Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Arms Act, 1959

22 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SATBIR SINGHversusRAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 41631 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Satbir Singh, an army serviceman, was stabbed and assaulted by Mukesh and several others during a volleyball match dispute. He filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon Rajesh Kumar, Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo and Ankit as additional accused. The Sessions Judge allowed the application, but the High Court

SUNDERLAL KANAIYALAL BHATIJAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 18531 March 2010Dismissed

The appellant, convicted in a TADA case based on a confession recorded by a police officer, was later charged in a separate proceeding for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act. The prosecution sought to introduce the earlier TADA confession as evidence in the IPC trial, but the trial court and th

PAPPU TIWARYversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2022 INSC 11831 January 2022Dismissed

On 7 March 2000 Vikas Kumar Singh was shot by Pappu Tiwari and subsequently stabbed by five others, resulting in his death. All six accused were convicted under IPC sections 302 and 34 and, in Pappu Tiwari's case, also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellants challenged the convictions on several grounds, inclu

DINUBHAI BOGHABHAI SOLANKIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2017 INSC 106330 October 2017Disposed off

The murder of environmental activist Amit Jethwa, who had filed a PIL against illegal mining near Gir Forest, led to the arrest of Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki and his nephew. After a lackluster police investigation, the case was transferred to the CBI, which filed a charge‑sheet. During trial, 105 of 195 witnesses turne

SATISH @ SABBEversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2020 INSC 56730 September 2020Disposed off

The petitioners, Satish and Vikky, were convicted of kidnapping for ransom and sentenced to life imprisonment. They applied for premature release on probation under Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938, but the State repeatedly rejected their pleas without applying the statutory three

CHETANversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 79330 May 2025Dismissed

The appellant was convicted of murder (IPC s.302), misappropriation of property (IPC s.404), and unlawful possession and use of a firearm (Arms Act s.3, s.5) based largely on circumstantial evidence, including the last‑seen theory, forensic ballistics, and his subsequent abscondence. The Supreme Court examined whether

JASMINBHAI BHARATBHAI KOTHARIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2025 INSC 17230 January 2025Dismissed

Jasminbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, convicted under IPC Section 302 read with Section 34 and the Arms Act, sought an extension of temporary bail, which the Gujarat High Court refused. While filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, he also filed an interlocutory application seeking exemption from surre

SUNIL SAINI & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2023 INSC 71530 January 2023Disposed off

The petitioners, who were witnesses to a 2016 Jat community agitation in Haryana that involved arson and loss of life, alleged that the trial in Jhajjar was compromised by the influence of a powerful advocate, threats to witnesses, and a biased prosecuting team. They filed a transfer petition under Article 139A(2) of t

BHOOPENDRA SINGHversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2021 INSC 69129 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the son of a murdered village sarpanch, sought to overturn a High Court order that granted bail to the 60‑year‑old second respondent accused of conspiring in his father's murder. The prosecution alleged that the respondent used multiple SIM cards to communicate with a hired shooter, stored the weapons us

MOHAMMED AJMAL MOHAMMAD AMIR KASAB @ ABU MUJAHIDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2012 INSC 35729 August 2012Dismissed

The appellant, Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab, was one of ten Pakistani terrorists who launched a coordinated attack on Mumbai on November 26, 2008, killing 166 people and injuring 238. He was convicted by the trial court on multiple charges including waging war against the Government of India, murder, and terroris

STATE OF M.P.versusAYUB KHAN

2012 INSC 36029 August 2012Appeal(s) allowed

Ayub Khan was apprehended in Guna, Madhya Pradesh, possessing a country‑made barrel gun, two bullets and 50 grams of explosives without a licence. He was convicted under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and the trial court sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100, accounting for se

INDRA DALALversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 43629 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved the murder of Nand Karan, for which three appellants were convicted of conspiracy and murder based largely on confessional statements recorded while they were in police custody and the recovery of a scooter allegedly used in the crime. The appellants challenged the admissibility of those confessions u

TARLOCHAN SINGH @ RANAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2022 INSC 35629 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Tarlochan Singh, was the licensed holder of a double‑barrel 12‑bore rifle that was used to murder Gurdeep Singh. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had delivered the firearm to co‑accused Gurpreet Singh, who then used it in the killing, leading to convictions under Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms

ROMILA THAPAR AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2018 INSC 91228 September 2018Disposed off

Five eminent citizens filed a writ petition under Article 32 on behalf of five human‑rights activists arrested in connection with the Bhima‑Koregaon violence. The petitioners alleged that the arrests were fabricated, that the police were using the media to prejudice public opinion, and sought a Special Investigating Te

SANDEEP KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR

2023 INSC 65428 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an informant and prosecution witness, identified three persons named in the FIR but omitted from the charge‑sheet as assailants during his examination‑in‑chief. He moved an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon these persons, which the trial court allowed. The High Court, on revision, set a

SANGHIAN PANDIAN RAJKUMARversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

2014 INSC 22628 March 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered appeals by two police officers, an IPS officer and a Sub‑Inspector of the Anti‑Terrorist Squad, who had been in judicial custody for nearly seven years on charges of murder, conspiracy and related offences. Their bail applications had been rejected by the High Court of Bombay. The Court exa

SUDERSHAN SINGH WAZIRversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

2025 INSC 28128 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sudershan Singh Wazir, was arraigned as an accused in a murder case and was discharged by the Sessions Court on 20 October 2023 upon furnishing a personal bond. The State of Delhi filed a revision challenging the discharge and the Delhi High Court, ex‑parte, stayed the discharge order and later directed

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusRAM KAILASH ALIAS RAM VILAS

2016 INSC 10028 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan prosecuted Ram Kailash alias Ram Vilas for shooting Mangla Ram, who later died from his injuries. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC (murder) and sections of the Arms Act, imposing life imprisonment and additional terms. On appeal, the Rajasthan High Court reduced the mur

MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF M.P.

2010 INSC 6428 January 2010Disposed off

The prosecution alleged that Musheer Khan (A‑4) and Basant Shiva (A‑5) were hired killers who shot the deceased Mallu Bhaiya at close range, based largely on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of two eyewitnesses, PW‑3 and PW‑4. The trial court convicted them of murder under IPC s.302/1208 and the Arms Act s.25(

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusGANGABISHAN @ VISHNU & ORS.

2018 INSC 64427 July 2018Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted nine accused for the death of Rajesh, who was shot in the left thigh during a dispute over cattle and crop damage. The trial court convicted all under sections 302/149, 325/149, 147, 148 and 440 IPC, but the High Court acquitted eight of them, retaining only a conviction of accuse

RANBEER SINGH (DEAD) BY L.R.versusSTATE OF U. P. & ORS.

2015 INSC 27027 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by the complainant, Ranbeer Singh, against the Allahabad High Court’s acquittal of three co‑accused (Balbir Singh, Karua and Vinod) who had been convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The trial court had found all four accused – including the main sh

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusANWAR OSMAN SUMBHANIYA AND ORS.

