The exercise of the power of doing 'complete justice' under article 104 is circumscribed by two conditions, (i)that it can be exercised only when Supreme Court otherwise exercises its jurisdiction and (ii) that the order which Supreme Court passes must be necessary for doing “complete justice” in the cause or matter pending before it. Obviously the matter pending before us in this appeal is the acquittal of two accused-respondents Dafader Marfoth Ali Shah and L.D. (Dafader) Abul Hashem Mridha of the charges under sections 302/34 and 302/109 of the Penal Code. Leave to file this appeal was granted to consider only whether the acquittal of the present two accused-respondents from the charges under sections 302/34 and 302/109 of the Penal Code was correct and justified. So, obviously, the question whether the acquittal of all the accused persons from the charge of criminal conspiracy-is not at all a matter pending before us. It has already been pointed out above that the present State-appellant or any other aggrieved person had opportunity to challenge the acquittal of accused persons from the charge of criminal conspiracy as per statutory provisions, but they did not avail that opportunity and allowed a long period to be elapsed rendering that opportunity to appeal time-barred and conferring the accused persons a right to be treated acquitted from the charge of criminal conspiracy-as ordered by a court of law. In the name of doing 'complete justice' this right of the accused persons now cannot be ignored.

If a Hindu widow or a Hindu woman having life interest is not allowed to pray for partition of the joint properties by metes and bounds, then she would be deprived of enjoying her such right, as in the absence of partition by metes and bounds, she would not be able to enjoy her life interest therein. And if it is held that a Hindu widow or a Hindu woman having life interest would not be able to file a suit for partition, then the other co-sharers of the joint properties may use such decision as lever against such Hindu woman and thus create obstructions in the enjoyment of her life interest in the joint properties. Therefore, we find no substance in the point that plaintiff No.1 not being a co-sharer in the suit khatain and having life interest only could not maintain the suit for partition. And we hold that a Hindu widow or a Hindu woman having life interest can very much maintain a suit for partition for the fullest enjoyment of her such right in the joint properties.

It is not permissible to take disciplinary action against a person solely on the basis of adverse remarks made by a Tribunal in a criminal case unless the allegations imputed in the adverse remarks are proved in disciplinary proceedin

The interest to be paid by the judgment debtor will have to be calculated according to the prevailing interest rate or rates, which may be different for different periods, from the time of filing of the suit till the payment of the decretal amount by the judgment debtor.

It is settled principles that where the inference of guilt of an accused is to be drawn from circumstantial evidence only, those circumstances must, in the first place, be cogently established. Further, those circumstances should be of a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused, and in their totality, must unerringly lead to the conclusion that within all human probability, the offence was committed by the accused excluding any other hypotheses.