Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Indian Penal Code, 1860

6,145 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 1–200.

THE STATE OF JHARKHANDversusSHAILENDRA KUMAR RAI @ PANDAV RAI

2022 INSC 113931 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The victim was allegedly raped and set on fire by the accused, Shailendra Kumar Rai, and later died of septicemia caused by the burn injuries. While on her way to death she gave a statement to police officer Lallan Prasad, which was read back to her, signed, and later treated as a dying declaration. The Sessions Court

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusPADMANABHAN KISHORE

2022 INSC 114331 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Enforcement Directorate registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) against Padmanabhan Kishore for allegedly handing over Rs 50 lakh as a bribe to an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Kishore contended that the money remained "untainted" while in his possession and only beca

AROON PURIEversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

2022 INSC 114231 October 2022Disposed off

The case arose from an India Today article titled “Mission Misconduct” that alleged sexual misconduct and other improprieties by an Indian Foreign Service officer. The officer, after disciplinary action, filed a criminal complaint against the magazine’s Editor‑in‑Chief (A‑1), the article’s author (A‑2) and several publ

KAMILversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2018 INSC 102731 October 2018Dismissed

The appellant Kamil was convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He contended that the charge under Section 302 was not formally framed, rendering the conviction invalid. The Supreme Court examined Section 464 of the CrPC, which states that a conviction is not void for omission or error in

REENA HAZARIKAversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2018 INSC 102931 October 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellant, Reena Hazarika, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly killing her husband, based largely on circumstantial evidence and the "last seen" theory. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had established a continuous chain of circumstances that left no reasonable hypothesis

AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2018 INSC 102331 October 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Six accused were convicted for murder and related offences; three (1,2,4) received death sentences while the other three (3,5,6) were sentenced to life imprisonment. The State appealed for enhancement of the sentences of 3,5,6, and the Supreme Court bench dismissed the appeals of 1,2,4 and imposed death on 3,5,6. Revie

JANGIR SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2018 INSC 102531 October 2018Disposed off

Jangir Singh shot dead his colleague Jaswant Singh after a 15‑minute altercation during which the deceased pointed a rifle at him. The trial court acquitted Singh on the ground of private defence, but the High Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On appeal, the Supreme Court examine

HARI OMversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

2014 INSC 75731 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Hari Om was convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC for the dowry death of his wife, Poonam, who committed suicide within a month of marriage after persistent dowry demands. The High Court upheld his conviction and sentenced him to life imprisonment, while acquitting co‑accused. Hari Om appealed only agains

NAND KUMARversusSTATE OF CHHATIISGARH

2014 INSC 75631 October 2014Dismissed

The case concerns the murder of three members of the Singh family in Bhaismudi village, Chhattisgarh, by a group of accused who formed an unlawful assembly armed with lathis, battle‑axes, swords and rods. Two close relatives of the victims, Madhubala Bai (PW‑1) and Saraswati Bai (PW‑3), witnessed the killings and ident

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusBALVEER @ BALLI AND ANR.

2013 INSC 73731 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed the acquittal of Balveer and Ram Niwas for rape (IPC 376(2)(g)) and murder (IPC 302 r/w 34). The sole eyewitness, Rajesh, was granted pardon under Section 306 CrPC and testified as an approver. The Supreme Court held that an approver need not incriminate himself or be privy to the crime;

RAJEEV KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2013 INSC 73631 October 2013Case Partly allowed

The appellant Rajeev Kumar was convicted for dowry death (s.304B IPC) after his wife Vandana gave two dying declarations alleging dowry harassment and set herself on fire. The Supreme Court examined whether the dying declarations were admissible despite the post‑mortem finding that her larynx and trachea were charred.

PARAMJIT SINGH@ MITHU SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME)

2007 INSC 111531 October 2007Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the murder of Harnek Singh by four of his brothers, who attacked him with gandasas and a dang, leading to his death. The appellant, Mithu Singh, challenged his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, arguing that his injuries were not fatal, that there was an unreasonabl

SUKUMARROYversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2006 INSC 77031 October 2006Dismissed

The deceased, Prafulla Nayak, was collecting seedlings from a disputed plot of land when Sukumar Roy, his father, wife and sister‑in‑law entered the field armed with a lathi and a bhali. An altercation ensued and Sukumar struck the deceased on the abdomen with the bhali, causing a deep penetrating wound that led to his

STATE CBIversusSASHI BALASUBRAMANIAN AND ANR.