2019 INSC 28027 February 2019Dismissed

The State of Gujarat appealed the acquittal of Anwar Osman Sumbhaniya and others by a Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The appeal centered on whether the prior sanctions issued under Section 20‑A(2) of TADA for the 1993 and 2005 prosecutions were valid. The S

CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 11427 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from an incident on 15 November 2004 where a Head Constable Jagdish Singh fired at a car suspected of smuggling liquor, killing the passenger. The trial court acquitted three constables – Surendra Singh, Surat Singh and Ashad Singh – on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove they shared a common

JUGRAJversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2010 INSC 6227 January 2010Disposed off

Four persons, including Jugraj Singh, were accused of murdering former MLA Bachhitter Singh in December 1996. The trial court convicted all under Sections 302, 34 and related provisions, but the High Court acquitted three co‑accused while upholding Jugraj's conviction, relying on the recovery of a .12‑bore gun and fore

SURINDER SINGHversusSTATE (UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH)

2021 INSC 79026 November 2021Case Partly allowed

Head Constable Surinder Singh entered the complainant's residential office while intoxicated, drew his service pistol, aimed it at the complainant and fired a shot that struck the ceiling. The prosecution proved the bullet was fired from his pistol and that he intended to kill, despite no motive being established. The

BRAHM SWAROOP & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 73426 October 2010Dismissed

The case involved six accused who were alleged to have fired on four persons, resulting in four deaths. The trial court acquitted Brahm Swaroop and Jagdish Baggar on the ground that the informant could not name their fathers and the weapon recovery was doubtful, while convicting the others. On appeal, the High Court re

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusCHHAAKKI LAL AND ANOTHER

2018 INSC 88926 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted Chhaakki Lal and his son Akhilesh for the murder of four persons, including a three‑year‑old child, based primarily on the testimony of the sole eye‑witness Kesar Bai (PW‑1). The trial court convicted them under Section 302 IPC and imposed death sentences, deeming the case "rarest

ASHRAFKHAN @ BABU MUNNEKHAN PATHANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2012 INSC 42526 September 2012Disposed off

The case involved 60 accused charged under TADA, the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act, of whom 11 were convicted by a Designated Court. The appellants contended that the FIR under TADA was registered without the mandatory prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police under s.20‑A(1) of TADA, renderin

BALWAN SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2014 INSC 56326 August 2014Disposed off

The case arose from a midnight assault on 26 May 2001 in which a group of accused entered the house of Bani Singh, armed with sharp weapons and a pistol, and attacked the occupants, resulting in Bani Singh’s death and injuries to four others. The prosecution relied primarily on the ocular testimony of two injured witne

STATE OF GUJARATversusGIRISH RADHAKRISHNAN VARDE

2013 INSC 78325 November 2013Disposed off

The State of Gujarat appealed against the High Court’s order upholding the quashing of a magistrate’s permission to add Sections 364, 394 and 398 IPC to a charge‑sheet that had already been filed after investigation of an FIR under Section 154 CrPC. The dispute centered on whether a magistrate exercising jurisdiction u

RAJO @ RAJWA @ RAJENDRA MANDALversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2023 INSC 77125 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, serving a life sentence for murder and a weapons offence, applied for premature release after 24 years of incarceration, claiming denial of remission and parole. The Remission Board rejected his applications twice, relying heavily on adverse opinions of the presiding judge, despite favorable reports fro

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusJAINUDEEN SHEKHANDANR.

2015 INSC 61025 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed against a Special Judge's order granting Rs.1,50,000 compensation to two accused persons, Jainudeen and Shabbir, who were acquitted under the NDNDPS Act after a forensic report, delayed by two years, showed no contraband. The trial judge had based the compensation on alleged malice and t

RAHUL KUMAR YADAVversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2024 INSC 35925 April 2024

Rahul Kumar Yadav was convicted under Sections 302 and 394 of the IPC and Section 27(2) of the Arms Act, receiving a death sentence which was later commuted to life imprisonment. He claimed that he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence (27 July 2011) and filed applications under Section 7‑A of the Juvenile

MANJEET SINGHversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2014 INSC 32525 April 2014Disposed off

Manjeet Singh and two companions were charged with murder (Sec. 302 IPC), attempted murder, and offences under the Arms Act after firing a carbine in a hotel hall, killing Rajnish (Rintu) and injuring others. The trial court convicted Singh under Sec. 302, Sec. 324 IPC and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act; the High Court affirm

WAHEED-UR-REHMAN PARRAversusUNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

2022 INSC 24025 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was charged under the UAPA and related statutes, and the trial court declared five prosecution witnesses as protected under Section 44 of the UAPA and Section 173(6) of the CrPC, sealing their statements. The appellant later sought, under Section 207 of the CrPC, redacted copies of those statements so tha

JOGINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2013 INSC 71824 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Joginder Singh was tried along with two others for murder, attempted murder and offences under the Arms Act arising from a land dispute that escalated into a shooting. The trial court acquitted all three accused, finding contradictions between eyewitness testimony, the ballistic report and the fact that t

SITA RAMversusBALBIR@ BALI & ANR.

2013 INSC 71524 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sita Ram, filed an FIR alleging that Balbir (respondent No.1), an ex‑MLA, led a mob of 30‑35 armed men to his shop over a donation dispute, resulting in the death of his brother‑in‑law and injuries to several others. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected Balbir’s bail application, but the High Court lat

HARJIT SINGHversusINDERPREET SINGH @ INDER AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 41824 August 2021Leave Granted & Allowed

Harjit Singh filed an FIR alleging that his father was murdered by a group of accused, including Inderpreet Singh (respondent No.1), who was alleged to have orchestrated the conspiracy from jail using a mobile phone. The High Court granted bail to Inderpreet Singh, reasoning that he was not physically present at the cr

ROHIT BISHNOIversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR

2023 INSC 64224 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case involves an alleged honour killing where the victim, Vikash Panwar, was shot dead by three accused who were related to his live-in partner. The accused were charged under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to all three accused in

MAGHAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH @ PANKAJ SINGHversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2023 INSC 41524 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Maghavendra Pratap Singh (Pankaj Singh), was convicted for the murder of businessman Goverdhan Aggarwal and related offences under Sections 302, 201, 120B of the IPC and the Arms Act, based largely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution’s case lacked any eyewitnesses, direct forensic linkage, or rel

LAKSHMAN SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

2021 INSC 35223 July 2021Dismissed

The case arose from a violent incident at a polling booth where the accused, belonging to another village, attacked a voter slip issuer and his brother, using lathis and pistols, causing injuries to several witnesses. The trial court convicted the accused of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 IPC and rioting un

SUDHA SINGHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2021 INSC 27123 April 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The accused, alleged to be a contract killer and member of an organized crime gang, was arrested under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 for the murder of Rajnarain Singh. The Allahabad High Court granted him bail on liberal terms despite his prior involvement in fiftee

SHEIKH JUMAN & ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF BLHAR

2017 INSC 17323 February 2017Dismissed

The appellants, armed with bombs and guns, attacked the informant's nephews, hurling bombs that caused two deaths and injuries to others. The trial court convicted several accused under Sections 302 and 149 of the IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing two to de

NIMAI GHOSH & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

2025 INSC 81623 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the murder of Manmohan Ghosh in 1989, for which six relatives were charged, including Nimai Ghosh, Sonachand Ghosh and Sambal Ghosh. The trial court acquitted all accused, finding the eyewitness testimonies unreliable and noting the absence of the weapon and forensic evidence. The High Court reversed

LACHHMAN DASSversusRESHAM CHAND KALER AND ANR.

2018 INSC 5023 January 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from FIR 205/2015 alleging murder, attempted murder and offences under the Arms Act in a land‑dispute incident, with Resham Chand Kaler, a British national, alleged to be the kingpin. The trial court rejected his bail application, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court later granted regular bail. The compla

STATE OF U.P.versusNAREN.DRA & ORS.

2014 INSC 65722 September 2014Dismissed

The case involves a brutal murder of Dr. Rajveer Singh, his sons, and his brother over a land dispute, for which six accused were tried. The trial court convicted them under various IPC sections and sentenced five of them to death. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court held that the case did not fall within the "rarest o

ANUJ SINGH @ RAMANUJ SINGH @ SETH SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2022 INSC 46322 April 2022Dismissed

The appellants, Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh, were involved in a land dispute with Kumar Nandan Singh, who was repairing a wall. During an altercation, the appellants approached the scene armed with firearms and fired at the informant, causing injuries to his left foot and right arm; other accused used spears and lathis.

