1. Kidnapping for Ransom – Criminal Conspiracy – Minor Child – Conviction under Sections 364-A and 120-B IPC – Proof of Offence – The prosecution can be said to successfully established that the accused persons, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, kidnapped the minor child for ransom, When the offence stood proved through cogent and reliable oral evidence, identification memo, electronic evidence including Call Detail Records (CDR), and cyber analysis reports, which consistently connected the accused with the commission of the crime. The prior meeting of minds and coordinated acts of the accused persons in execution of the kidnapping and ransom demand, proving the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.

2. The draft District Survey Report (DSR) is required to be placed in the public domain for inviting objections and suggestions and only thereafter, the same can be finalized and approved by the competent authority/DEIAA in accordance with law and in the absence of a validly approved DSR, no mining activity or auction process can legally proceed.

3. Unless the prosecution establishes other essential ingredients sufficient to shift the onus on the accused, it cannot take benefit of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

4. Where the motive is duly established and the accused’s criminal antecedents stand admitted, and the prosecution case is further corroborated by recovery proceedings, medical evidence, and scientific findings including FSL and DNA analysis, the conviction of the accused stands fully justified and leaves no scope for any other view except guilt.

5. Principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’ is not universally applicable, it is dependable upon facts and circumstances of each case.

6. The testimony of the minor victim, if found cogent, consistent, and trustworthy, is sufficient to form the basis of conviction without the need for independent corroboration. Where the evidence withstands cross-examination and inspires confidence, it must be accorded full evidentiary value.

7. Acquittal of accused in a mass attack on CRPF personnel upheld due to lack of direct evidence, incomplete circumstantial proof, procedural lapses in investigation, and failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, despite the gravity of the offence.

8. In a claim case filed under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, the purpose of wage determination under the said Act is to arrive at a realistic and fair compensation and not to confine it artificially to outdated ceilings, particularly when contemporaneous material indicates higher prevailing wages.

9. Capital punishment can be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases. Where this stringent threshold is not met, the sentence of death is required to be commuted to imprisonment for life, with a further direction that such imprisonment for life shall continue for the entirety of the convict’s natural life.

10. In absence of a proven nexus between the accused and the alleged offence, and where the evidence only raises suspicion without establishing essential ingredients of the crime, conviction cannot be recorded and the benefit of doubt would go to the accused.