1. The evidence of injured witness cannot ordinarily be doubted on account of minor contradictions & omissions and conviction can be based upon such evidence subject to corroboration with other incriminating factors coupled with recoveries.

2. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal.

3. Same treatment is required to be given to defence witness(es) as is to be given to the prosecution witness(es).

4. An accused cannot claim benefit of minor inconsistencies in the victim's statement when medical and forensic evidence corroborate the prosecution’s case, particularly where the victim's version has remained consistent throughout and inspires confidence and her evidence falls under the category of ‘sterling witness’.

5. Absence of a certificate of the treating Doctor with regard to mental fitness of the victim for recording the dying declaration, is a big lacuna on the part of the investigating agency and the said lacuna would definitely be beneficial for the accused as in absence of any such certificate, it would not be safe for the Courts to sustain conviction.

6. Medical professionals cannot be held criminally liable for medical negligence in absence of clear evidence showing lack of reasonable care expected in the profession.

7. A taxing statute must be interpreted strictly and in its literal sense. Nothing can be added or subtracted from the language employed by the Legislature so as to impose tax by implication or inference.

8. Where a person dies in police custody, the burden lies heavily on the State to explain the cause of death through credible, independent evidence. Failure to do so, especially in cases where ante-mortem injuries are present or the death occurs shortly after custody, constitutes a violation of the right to life and dignity under Article 21. The State is liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased, which serves the dual purpose of relief to the family and deterrence against future violations.

9. Scope of intervention of the Court in arbitral matters is virtually prohibited, if not absolutely barred and that the interference is confined only to the extent envisaged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

10. The power of relaxation under Rule 22 of the Chhattisgarh Medical Education (Gazetted) Services and Service Conditions of Directorate Health Services, Health and Family Welfare Department, known as Chhattisgarh Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 is confined to conditions of service and cannot override or amend a substantive recruitment provision. An executive notification cannot defeat a statutory mandate requiring 100% promotion