GURMAIL SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2012 INSC 52821 November 2012Dismissed

The case arose from a violent clash between two rival families over a land dispute, which culminated in the murder of Gurdial Singh and injuries to several others. Eight persons, armed with guns and gandasas, assembled and attacked the victims; three of the accused died during trial, leaving five to stand trial. The tr

KAVITHA LANKESHversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2021 INSC 65421 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh, investigated under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (KCOCA). The Commissioner of Police granted prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) to invoke Section 3 of KCOCA against several accused, including Mohan Nayak, based on material indicating o

RAMESHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 71721 October 2010Dismissed

The case arose from a violent clash over disputed land in Jind, where several accused, armed with pistols, lathis and other weapons, assembled and attacked a group of persons, resulting in the death of Krishan and injuries to others. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 148, 449 I

SURESH AND ANRversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2018 INSC 73421 August 2018Disposed off

The case involved the murder of Chander Bhan, an election agent of a losing candidate, allegedly killed by supporters of the same candidate to frame the winning candidate in a false case. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including an extra‑judicial confession, forensic recovery of a gun and pellets, a

LT. COL. PRASAD SHRIKANT PUROHITversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2017 INSC 78421 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit, a serving Army officer, was accused of conspiring with others to plant a bomb in Malegaon in 2008, resulting in six deaths. The case was investigated first by the Anti‑Terrorist Squad (ATS) and later by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), leading to divergent charge‑sheets, with t

MD. JAMILUDIN NASIRversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2015 INSC 31621 May 2014Disposed off

The case concerns a pre‑planned terrorist attack on the police guarding the American Centre in Calcutta on 22 January 2002, which resulted in five police deaths and multiple injuries. The accused, including Md. Jamiludin Nasir and Aftab Ahmed Ansari, were convicted under the waging‑war provisions of the IPC and various

YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMONversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI, BOMBAY

2013 INSC 17921 March 2013Disposed off

On March 12, 1993, a series of 12 bomb explosions occurred in Bombay, killing 257 people and injuring 713, with property damage worth Rs. 27 crores. The conspiracy was hatched by Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim, with Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (A-1) playing a key role. The Designated Court convicted 100 accused, sentencing

IBRAHIM MUSA CHAUHAN @ BABA CHAUHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2013 INSC 18021 March 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court reviewed a series of criminal appeals arising from the 1993 Bombay serial blasts, all tried under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The appeals concerned convictions for offences such as unauthorised possession of arms and explosives (s.3(3), s.5, s.6 TADA), conspi

AHMED SHAH KHAN DURRANI @ A.S. MUBARAKversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2013 INSC 17821 March 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court of India delivered a consolidated judgment on multiple appeals arising from the 1993 Bombay serial blasts case under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The appeals challenged convictions and acquittals of various accused persons involved in the conspiracy, landing,

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusFAZAL REHMAN ABDUL

2013 INSC 18121 March 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined 19 appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra against acquittals in the 1993 Bombay serial bomb blast case, focusing on conspiracy charges under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and the Indian Penal Code. It reiterated the limited circumstances in which an appell

SANJAY DUTT (A-117)versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI (STF), BOMBAY

2013 INSC 18221 March 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals arising from the Designated Court's judgments in the 1993 Bombay bomb blast case under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The Court held that confessional statements recorded under Section 15 of TADA are substantive evidence admissible a

SANGEET & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2012 INSC 52220 November 2012Case Partly allowed

Six persons, including appellants Sandeep and Narender, were convicted of murder, attempt to murder, rioting and other offences for the killings of Ranbir, Simla, Seema and a child, Rahul. The trial court sentenced the appellants to death and the others to life imprisonment; the High Court affirmed the death sentences.

MUNILAKSHMIversusNARENDRA BABU & ANR.

2023 INSC 94320 October 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined an appeal against the grant of regular bail to the accused (Respondent No.1) in a murder case involving sections 109, 120B, 201, 302, 450 and 454 IPC. After the bail was granted, key witnesses – the mother, sister and father of the deceased – turned hostile within twenty days, raising concern

UNION OF INDIAversusSALEEM KHAN

2025 INSC 100820 August 2025Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined two bail appeals arising from a 2020 FIR under the IPC, Arms Act and UAPA, involving accused no.11 (Saleem Khan) and accused no.20 (Mohd. Zaid). Both had been denied bail by the trial court, but the Karnataka High Court granted bail to Khan while refusing it to Zaid. The Court held that Khan'

HETCHIN HAOKIPversusSTATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

2018 INSC 62820 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was detained under the National Security Act, 1980 on 12 July 2017, and the District Magistrate reported the detention to the State Government only on 17 July 2017, a five‑day delay. The petitioner challenged the detention on the ground that the report was not made "forthwith" as required by Section 3(4)

MANOJ & ORSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 60620 May 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellants Manoj, Rahul (Govind) and Neha Verma were convicted for the triple murder of three women during a robbery on 19 June 2011 and sentenced to death, which the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the trial and appellate courts failed to provide an effective sentencing hearing under s.235(2) CrPC

ABHISHEKversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

2022 INSC 61820 May 2022Dismissed

The appellant Abhishek Singh was charged under several IPC offences, the Arms Act and MCOCA after a proclamation declared him an absconder. The Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police granted sanction for prosecution under MCOCA, which the appellant challenged before the High Court and then the

DEEPAK YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR

2022 INSC 61020 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Deepak Yadav filed an FIR alleging that the accused Harjeet Yadav (Respondent No.2) shot his father, leading to his death. The accused was arrested, and his bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court but later granted by the Allahabad High Court on the ground of parity with a co‑accused. The Supr

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusVISHWANATH MARANNA SHETTY

2012 INSC 49419 October 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The State prosecuted Vishwanath Maranna Shetty, accused No.9 in a Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) case, alleging that he managed funds for an organised crime syndicate and abetted the murder of Farid Tanasha. The Special Court denied his bail application, but the Bombay High Court later granted bail.

SANTOSH @ RAJESH @ GOPALversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2024 INSC 72319 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, was convicted for the murder of Narayan Singh based on the recovery of a pistol from his possession and a ballistic report linking the weapon to the fatal bullet. The prosecution’s case relied on a disclosure statement made by a co-accused, which led to the discovery of the pist

RAKESH & ANOTHERversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2011 INSC 69319 September 2011Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the murder of Kailash (Killu) on 5 March 1996, for which Rakesh, Rajesh and Dinesh were convicted under Section 302 IPC. The appellants challenged the conviction on two grounds: that the eye‑witness testimony of the victim’s nephew (PW‑11) conflicted with the post‑mortem estimate of time of d

MOHD. ANWARversusTHE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)

2020 INSC 49619 August 2020Dismissed

The appellant, Mohd. Anwar, was accused of robbing a motorist with two accomplices, using a knife and a revolver, and extorting Rs.30,000. The trial court convicted him of robbery with hurt and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment, which the High Court reduced to two years under Section 394 IPC and added a conviction

STATE (CBI)versusMOHD. SALIM ZARGAR @ FAYAZ & ORS.

2025 INSC 37619 March 2025Dismissed

The case arose from a 1990 kidnapping and murder of the Vice Chancellor of Kashmir University and his personal secretary, allegedly carried out by members of the JKSLF. The CBI charged several accused, including Mohd. Salim Zargar, under the Ranbir Penal Code and the now‑repealed TADA Act. The Special Court acquitted a

BALVIR SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 22619 February 2019Disposed off

The incident occurred on 11 March 1998 when the victim, Mohan Mehtar, was stopped by four accused; Bharat Singh beat him with a lathi, Balvir Singh and Bhav Singh held him, and Harnam Singh shot him at close range, causing instant death. The trial court convicted all four under sections 341, 302 and, for Harnam Singh,

MUSTAK @ KANIO AHMED SHAIKHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2020 INSC 43518 June 2020Dismissed

The appellant, Mustak @ Kanio Ahmed Shaikh, was convicted for attempting to murder Dr. Jaydeep Patel by shooting him from a motorcycle he was driving, with his accomplice as the pillion rider. The prosecution proved the case through eye‑witness identification (the victim and his driver), a test identification parade, f

RAVI MANDALversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2023 INSC 55218 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The father of the deceased lodged an FIR after finding his son's body in a forest, alleging that the deceased had been with two friends. The trial court convicted the two accused under Sections 302, 34 and 201 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, relying mainly on the testimony of two chance witnesses who

JAGJEET SINGH & ORSversusASHISH MISHRA @ MONU & ANR.

