SCO.LR | 2025 | Volume 6 | Issue 3

We’re back with another Issue of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR)! 

SCO.LR brings you five unmissable judgements delivered by the Supreme Court each week. Last week, during its partial working days, the Court delivered no judgements. We’re using this week to bring you five bonus judgements from each month of the year, from January to May. 

This week’s judgements consider the power of a High Court to reverse an acquittal, the public nature of forest land, the validity of a statement made by a child witness and more. Read them all now! 

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports 2025

SCO.LR | Volume 6 | Issue 3

Bonus Judgements from January– May 2025

**********

High Court Cannot Reverse an Acquittal Under its Revision Jurisdiction 

Mahabir v State of Haryana

29 January 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 120 | 2025 SCO.LR 6(3)[11]

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot use its revision jurisdiction to convert a Trial Court’s acquittal into a conviction. A revision application is filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 

A Trial Court acquitted four persons in a murder case. A victim’s father filed a revision application at the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2006, which found them guilty of murder. At the Supreme Court, the State of Haryana argued that High Courts can invoke Section 401(5), which allows a revision application to be considered as an appeal in exceptional circumstances, read with the proviso to Section 372. The proviso allows the victim the right to appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgement. It held that the proviso to Section 372 does not apply retrospectively and the victim’s father did not have the right to appeal in 2006. Therefore, Section 401(5) could not be used. The High Court can direct a retrial in exceptional circumstances under its revision jurisdiction.  

Key words/phrases: Section 401(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—High Court cannot reverse acquittal under revision jurisdiction—Section 372—Proviso not applicable retrospectively—Section 401(5)—Revision application treated as appeal only under circumstances laid down in Code of Criminal Procedure

Read the Judgement here.

**********

Division Bench of High Court Cannot Hear Appeal Unless Referred by Single Judge or Chief Justice 

Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited v GRSE Limited Workmen’s Union

25 February 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 363 | 2025 SCO.LR 6(3)[12]

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal

The Supreme Court held that a Division Bench of a High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear and decide a writ petition that had not been referred to it by a Single Judge or assigned by the Chief Justice. 

Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd.’s (GRSE) Workmen’s Union had challenged the company’s refusal to grant compassionate appointments. A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court de-listed the matter, awaiting a Supreme Court decision in a related case. A Division Bench took up the case after GRSE Ltd. agreed to an intra-court appeal filed by the Workmen’s Union. The Bench directed GRSE Ltd. to appoint 48 of the 51 petitioners.

The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench’s Order was null and void. According to Rule 26 of the Calcutta High Court Rules and Article 225 of the Constitution, only the Chief Justice, as master of the roster, could assign such matters to a Division Bench.

Key words/phrases: Single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court de-lists case—appeal before Division Bench—appeal allowed—Supreme Court examines procedure—Refers to High Court Rules and Article 225 of the Constitution—finds procedure followed to be improper—sets aside order

Read the Judgement here. 

**********

Child Witness’ Silence Not Detrimental to Prosecution’s Case 

State of Rajasthan v Chatra

18 March 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 360 | 2025 SCO.LR 6(3)[13]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol

The Supreme Court held that a conviction in a rape case does not expressly hinge on the statement of the minor victim or child witness. It can be secured based on other available evidence.

The Rajasthan High Court had acquitted a person, reasoning that the child witness had submitted no statements upon examination. No other testimony was afforded. 

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s judgement and convicted the accused. It held that the absence of the prosecutrix’s evidence does not always disadvantage the prosecution’s case. Other evidence, including the medical evidence used to convict in this case, is sufficient to secure a conviction.

Key words/phrases: Rajasthan High Court—acquits accused due to silence of child witness—Appeal to the Supreme Court—Supreme Court sets aside Judgment—Other evidence sufficient to secure conviction—Medical Evidence 

Read the Judgment here. 

**********

Workmen’s Compensation Act to be interpreted liberally in cases of disability

Kamal Dev Prasad v Mahesh Forge

29 April 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 591 | 2025 SCO.LR 6(3) [14]

Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K.V. Chandran

The Supreme Court departed from the criteria set to calculate the degree of a person’s disability under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, to grant swift relief to accident victims.

Kamal Dev Prasad had to amputate four fingers on his left hand due to injuries sustained while operating a forging machine. The Commissioner appointed under the Act declared 100 percent disability. The Bombay High Court reduced the assessed percentage to 34 based on the list of injuries and the percentage of loss of earning capacity in Schedule 1 of the Act. 

The Supreme Court increased the disability assessment to 50 percent. It acknowledged that the employee’s functional disability exceeded the scheduled percentage due to the extent of the mutilation to his working hand. The Bench adjusted the final compensation owed by the employer accordingly.

Key words/phrases: Employees’ Compensation Act 1923—relief—accident victim—disability assessment—consider extent of mutilation—schedule 1 not rigid—Consider functional disability, not just physical disability 

Read the Judgment here. 

**********

Parts of Zudpi Jungle In Public Use Before 1996 Not Forest Land

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

22 May 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 754 | 2025 SCO.LR 6(3) [15]

Bench: Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih

The Supreme Court ruled that specific portions of Zudpi jungle land, used for public purposes, would not be classified as forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, per recommendations made by a Central Empowered Committee in 2019 and 2025.

In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v Union of India (1996), the Court directed that the Zudpi land across Maharashtra’s Vidarbha region be treated as forests under the 1980 Act. The State of Maharashtra sought to exclude around 86,409 ha of this land as it had been in use for public purposes since before the 1996 judgment.

The Court affirmed its decision in the 1996 case, while carving out an exception for the concerned Zudpi land. It allowed the regularisation of that land for its pre-1996 use without compensatory afforestation. At the same time, it directed the removal of any post-1996 encroachments across the land.

Key words/phrases: 1996 judgement—Zudpi Jungle Land—Within the scope of Forest (Conservation) Act 1980—Certain parts used for public purposes upheld—Without compensatory afforestation—Removal of encroachment after 1996

Read the Judgment here.