further held that the terms “undue” or “inordinate” cannot be interpreted by applying the rules of mathematics.  
• What delay is inordinate would depend on the facts of the case.  
• If a convict is more than seventy years old suffering from mental ailments an unexplained delay of even 6 months in deciding a mercy petition can amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.  
• The Court in this case held that there was an inordinate and undue delay at all the three stages.   
• Hence, the Court upheld the decision of the High Court 

Relevant Provision: 

• Constitution of India, 1950- Article 21- Protection of life and personal liberty 
  • No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 

[Read Original Judgement]