2022 INSC 42718 April 2022Disposed off

The case arose from the Lakhimpur Kheri incident on 3 October 2021, where the accused, Ashish Mishra, allegedly drove vehicles into a crowd of protesting farmers, resulting in multiple deaths. The accused was charged under several IPC sections (147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 326 r/w 34 and 120B) and Arms Act sections (3, 25,

BHAGWAN SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2020 INSC 31018 March 2020Case Partly allowed

During his son’s wedding in Uttarakhand, the appellant fired a licensed gun towards the roof, causing pellets to strike five guests, two of whom died. The trial court convicted him under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and five years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively. On appeal, the S

AYUB KHANversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 68017 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a District and Sessions Judge of Rajasthan, was criticised by the Rajasthan High Court for not including a tabular chart of the accused's antecedents in a bail order, as directed in the Jugal Kishore case. The High Court deemed this non‑compliance as indiscipline and possibly contempt, ordering the judge

BRIJMANI DEVIversusPAPPU KUMAR & ANR.

2021 INSC 91917 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, mother of the deceased Rupesh Kumar, filed two FIRs alleging that the respondent, Pappu Kumar, attempted to murder her son in 2017 and murdered him in 2020, also violating the Arms Act. The respondent was arrested after absconding for seven months and was denied bail by the Sessions Court, but the Patna

STATE OF PUNJABversusJAGGA SINGH ETC

2014 INSC 87817 December 2014Dismissed

The case concerns the murder of Satnam Singh in Ludhiana in 2002. Seven persons were charged; two (Charanjit Singh and Surjit Singh) were convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, while five others were acquitted by the High Court. The State appealed the acquittals and the two convicted appealed t

RAJINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2014 INSC 88417 December 2014Case Partly allowed

The appellant Rajinder Singh was convicted for the murder of Suraj Mal and Shri Ram and for violating Section 27 of the Arms Act after a violent altercation following a Holi celebration. The incident involved a quarrel between a juvenile and another party, after which the appellant allegedly fired his licensed double‑b

BALKAR SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2014 INSC 102917 November 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved the murder of Satinder Sekhon, for which A‑10 (Balkar Singh) was convicted under Sections 120B (conspiracy) and 302 read with 34 of the IPC, based largely on circumstantial evidence. The trial court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the conviction, while the accused argued that there was no m

BRIJ LALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2016 INSC 60617 August 2016Dismissed

The appellant Brij Lal, a government employee, and his co‑accused Kashi Ram, armed with pistols, went to the residence of Mohan Ram where a crowd had gathered to prevent them from killing Mohan Lal. Brij Lal fired at the unarmed crowd, causing the deaths of Om Prakash, Sultan Bhat and Munni Devi, and injuries to others

ARSHAD HUSSAINversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2013 INSC 47717 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Arshad Hussain, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of Iqbal, based on the prosecution claim that he fired three shots from a 12‑bore gun after being prompted by his brothers, Mujaffar and Shahjad. The High Court acquitted the brothers on alibi grounds, but uphe

RAJENDRA SHARMAversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013 INSC 47617 July 2013Disposed off

The appellant, a taxi driver, was convicted along with two others for committing dacoity under Sections 395 and 397 of the IPC, as well as offences under the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act, after a gold jewellery workshop was looted and the perpetrators fled in two taxis. The trial court sentenced each accus

HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGHversusSTATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.

2012 INSC 23917 May 2012Appeal(s) allowed

Huidrom Shantikumar Singh was arrested for murder under Section 302 IPC and the Arms Act and, while already in custody, a District Magistrate ordered his detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (NSA) on the basis that he might be released on bail in a similar case and could engage in activities prejud

SUBHASH AGGARWALversusTHE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2025 INSC 49917 April 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a father, was convicted of murdering his son under Section 302 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The central issue was whether the death was a homicide or a suicide, given the absence of a clear motive and reliance on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court examined forensic evidence,

AFJAL ALI SHA @ ABJAL SHAUKAT SHAversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

2023 INSC 25717 March 2023Directions issued

The petitioner, brother of a murder victim, sought transfer of the criminal trial from West Bengal to Assam, alleging bias, witness intimidation, and procedural irregularities including a state‑issued notification to withdraw prosecution. The High Court set aside the withdrawal order and directed the trial to continue,

ANKUSH VIPAN KAPOORversusNATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

2024 INSC 98616 December 2024Dismissed

The petitioner was arrested in Punjab for alleged NDNDPS offences and was granted bail, which was later cancelled by the High Court after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation of related scheduled offences under the UAPA. The Central Government, invoking Section 6(5) and Section 8 of the N

MANGU SINGHversusDHARMENDRA & ANR.

2015 INSC 93516 December 2015Dismissed

The accused, Mangusinh, was convicted by the trial court for murder of his wife and daughter under IPC s.302 and Arms Act s.25, based on a confessional FIR, a second FIR lodged by the victims' father (PW1), and the testimony of an alleged eye‑witness (PW4). The High Court acquitted him, holding that both FIRs were ante

MOHD. FEROZ KHAN@ FEROZversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2015 INSC 104416 December 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, Mohd. Feroz Khan, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime committed on 2 August 1999. He contended that he was 17 years old at the time of the offence and therefore fell within the ambit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Supreme Court

EBHA ARJUN JADEJA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2019 INSC 114816 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were stopped by police in Gujarat and found in possession of prohibited firearms, leading to an FIR under the Arms Act and a concurrent charge under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The prosecution sought to add a TADA offence after obtaining sanction from the Distri

ADAMBHAI SULEMANBHAI AJMERI & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2014 INSC 39916 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the convictions of six accused in the 2002 Akshardham temple terrorist attack, which were based largely on confessional statements recorded under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), testimony of accomplices, and two Urdu letters allegedly recovered from the terrorists' pockets. The Court

NARENDRASINH KESHUBHAI ZALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2023 INSC 24116 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala, was convicted for murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and for offences under the Arms Act based primarily on the testimony of a single eyewitness, PW‑3, who claimed to have seen the shooting. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of PW‑3, noting inconsistencies,

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERSversusVIKASH TIWARY @ BIKASH TIWARY @ BIKASH NATH

2025 INSC 7916 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Vikash Tiwary, a life convict serving a sentence for multiple offences, was transferred by the Inspector General of Prisons from Hazaribagh Central Jail to Central Jail, Dumka on 17 May 2023 after the jail superintendent warned of a potential gang war and insufficient staff to control notorious inmates. The respondent

SHAILENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2024 INSC 52915 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a double murder in 1994 for which ten persons were charged under several IPC sections. One accused, Chhote Singh, was elected MLA in 2007 and the trial court allowed his prosecution to be withdrawn under Section 321 CrPC, citing his good public image, while rejecting similar applications of the other

SUGREEV KUMARversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2019 INSC 38615 March 2019Case Partly allowed

The prosecution, in a trial for three accused under the IPC and Arms Act, sought to summon eight additional persons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on a witness statement that eleven persons were involved. The trial court summoned only one of the eight and dismissed the rest; the High Court af

AJAI ALIAS AJJU ETC. ETCversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2023 INSC 12715 February 2023Dismissed

The case involved the murder of four members of the Vijay Pal family and the grievous injury of Smt. Pinky (PW‑1) in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The accused – Ajai alias Ajju, Braj Pal, Ravi and Mukesh – were convicted under IPC sections 302, 149 and 307 and under the Arms Act, with the trial court imposing death sentenc

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusLT COLONEL DHARAMVIR SINGH

2019 INSC 21415 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Lt. Col. Dharamvir Singh, an Indian Army officer, was posted in Nanded, Maharashtra when an attachment order dated 5 October 2018 was issued by the Army headquarters to initiate disciplinary action under Army Instruction 30/86. He challenged the attachment order through a writ petition under Article 226 before the Mani

KALICHARAN & ORSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2022 INSC 127714 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a 2000 incident in which several accused were convicted of murder and related offences. The trial court framed charges alleging that the victim, Harpal Singh, was killed by bullet injuries from accused No.2, although the evidence showed he died from injuries inflicted by sharp weapons wielded by acc

JOSEPHversusSTATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE .

2017 INSC 122714 December 2017Disposed off

The case arose from a violent clash between two factions at a funeral in Perumanal village, where eleven accused attacked the complainant party, resulting in the death of the deceased (son of PW‑2). The trial court and the Madras High Court convicted all the accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, invo

GOVINDversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 131814 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Govind was convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC and for illegal possession of a firearm under Section 25 of the Arms Act based primarily on the recovery of a country‑made pistol and two live cartridges from an iron box in his house and a forensic report linking the cartridges to the bullets recovere

SANDEEPversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2024 INSC 77114 October 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellant Sandeep was convicted by the Sessions Court and affirmed by the High Court for murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC, based on eyewitness testimony that he shot the deceased after being urged by co‑accused. He was acquitted of the Arms Act charges and the co‑accused were also acquitted

HIMANSHU KUMAR AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 72014 July 2022Dismissed

The petitioners, led by Himanshu Kumar, alleged that police, Special Police Officers, Salwa Judum activists and paramilitary forces carried out brutal massacres of tribals in three Chhattisgarh villages in September and October 2009 and sought a mandamus directing the CBI to investigate and compensation for the victims

DHANANJAY RAI @ GUDDU RAIversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2022 INSC 72314 July 2022

The appellant, Dhananjay Rai, was convicted of murder, criminal conspiracy and illegal possession of arms and appealed the conviction before the Patna High Court. The appeal was admitted, but the appellant subsequently absconded, leading the High Court to dismiss the appeal on the ground of non‑prosecution. The Supreme

ADALAT PANDIT & ANR.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

2010 INSC 32714 May 2010Disposed off

The case arose from a violent dispute over a mango orchard where eleven accused formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the complainant and his two sons, resulting in their deaths. The trial court and High Court convicted all accused under sections 147, 148, 302, 149 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. On appeal, the

BIRJUversusSTATE OF M.P.

2014 INSC 9814 February 2014Disposed off

The appellant Birju was convicted for the murder of a one‑year‑old child, shot with a pistol after the child’s grandfather refused to give him money for liquor. The trial court and the High Court sentenced him to death, invoking his extensive criminal record as an aggravating factor. On appeal, the Supreme Court examin

ASHISH JAINversusMAKRAND SINGH AND ORS.

2019 INSC 4714 January 2019Dismissed

The case involved the murder and robbery of Premchand Jain and his family, for which three accused were initially convicted and sentenced to death. The High Court acquitted the accused, and the matter came before the Supreme Court on appeal by the complainant Ashish Jain and the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court exami

SANDESH ALIAS SAINATH KAILASH ABHANGversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2012 INSC 59013 December 2012Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Sandesh alias Sainath Kailash Abhang, entered a house pretending to be a mechanic, robbed valuables, brutally assaulted the elderly resident and a five‑month‑pregnant woman, inflicted numerous injuries, amputated fingers, and raped the pregnant woman before killing the elderly lady. He was found to be un

STATE OF UTTARAKHANDversusJAIRNAIL SINGH

2017 INSC 110513 November 2017Dismissed

The State of Uttarakhand appealed a High Court order acquitting Jairnail Singh of charges under IPC s.307 (attempt to murder) and Arms Act s.25(1‑A). The Session Court had convicted Singh, but the High Court set aside the conviction, citing material infirmities such as the failure to forensic‑test the recovered pistol,

MOHMED RAFIQ ABDUL RAHIM SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2018 INSC 81313 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Salim Shamsuddin Shaikh (A‑2) and Mohmed Rafiq Abdul Rahim Shaikh (A‑4), were convicted under Sections 25(1)(a) and 25(1AA) read with Section 35 of the Arms Act, 1959 for possession of prohibited ammunition found in a car owned by A‑2 and in a bungalow occupied by A‑4. The prosecution relied solely on t

ASHWANI KUMAR SAXENAversusSTATE OF M.P.

2012 INSC 39513 September 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ashwani Kumar Saxena, was convicted of murder under IPC s.302 r.w. s.27 Arms Act and appealed, claiming he was a juvenile at the time of the offence (19‑Oct‑2008). He produced school mark‑sheets and the school admission register showing a birth date of 24‑Oct‑1990, while the trial court relied on ossific

ASHOK DHANKADversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

2025 INSC 97413 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ashok Dhankad, challenged a Delhi High Court order that granted regular bail to accused wrestler Sushil Kumar under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR alleging abduction, assault with dangerous weapons, and the death of a complainant's son. The High Cou

AJAY KUMAR SINGHversusTHE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF & ORS.

2016 INSC 52213 July 2016Dismissed

Three naval personnel (AK Singh, UK Singh and DK Singh) were accused of a bank robbery at the Andhra Bank counter in INS Virbahu. The Court Martial convicted AK and UK, dismissing them with disgrace, while the Armed Forces Tribunal later affirmed their convictions based on eyewitness testimony of the bank manager (PW‑1

MUSTKEEM @ SIRAJUDEENversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2011 INSC 48713 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The accused Mustkeem, Nandu and Arun were convicted for the murder of Ram Pal Yadav under IPC s.302/34 and the Arms Act based largely on circumstantial evidence, hostile eyewitnesses, and weapons recovered after the accused’s disclosure. The Supreme Court found that key witnesses had turned hostile, statements were ret

VINOD @ NASMULLAversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 22013 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Vinod @ Nasmulla was convicted under IPC sections 395 and 397 and Arms Act section 25 for a dacoity involving a bus robbery on 28 September 1993. The prosecution's case rested on a dock identification by a police constable (PW‑9) and the alleged recovery of a country‑made pistol at the time of his arrest,

AMAR SINGHversusTHE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2020 INSC 58712 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the murder of Devinder Singh, who was allegedly attacked by three accused wielding hockey sticks and a knife. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of Parminder Singh (PW‑1), a brother of the deceased, while the other two eye‑witnesses turned hostile. The Supreme Court examined the

BIKRAMJIT SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2020 INSC 58912 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

A hand grenade attack at a public gathering in Amritsar resulted in three deaths and 22 serious injuries. Bikramjit Singh was arrested, remanded to custody, and after 90 days (which expired on 21‑02‑2019) he applied for default bail; the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application, claiming he had alre

PRATAPBHAI HAMIRBHAI SOLANKIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

2012 INSC 47112 October 2012Disposed off

The appellant, Pratapbhai Hamirbai Solanki, was accused of conspiring to murder an RTI activist and was charged under Sections 302, 201 and 120‑B IPC and Sections 25(1)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act. Bail applications before the Sessions Court and the Gujarat High Court were rejected. After the High Court reserved its judg

AMANULLAH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2016 INSC 30612 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the murder of Tamanna Khatoon, for which her husband Mukhtar filed an FIR against two accused. During investigation, witnesses under Section 164 of the CrPC alleged that Mukhtar himself killed his wife. The CJM took cognizance of the murder and related offences after reviewing the charge‑sheet and s

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSYED UMAR SAYED ABBAS & ORS.