2006 INSC 77131 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from allegations of irregularities in the grant of an advance licence for import of cotton fabrics, leading to a criminal complaint against a company, its directors and four public servants under the IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act and Customs Act. The company and its directors filed a declaration unde

JASBIR SINGHversusPUNJAB & SIND BANK AND ORS.

2006 INSC 76131 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Jasbir Singh, a peon employed by Punjab & Sind Bank, was accused of embezzling Rs 25,000, forging a depositor's signature and tampering with bank records. He faced a criminal trial under IPC §§ 409 and 201 and was acquitted, and a civil recovery suit filed by the bank was also decided in his favour, the judgment attain

BANSHI DHARversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

2006 INSC 76431 October 2006Dismissed

Banshidhar, a Patwari, was suspended in 1976 on allegations of accepting illegal gratification and was convicted under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 161 of the IPC. He was dismissed in 1987 but later acquitted by the appellate court in 2001. By the time of his acquittal he had al

RAMANAND YADA VversusPRABHU NATH JHA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 58931 October 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerns the murder of Thakkan Yadav on 16 June 1991, for which eight accused were convicted by a trial court under IPC sections 302 and 149, the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act. The Patna High Court acquitted all eight, relying on alleged procedural lapses such as the victim’s transport to a distant

BABU LAL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2003 INSC 59031 October 2003Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the appeal of seven accused whose convictions for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the IPC were upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Court clarified that a statement made by a deceased person before death can be treated as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Ev

GANESH LALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2001 INSC 54531 October 2001Dismissed

The appellant Ganesh Lal was convicted for raping, murdering and stealing from an 11‑year‑old girl. The prosecution relied on a series of circumstantial facts: the recovery of the victim's silver ornaments (kuralias) and a blood‑stained axe at the accused's direction, possession of blood‑ and semen‑stained clothes hidd

DR. MAHAK SINGHversusCHANCELLOR, CH. CHARAN SINGH UNIVERSITY, MEERUT AND ORS.

1996 INSC 125931 October 1996Dismissed

Three senior lecturers (Dr. Mahak Singh, Dr. S.P. Singh and Dr. Rajvir Singh) of a college affiliated to Meerut University contested who should be appointed Acting Principal after the principal’s vacancy in October 1993. All were senior lecturers drawing the same salary, but their dates of promotion to senior lecturer

BINAY KUMAR SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

1996 INSC 126031 October 1996Dismissed

The case arose from a 1980 massacre in Paras Bigha, Bihar, where 13 people were killed and many injured. The appellants were convicted under Sections 302 and 149 of the IPC for participation in an unlawful assembly. They challenged the conviction on several grounds, including that the FIR should have been based on an e

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusSIVARASAN @RAGHU @SIVARASA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 126131 October 1996Case Partly allowed

The State of Tamil Nadu appealed the acquittal of nine accused, members of the LTTE, for alleged possession of explosives and conspiracy under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and the Explosive Substances Act. The trial court had excluded two typewritten confessional statements on the gro

STATE OF KERALAversusSASI

1996 INSC 126431 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

On 2 November 1990 the respondent struck the deceased on the head with a bamboo stick, causing severe skull fractures and brain injury. The deceased died eleven days later in hospital. The trial court convicted the respondent for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

BRATHI ALIAS SUKHDEV SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1990 INSC 33231 October 1990Dismissed

Sukhdev Singh and his uncle Teja Singh were tried for the murder of Socha Singh under IPC sections 302 and 34. The trial court acquitted Teja Singh but convicted Sukhdev Singh, sentencing him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Punjab & Haryana High Court re‑examined the evidence, held that the acquittal of Teja Singh

ABHISHEKversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2023 INSC 77931 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The wife, Bhawna, filed a FIR in 2013 alleging dowry harassment by her mother‑in‑law and brothers‑in‑law under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused filed petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR, but the High Court dismissed them even after a charge‑sheet was f

SALIMBHAI HAMIDBHAI MEMONversusNITESHKUMAR MAGANBHAI PATEL & ANR.

2021 INSC 43031 August 2021Disposed off

The appellant and the first respondent were partners in a firm and later fell into a dispute involving alleged forgery of partnership documents and non‑payment of dues, leading to an FIR under Sections 405, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The first respondent moved the Gujarat High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash

PRIYA PRAKASH VARRIER AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER

2018 INSC 77331 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, who were the actor, producer and director of the film "Oru Adaar Love", sought to quash FIR No.34 of 2018 filed under Section 295A IPC alleging that the picturisation of the song "Manikya Malaraya Poovi" offended Muslim sentiments. They argued that the song is a traditional Mappila folk song in the pub

AMIT VASHISTHAversusSURESH AND ANOTHER

2017 INSC 83631 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner lodged a complaint under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the respondent, Suresh, assaulted the presiding officer during an adjudication proceeding under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The magistrate convicted

KADAMANIAN @ MANIKANDANversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2016 INSC 84131 August 2016Dismissed

The appellant Kadamanian @ Manikandan and his co‑accused were charged under IPC sections 201, 302, 376 and 404 for the murder of M. Jayalakshmi, whose body was later recovered. The appellant made an extra‑judicial confession to the village administrative officer (PW‑12) detailing the crime and the removal of the victim

BABITA LILA & ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA

2016 INSC 64031 August 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a husband‑wife duo, were searched under the Income Tax Act at their residences in Bhopal and Aurangabad. During the search they denied possessing a safe‑deposit locker, which was later discovered at Aurangabad, leading the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Bhopal to lodge a complaint under C

MOHD. HUSSAIN @ JULFIKAR ALIversusTHE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI

2012 INSC 36631 August 2012Reference answered

Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali was convicted and sentenced to death for planting a bomb on a public bus in 1997, causing four deaths and twenty‑four injuries. The trial court denied him the assistance of counsel, violating his right to legal aid and due process. The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction, but the Supreme

M.C. GUPTAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEHRADUN

2012 INSC 36831 August 2012Disposed off

The appellants, M.C. Gupta and Mohan Lal Gupta, were convicted for misappropriating company funds by issuing a bank draft in 1988, an offence that occurred before the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came into force. An FIR was lodged in 1990 under the repealed Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the trial court

RENUKA BAI @ RINKU @ RATAN AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2006 INSC 57031 August 2006

The appellants, two sisters, were convicted of a series of kidnappings and murders of children between 1990 and 1996, based largely on the testimony of an approver who had been granted pardon under CrPC s.306. The trial court sentenced them to death under IPC s.302 read with s.120B, a sentence affirmed by the High Cour

SURINDER SINGH @CHHINDA AND ANRversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2006 INSC 57331 August 2006Case Partly allowed

The case involves four accused who stopped the complainant and his son; one accused thrust a knife into the son, causing his death. The trial court convicted all four under Section 302/323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and the High Court affirmed the conviction. Two of the accused (Surinder Singh and Raja Singh), wh

YAKUB ISMAILBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2004 INSC 48931 August 2004Dismissed

The appellant Yakub Ismailbhai Patel was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of Nizamuddin. The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of a single eye‑witness (PW‑2) who identified the accused, supported by a second witness (PW‑1), forensic evidence of a blood‑stained weapo

RAM PRAKASH PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

2001 INSC 41031 August 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, husband of a murder victim, challenged the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to Respondent No.2, a life‑convicted prisoner who, while on bail pending appeal, allegedly murdered the appellant's wife. The High Court had granted bail despite Section 437(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, w

S. NAGALINGAMversusSIVAGAMI

2001 INSC 41331 August 2001Dismissed

The appellant, S. Nagalingam, was first married to Sivagami on 6 September 1970. While that marriage subsisted, he contracted a second marriage with Kasturi on 18 June 1984 in a temple in Tamil Nadu, where garlanding and tying of the thali were performed. The trial court acquitted him, holding that the essential "Sapta

RAVINDER KUMAR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2001 INSC 41431 August 2001Dismissed

The appellants, Ravinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar, were convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for killing broker Amar Kumar Gupta, concealing the body in a wooden parcel, and were sentenced to life imprisonment. They appealed, contending that the FIR was filed two days after the crime, that the rickshaw‑puller’s te

KUM NARAYANAMMAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS .

1994 INSC 34131 August 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The victim, a 14‑year‑old illiterate agricultural labourer, was gang‑raped by three accused. The trial court convicted them under IPC sections 376 and 114, but the Karnataka High Court acquitted them, holding that the victim's testimony was unreliable as it lacked medical corroboration. On appeal, the Supreme Court exa

S.N. VIJAYLAKSHMI & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

2025 INSC 91731 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of a Bangalore property, entered into an Agreement to Sell (ATS) with the complainant, who later alleged they cheated him and filed a private complaint that led to an FIR charging them under multiple IPC sections. The High Court dismissed the appellants' petition to quash the FIR, but the Supreme

URMILA DEVI & OTHERSversusBALRAM & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 91531 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, daughters‑in‑law of a deceased landowner, obtained a mutation order based on an unregistered will and later secured an ex‑parte injunction against the complainant who had purchased a share of the land from the testator's third son. The complainant subsequently filed a criminal complaint alleging conspir

MANCHU MOHAN BABUversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 91631 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Manchu Mohan Babu and his son, organized a rally and dharna on 22 March 2019 to protest the state government's refusal to reimburse student fees, despite a Model Code of Conduct prohibiting such gatherings without permission. The police registered FIR No.102 of 2019 alleging offences under IPC sections

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusN. SANJAY

2025 INSC 97331 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed against a High Court order that granted anticipatory bail to N. Sanjay, an IPS officer who was Additional Director General of Police, CID, and Director General of the State Disaster Response and Fire Services, alleging misappropriation of public funds through irregular tenders and c

SURESHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. R1: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R2: DEVI SINGH

2025 INSC 91831 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Suresh alleged that his paternal uncle and the uncle's son, Respondent No.2, forcibly entered his house and the son shot his brother Rajesh, resulting in death. Respondent No.2 claimed juvenility, asserting he was 16 years old at the time, based on a school transfer certificate from the first school he at

RAJU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2024 INSC 63331 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and co-accused were alleged to have attacked four youths with knives and lathis on a night in May 1994, leading to an FIR filed by the victims' father who was not an eye‑witness. The trial court acquitted all accused due to lack of clear evidence of who inflicted the stab injuries and the absence of a mot

MD. ASFAK ALAMversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

2023 INSC 66031 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Md Asfak Alam, was married to the respondent wife and faced an FIR under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Anticipating arrest, he applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC; the application was initially dismissed, but the High Court lat

DURGA BURMAN (ROY)versusSTATE OF SIKKIM

2014 INSC 51131 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Durga Burman (Roy) was charged with the murder of Manorama Devi by strangulation and the theft of a wrist‑watch and cash, together with co‑accused Ranjit Roy. The trial court convicted both under IPC ss.302, 380 and 34; the High Court acquitted Ranjit Roy but upheld Durga Roy's conviction. On appeal, the

SANJAY GUPTA & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2014 INSC 51331 July 2014Hearing Adjourned

A fire broke out at a consumer exhibition in Meerut on 10 April 2006, killing 64 people and injuring more than a hundred. The victims filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking damages from the State of Uttar Pradesh and the event organizers. The State had appointed a one‑man Commission of Inqui

KRISHNAPPA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA BY BABALESHWARA POLICE STATION

2012 INSC 31031 July 2012Dismissed

The deceased Bhimappa Biradar was attacked and murdered by a group of armed men who had a long-standing feud with his family. The trial court convicted three accused (A13, A14, A17) under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and acquitted four others (A1, A15, A16, A21) who were alleged to have only dragged the victim

M.M. COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusJ.P. BHIMANI & ANR.

2009 INSC 98431 July 2009Dismissed

The Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank uncovered a large‑scale fraud involving crores of rupees and filed a criminal complaint under several IPC sections against its chairman, managing director, other officers and businessmen, including J.P. Bhimani. The accused was denied bail by the Sessions Court but the Gujarat

GURIA, SWAYAM SEVI SANSTHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2009 INSC 98531 July 2009Dismissed

The NGO GURIA, SWAYAM SEVI SANSTHAN rescued over thirty girls from a red‑light area in Varanasi and filed a complaint, leading to charge‑sheets against 23 persons under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and several IPC provisions. The accused applied for bail; the Sessions Judge rejected the applications, but

PADMANABANversusSTATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU

2009 INSC 98231 July 2009Dismissed

The case involved the murder of Rangasamy, a Naidu community member who supplied electricity to the Adi Dravida community for a festival, leading to a violent retaliation by eight accused who formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted him with casuarina sticks, causing fatal head injuries. The trial court convicted five

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusBHAWANI AND ANR.