2016 INSC 16212 February 2016Dismissed

The case concerned the murder of Rajendra Rajaram Gupta during a Ganesh festival, where the prosecution alleged that two accused opened fire on the victim and an injured eyewitness. The trial court convicted five accused based on the testimonies of five eye‑witnesses and test identification parades (TIPs). On appeal, t

NAR SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2014 INSC 77011 November 2014Disposed off

Nar Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act for the murder of Rajbir, based largely on circumstantial evidence and a forensic science laboratory (FSL) report (Ex‑P12) linking a recovered bullet to a country‑made pistol. The trial court and the High Court failed to put the FSL report

GURDEEP SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2025 INSC 95711 August 2025Dismissed

The appellant, an Assistant Superintendent of Jail, was alleged to have facilitated a private vehicle ride for two police constables escorting an undertrial prisoner, during which two unidentified youths attacked the constables with red chilli powder, a knife and a kirpan, attempting to free the prisoner. The prosecuti

MOHAMMAD IRFANversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2022 INSC 66411 July 2022Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined appeals by four accused (A‑1, A‑4 to A‑6) who were convicted for conspiring to wage war against the Government of India under IPC s.121A, along with offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution relied on recovered explosives, arms, inflammatory lit

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusMANOJ KUMAR

2014 INSC 26611 April 2014Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan appealed against the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment that acquitted two accused (Hemant Kumar and Manoj Kumar) and convicted Raju (Raj Kumar) for the death of Anirudh Mishra arising out of a property dispute. The accused claimed the right of private defence. The Supreme Court examined whether the

KULDIP YADAV & ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

2011 INSC 28611 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from two FIRs (11/97 and 12/97) lodged on 28‑29 April 1997 concerning a violent incident in which a man named Suresh Yadav died and several others were injured. Eleven accused were charged under IPC sections 302, 324 and 149 and were convicted by the trial court, a decision affirmed by the High Court. On

SHAHID ALIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2024 INSC 19111 March 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Shahid Ali, fired a country-made pistol during a celebratory firing at a marriage ceremony on 17 March 2016, striking the deceased Ishfaq Ali in the neck and causing his immediate death. The trial court and the High Court convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, along wi

SATYAVIR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 9611 February 2010Dismissed

Satyavir Singh, armed with his brother's licensed double‑barrel gun, fired two shots at Dharam Prakash, the brother of an informant, injuring him. The trial court convicted Singh under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act; the first appellate court acquitted him on the basis that the firing was accidental, re

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusWASIF HAIDER ETC.

2018 INSC 118110 December 2018Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed the High Court’s acquittal of Wasif Haider and others for murder, attempted murder and related offences arising from a riot at a temple. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellate court could disturb an acquittal and whether the prosecution had established the identity of the a

S.K. JAINversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2025 INSC 121510 October 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a Colonel in the Army Ordnance Corps, was tried by a General Court Martial on three charges: corruption for accepting Rs 10,000, possession of ammunition without licence, and an act prejudicial to good order and discipline for possessing Rs 28,000 cash. The GCM convicted him of the first two charges and

MAHAMADKHAN NATHEKHANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2014 INSC 100210 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Three accused were tried for the murder of Firozbhai under Sections 302, 120(8), 201 of the IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The trial court acquitted them, finding that the prosecution's circumstantial case did not establish a homicidal death and that the injury could have been accidental. The Gujarat High Co

ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYOOM ANSARIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2010 INSC 60210 September 2010Dismissed

Abu Salem, an absconding accused in the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts, was arrested in Portugal and extradited to India under the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the Indian Extradition Act, 1962 (applied to Portugal by a 2002 notification). Portugal granted extradition for certain offen

KHEMA @ KHEM CHANDRA ETC.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2022 INSC 81010 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for murder, attempted murder and rioting under Sections 302, 307 and 148 of the IPC based primarily on the testimonies of two relatives of the deceased, one an alleged eye‑witness (PW‑1) and the other an injured witness (PW‑2). The Supreme Court examined the credibility of these witnesses,

MOHD. ARIF @ ASHFAQversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2011 INSC 57110 August 2011Dismissed

The appellant, a Pakistani national and member of Lashkar‑e‑Toiba, was convicted for planning and executing a terrorist attack on the Red Fort on 22 December 2000, which killed three Indian Army soldiers. The prosecution proved the conspiracy and the murders through extensive circumstantial evidence, forensic links bet

RAJU & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 9410 February 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the conviction of two appellants, Raju and Mangli, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Ishwar. The incident arose after the deceased misbehaved with women at a marriage ceremony, leading the accused to assault him; the co‑accused were armed with k

MADANversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2023 INSC 9909 November 2023Disposed off

The case arose from a 2003 incident in Muzzafarnagar where six persons were killed by indiscriminate firing by the appellants Madan, Sudesh Pal and others, allegedly motivated by political rivalry. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced Madan and Sudesh Pa

NARESH @ NEHRUversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2023 INSC 8899 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC for the murder of Ajay based primarily on the testimony of PW‑9, a cousin of the deceased, and a CCTV video. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the eyewitness, finding his statements riddled with inconsistencies, no prior identi

JOSEPH JOHNSON N. MAITHKURIversusSUBRAHMANYA & ANOTHER

2022 INSC 9449 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court after the Karnataka High Court granted bail to accused Subrahmanya and Rajesh in a case involving conspiracy to murder, murder, and illegal possession of arms (IPC ss.120B, 302, 201, 34; Arms Act s.27(3)). The appellant argued that the High Court failed to consider the seri

PANKAJversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2016 INSC 8629 September 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Pankaj was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting his brother-in-law Raj Kumar, who later died. The prosecution's case rested on the sole eye‑witness testimony of the victim's brother (PW‑8) and corroboration by

UMA SHANKAR SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

2010 INSC 5919 September 2010Dismissed

During a Bihar assembly election, an FIR was lodged for murder, robbery and illegal possession of arms, implicating Uma Shankar Singh. The investigation was transferred to the CID and both the CID and local police submitted final reports under Section 173(2) CrPC that exonerated Singh. Despite these reports, the Chief

SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

2010 INSC 3979 July 2010Dismissed

The case involved eight persons accused of murdering Upendra Singh and attempting to murder his brother over a disputed land. The prosecution proved that a group of more than five armed men formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of eliminating the victims, and that Rajeshwar Singh fired the fatal shots. The

SUNIL KUNDU AND ANR.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2013 INSC 2299 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Sunil Kundu and others were convicted of murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34 based mainly on three eye‑witnesses who were relatives of the deceased. The Supreme Court found serious inconsistencies between the eye‑witness accounts and the post‑mortem report, which showed no firearm injuries despite the

NILESH DINKAR PARADKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2011 INSC 1959 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar, was convicted under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) and the IPC based largely on voice identification of a recorded telephone conversation. The High Court upheld his conviction while acquitting the other accused, relying on the officer's identification of th

BIJENDER @ MANDARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2021 INSC 7068 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Bijender @ Mandar was convicted under Sections 392 and 397 IPC for allegedly robbing a complainant and his nephew with pistols, based primarily on his own disclosure statement that led to the recovery of Rs.5,000, a red cloth and a passbook. The prosecution’s case lacked any eye‑witness testimony, and key

PRASHANT SINGH RAJPUTversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

2021 INSC 6458 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved the murder of Vikas Singh, for which an FIR was lodged by his brother‑in‑law, Prashant Singh Rajput. The accused Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, which the High Court granted on the basis of a police report stating they were not present at the

MRITUNJOY BISWASversusPRANAB @ KUTI BISWAS AND ANOTHER

2013 INSC 5258 August 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerns the murder of Ashalata Biswas, who was shot through a window on 20 April 2001. The trial court convicted Pranab @ Kuti Biswas under Section 302 IPC, but the Calcutta High Court acquitted him, citing the absence of the accused's name in the FIR, the victim's failure to name the shooter, minor inconsist

NARMADA BAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS

2011 INSC 2858 April 2011Case Allowed

Narmada Bai, the mother of Tulsiram Prajapati, filed a writ petition under Article 32 alleging that her son was killed in a fake police encounter in Gujarat and that senior police officials and a politician were involved. She sought a direction for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR, investiga

GIRRAJversusKIRANPAL AND ANR ETC

2021 INSC 1618 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Girraj filed a criminal appeal challenging the High Court's grant of bail to five accused (Kiranpal, Sundar, Rakesh, Satish, Dharmendra) in a murder case involving the death of his two sons. The bail to these accused was obtained on the basis of parity with a co-accused, Narendra, whose bail had earlier b

PAWAN @ RAJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2017 INSC 2168 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Pawan @ Rajinder Singh and Ajit @ Dara Singh, were convicted of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and, for Ajit, of an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, based largely on the testimony of two chance witnesses who claimed to have heard an altercation and a gunshot. The Supreme Court exam

STATE OF UTTARAKHANDversusDARSHAN SINGH

2019 INSC 12217 November 2019Dismissed

The State of Uttarakhand appealed the High Court's acquittal of five accused persons charged with murder and offences under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused, armed with pistols and sharp‑edged weapons, ambushed the deceased while he was on a tractor, shot him and assaulted hi

GULAM SARBARversusSTATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

2013 INSC 6777 October 2013Dismissed

The appellants, Gulam Sarbar and Dhiren Mahto, were convicted of murder under s.302 IPC and criminal conspiracy under s.120‑B IPC for the killing of Sant Kumar Sinha. The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of a single eye‑witness (Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha) and corroborative ocular and medical evidence to estab

DINGANGLUNG GANGMEIversusMUTUM CHURAMANI MEETEI & ORS

2023 INSC 6987 August 2023Directions issued

The Supreme Court, hearing a Special Leave Petition arising from sectarian violence in Manipur that included widespread sexual violence against women, directed the State and Union governments to restore law and order and ensure justice for victims. It ordered the formation of a three‑member committee of former female j

EKNATH GANPAT AHER AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 2987 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a land dispute over Gat No. 170 in Maharashtra, where a mob of 75‑100 persons clashed with the complainant party, resulting in two deaths and injuries to members of both sides. The trial court convicted 35 accused under various IPC provisions including murder (s.302) committed by an unlawful assembl

SUKUMARANversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2019 INSC 3277 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sukumar, a Forest Range Officer, chased a lorry he suspected of sandalwood smuggling. The lorry occupants attacked his jeep with stones and shouted “fire them”. Sukumar fired his DBL‑gun, killing the driver. He later loaded sandalwood and a gun from the lorry and claimed he acted in private defence. He w

GURWINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER

2024 INSC 927 February 2024Dismissed

The appellant, Gurwinder Singh, was arrested along with co‑accused for alleged involvement in a terrorist module of the banned organization ‘Sikhs for Justice’, including raising funds, conspiracy and attempts to procure weapons. The investigation, taken over by the NIA, resulted in charges under the UAPA, IPC and Arms

MD IMRAN @ D.C. GUDDUversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026 INSC 367 January 2026

The case arose from a murder investigation where the FIR named nine persons, but the police filed a charge sheet against only three, filing a closure report for the remaining six. Based on oral eyewitness testimony, the first informant applied under Section 319 CrPC to have the six dropped co-accused added as accused;

STATE OF CHHATTISGARHversusAMIT AISHWARYA JOGI

2025 INSC 12856 November 2025Dismissed

The trial court acquitted Amit Aishwarya Jogi in a 2007 murder case involving the killing of a Congress leader, after a CBI‑investigated chargesheet superseded the original police investigation. The State of Chhattisgarh, the CBI and the victim’s son (de‑facto complainant) sought leave to appeal the acquittal, but the

JALPAT RAI & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2011 INSC 4646 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a triple murder and injury incident in Jind, Haryana, where six accused were tried. The trial court convicted only A‑2 under IPC s.302 and the Arms Act, acquitting the other five appellants. The High Court reversed the acquittals, convicting the five under s.148 and s.302 r.w. s.149 IPC. On appeal,

JASBIR SINGH @ JAVRI @ JABBAR SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 2846 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Jasbir Singh was convicted under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act for allegedly planning and attempting a dacoity with firearms. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting the absence of independent witnesses, the fact that the investigating officer himself conducted the

STATE OF PUNJABversusGURPREET SINGH & ORS.

2024 INSC 1546 February 2024Disposed off

The State of Punjab appealed against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s acquittal of Gurpreet Singh and three co‑accused under sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Amarjit Kaur. The trial court had convicted them based on the eyewitness testimony of the victim’s husband and daughter, the reco

INDER SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2015 INSC 76 January 2015Disposed off

Four villagers were killed and an informant seriously injured in a violent clash in Dhodi village, Rajasthan, leading to the charge of murder and grievous hurt against 29 co‑villagers. The trial court convicted 24 of them under Sections 302, 307 and 149 of the IPC, while five were acquitted; subsequent appeals raised q

SURENDERA MISHRAversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2011 INSC 176 January 2011Dismissed

Surendra Mishra was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and for illegal possession of a firearm under Section 27 of the Arms Act after he shot dead Chandrashekhar Choubey. He appealed, claiming that he was of unsound mind at the time of the offence and therefore entitled to the protection of Section 84 IPC. The S

HARI KISHANversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 136 January 2010Disposed off

The appellant Hari Kishan was convicted under sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his brother's sibling Dinesh, based primarily on the testimony of Harkesh (PW‑2), who claimed to be an eye‑witness and to have sustained injuries in the same incident. The trial and High Courts accepted his evi

BODDELLA BABUL REDDYversusPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.

2010 INSC 146 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Boddella Babul Reddy, was convicted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court for murder (Sec. 302 IPC) arising from a factional clash in which he was alleged to have hurled a bomb that killed a coolie. The trial court had acquitted all accused, including the appellant, on the ground that the prosecution evidence

STATE OF NCT OF DELHIversusSHIV CHARAN BANSAL & ORS.

2019 INSC 13215 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the State’s appeal against the discharge of several accused in the murder of S.N. Gupta. The prosecution alleged a pre‑planned criminal conspiracy involving Shiv Charan Bansal, his son, and others, supported by call‑detail records, recovered weapon, ballistic reports and statements. The Court

MRINAL DAS & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF TRIPURA

2011 INSC 6505 September 2011Dismissed

The case involved the murder of Tapan Chakraborty on 31 August 2000, for which thirteen persons were charged. One accused, Ratan Sukladas (A‑12), applied for and was granted pardon, becoming an approver whose testimony formed the core of the prosecution's case. The trial court convicted only two accused (A‑5 and A‑11)

ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

2013 INSC 5125 August 2013Disposed off

Abu Salem, an accused in the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts, was extradited from Portugal to India in 2005 on the assurance that he would not face the death penalty or imprisonment beyond 25 years. After his return, the Designated Court framed additional charges beyond those covered by the extradition, which Abu Salem argued

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANRversusMOHD. PARVEZ ABDUL KAYUUM ETC

2019 INSC 7245 July 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered appeals against the Gujarat High Court's judgment that acquitted several accused of murder and terrorism charges in the killing of former Home Minister Haren Pandya and the attempted murder of Jagdish Tiwari. The CBI had investigated and found both incidents were part of a larger conspiracy

GULFISHA FATIMAversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

2026 INSC 25 January 2026Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined bail applications of several accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It balanced the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21 against the statutory bail restriction in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, considering the length of pre‑trial de

HARI OM @ HEROversusSTATE OF U.P.

2021 INSC 15 January 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Six persons, including Hari Om, Sanjay and Saurabh, were tried for murder (IPC s.396), dacoity (IPC s.412), offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Arms Act. The trial court convicted all of them for murder, sentencing Hari Om to death and the others to life imprisonment; the High Court affirmed

ASHOK KUMAR SINGH CHANDELversusSTATE OF U.P.

2022 INSC 11644 November 2022Dismissed

The case involves the murder of five members of the Shukla family in Hamirpur, Uttar Pradesh, where seven accused were initially acquitted by the trial court. The State appealed, and the Allahabad High Court convicted all accused under Sections 148, 149, 302 and 307 IPC, rejecting the trial court's findings on motive,

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusDAUD KHAN

2015 INSC 8284 November 2015Dismissed

On 19 June 2004, Daud Khan allegedly shot Nand Singh at a restaurant in Nimbahera, Rajasthan, leading to Singh's death. The trial court convicted Khan under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, but the High Court reduced the murder conviction to Section 304(1) IPC while upholding the Arms Act convicti

JAI PRAKASH TIWARIversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 7914 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Jai Prakash Tiwari, was convicted under IPC s.307 and Arms Act ss.25, 27 for allegedly firing a pistol at the complainant. The prosecution's case rested mainly on the testimony of the complainant and his mother, with no independent eyewitnesses and contradictory statements regarding the recovery of the a

RAJARAM PRASAD YADAVversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2013 INSC 4364 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Rajaram Prasad Yadav was convicted for offences under Sections 324, 307 and 34 IPC. After the trial, the second respondent (the informant PW‑9) sought re‑examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging coercion. The trial court dismissed the application, but the High Court allowe

C.B.I.versusKARIMULLAH OSAN KHAN

2014 INSC 1654 March 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) sought to add charges of murder and other offences against Karimullah Osan Khan, an accused in the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts, under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) rej

ASHOK DEBBARMA @ ACHAK DEBBARMAversusSTATE OF TRIPURA

2014 INSC 1674 March 2014Disposed off

In 1997 a group of 30‑35 extremists set fire to houses in Jarulbachai village, Tripura, killing 15 people and injuring several others. Ashok (Achak) Debbarma was charged under IPC sections 326, 436 and 302 read with section 34 and under section 27(3) of the Arms Act; the latter charge was later set aside as unconstitut

RAJESH YADAV & ANRversusSTATE OF U.P.

2022 INSC 1484 February 2022Dismissed

The appellants Rajesh Yadav and others were convicted for murder and for violating the Arms Act, with the High Court acquitting them of the attempt to murder charge under Section 307 IPC but confirming life imprisonment under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the testimonies of related eye‑

HIMANSHU @ CHINTUversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2011 INSC 74 January 2011Dismissed

The case concerns the murder of Murari, for which Himanshu @ Chintu (A‑2) and Shesh Bahadur Pandey (A‑3) were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants challenged the conviction on three grounds: (i) the FIR was lodged two hours after the incident, allegedly to falsely implicate them;

MOHD. ARIF @ ASHFAQversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2022 INSC 11563 November 2022Dismissed

The case concerns a review of the death sentence awarded to Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq for the 2000 Lal Quila firing that killed three army jawans. The petitioner challenged the conviction on four grounds: the admissibility of call data records (CDRs) without a Section 65B certificate, the validity of his disclosure state

RAJESH @ SARKARI & ANRversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2020 INSC 6283 November 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Rajesh alias Sarkari and Ajay Hooda were convicted for murder under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 based on the testimony of the victim's father (PW‑4) and brother (PW‑5) who claimed to have witnessed the shooting and taken the victim to the hospital. The Supreme Court examined inconsistencies in their statements, n

RAMA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 7553 October 2024Case Partly allowed

The case concerns the murder of MLA Brij Bihari Prasad and his bodyguard Lakshmeshwar Sahu at IGIMS Hospital in 1998. The trial court convicted several accused, but the Patna High Court acquitted all, prompting appeals by the State (through the CBI) and the victim's wife, Rama Devi. The Supreme Court examined the credi

BRIJESH MAVIversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2012 INSC 2663 July 2012Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Brijesh Mavi, was charged with murder (IPC s.302) and possession of a counterfeit stamp (IPC s.460) read with s.34, as well as illegal possession of a firearm (Arms Act s.25). The sole eye‑witness identified only a different accused, and the appellant was later linked to the case through his own confessi

INDIRA DEVI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2016 INSC 4403 June 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a land dispute between the victim, Shriram, and his brothers. The victim alleged that three women (the appellants) and two men assaulted him, resulting in gunshot, axe, and other injuries, leading to an FIR under IPC sections 147, 148, 307, 149 and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The trial court convict

RAHULversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2021 INSC 1453 March 2021Leave Granted & Dismissed

The appellant Rahul was convicted for murdering Jitender, allegedly because Jitender had an illicit relationship with Rahul's wife. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of the deceased's brother and mother, forensic findings linking a recovered .315 bore pistol to the fatal bullets

WAHIDversusSTATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

2025 INSC 1453 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Wahid and Anshu, were convicted for robbery under IPC sections 392/397 and for possession of arms under the Arms Act, based on an FIR that named no specific perpetrators. The prosecution’s case relied on the complainant’s identification of the accused at a bus depot two days after the incident and the r

SURYAVIRversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2022 INSC 1393 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Suryavir was convicted along with Devender for the murder of Rajinder (Raju) under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution’s case rested on the testimony of the victim’s parents (PW‑12 and PW‑15) and a box identification made in court, without any prior test identification para

STATE OF NCT OF DELHIversusRAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @LOVELY

2024 INSC 113 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, and the investigation period of 90 days expired on 15 September 2020. The investigating officer obtained two extensions, first to 11 November 2020 and then, on 7 November 2020, a further 30‑day extension

RAJANversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 10812 September 2025Dismissed

The appellant Rajan was convicted for murder under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act based primarily on the ocular testimony of two eyewitnesses, despite the alleged firearm not being recovered. He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s delay of two years and five m

PREM SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2013 INSC 5812 September 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Prem Singh and six others were charged under IPC sections 120‑B, 148, 302 read with 149 and under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The trial court acquitted all accused, citing the non‑examination of a key witness, inherent lacunae in the testimony of two eye‑witnesses, doubts about the recovery of firearms and lack of fore

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusARJUN SINGH & ORS. ETC

2011 INSC 6432 September 2011Dismissed

The case involved the murder of two brothers and the attempted murder of a third during a gun‑fire incident in Rajasthan. The trial court convicted nine accused under sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC, but the High Court acquitted six and altered the conviction of three to sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC. The Supreme Cou

PREM SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2011 INSC 6462 September 2011Matter referred to larger bench

The victim Siri Krishan was shot during a morning walk; the prosecution relied on the brother's report, two alleged eye‑witnesses (PW‑11 and PW‑12), and a widow's statement linking a property dispute to the accused. The appellant Prem Singh and co‑accused were arrested, but the appellant refused to take part in a test

OMPRAKASH SAHNIversusJAI SHANKAR CHAUDHARY & ANR. ETC.

2023 INSC 4782 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Om Prakash Sahni, challenged the High Court's order that suspended the life‑imprisonment sentences of three convicts (Jai Shankar Chaudhary, Abhay Kumar and Ram Babu Sahni) for the murder of his brother and released them on bail under Section 389 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the High C

SHRI SATISH KUMAR & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.

2020 INSC 2512 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the murder of Ratti Ram, for which Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar were convicted under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the dead body

BRANCH C.1.0., TIRUNELVELI RANGE, TAMILNADUversusMARIYAANTONVIJAY

2015 INSC 4631 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The police intercepted the vessel M.V. Seaman Guard Ohio within Indian territorial waters and seized a large quantity of unlicensed firearms and ammunition, leading to a charge sheet under the Arms Act, 1959 and other statutes. The accused challenged the charge sheet through revision (s.397) and a petition under the in

PRAMOD KUMARversusSTATE (GNCT) OF DELHI

2013 INSC 3901 July 2013Dismissed

The appellant, a proclaimed offender, was apprehended in a house where he allegedly assaulted a police constable, was grappled with, and then fired a country‑made pistol, killing the constable. The trial court convicted him under Sections 302, 332, 186 of the IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. On appeal, the accu

THE STATE OF SIKKIMversusJASBIR SINGH & ANR.

2022 INSC 1281 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Sikkim appealed against a High Court order that directed the accused army personnel, Jasbir Singh and another, to be tried by a court‑martial for a murder under IPC sections 302 and 308. The Supreme Court examined whether the offence fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a court‑martial or within the c

VASUDEVversusSTATE OF M.P.

2022 INSC 1351 February 2022Case Partly allowed

The police, acting on information that an absconding accused Rajesh Shukla was hiding in a village house, confronted him and his associate Vasudev Shukla. After Rajesh opened fire, the police retaliated and both accused eventually surrendered, surrendering a rifle and a 12‑bore double‑barrel gun. The trial court convic

STATE OF PUNJABversusDALBIR SINGH

2012 INSC 661 February 2012Dismissed

The State of Punjab appealed the acquittal of CRPF constable Dalbir Singh, who had been charged under Sections 302, 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for firing a self‑loading rifle that resulted in the death of a senior officer. The High Court acquitted him on the basis of irreconcilable inconsistencies in the pr

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search