2003 INSC 35531 July 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan prosecuted Bhawani, Hari Singh and others for murder, grievous hurt and unlawful assembly after they allegedly fired firearms into a village Nohara, killing two persons and injuring several others. The trial court convicted the accused based on the testimony of eleven eye‑witnesses, five of whom

DHANANJAY SHANKER SHETTYversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2002 INSC 31731 July 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Dhananjay Shanker Shetty was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of Uday Patole. The prosecution relied on police constables who claimed to have seen the accused and his companions fleeing with weapons and on a telephonic message to the police station, but the accuse

SUCHA SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2002 INSC 31631 July 2002Dismissed

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Sucha Singh and five co‑accused for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and for abetment of suicide under Section 201 IPC. The Court examined whether the relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased affected their credibility, and held that a familial re

RONAL KIPRONO RAMKATversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2001 INSC 32531 July 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ramkat Ronald, was convicted under IPC sections 376 (rape) read with 511 (attempt to commit rape) and 302 (murder) based largely on a dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased, Betty, to her brother (PW‑5). The Supreme Court examined the reliability of that declaration, noting inconsistencies, lac

GOPI NATH @ JHALLARversusSTATE OF U.P.

2001 INSC 32831 July 2001Dismissed

The appellant Gopi Nath was convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the killing of Ram Chandra, who was attacked by three accused armed with weapons. The appellant argued that he only inflicted a simple injury and should be liable only under Section 324, not for murder. T

RAM DEO CHAUHAN ALIAS RAJ NATH CHAUHANversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2000 INSC 36431 July 2000Dismissed

Ram Deo Chauhan (alias Raj Nath Chauhan) was convicted of the pre‑planned, cold‑blooded murder of four members of a family, including a two‑year‑old child and two women, and of causing injuries to two other persons. The trial and high courts relied on a chain of circumstantial evidence and a confessional statement to u

SH. SATISH MEHRAversusDELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ANR.

1996 INSC 81031 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Satish Mehra appealed against the Delhi Sessions Court’s decision to frame charges under IPC sections 354 and 376 read with 511 for alleged incestuous sexual abuse of his daughter Nikita. The allegations originated from a complaint filed by his estranged wife Anita Mehra, who had previously made a false accusation in t

RAMESH BALKRISHNA KULKARNIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1985 INSC 16331 July 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Municipal Councillor, was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He appealed, contending that a Municipal Councillor is not a "public servant" within the meaning of Section 21 of the IPC and therefore cannot be prosecuted

MANIK DAS AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ASSAM

2007 INSC 67331 May 2007Dismissed

The appellants, five men including Manik Das, were convicted of murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34 for assaulting Anil Das with spears, which led to his death. The prosecution relied on eye‑witness statements and a post‑mortem report that matched the witnesses' accounts, naming all five accused. The appellants conte

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

VINEET KUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2017 INSC 30531 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Vineet Kumar and others, had loaned money to the complainant’s family and later filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoured cheques. The complainant subsequently alleged that the appellants had raped her and filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading

SHINDO ALIAS SAWINDER KAUR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2011 INSC 24731 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Balbir Kaur died from severe burns allegedly after her mother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law demanded additional dowry. Two dying declarations were recorded by an ASI and a magistrate, but the trial court rejected them as unreliable because the victim had 100% burn injuries. The High Court, relying on the victim's father's s

STATE OF U.P.versusPREETAM & ORS.

2011 INSC 24831 March 2011Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh charged Preetam and four others with murder, assault and rioting under Sections 302, 149, 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code for the killing of Guiab and Chhatrapal. The trial court convicted them, but the Allahabad High Court acquitted them on the ground of self‑defence, finding serious in

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

DALCO ENGINEERING PRIVATE LTD.versusSHREE SATISH PRABHAKAR PADHYE AND ORS.

2010 INSC 18331 March 2010

The case concerned two writ petitions challenging the termination of a disabled employee by a private limited company and the termination of a contract with a public trust. Both petitioners sought relief under section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)

ONKAR LALversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2009 INSC 42631 March 2009Dismissed

Onkar Lal, the uncle of the deceased Ramchandra Patidar, was charged with murder under Section 302 IPC for stabbing the victim with a sword during a card game on a moonlit night. The FIR was lodged within an hour of the incident by a person with no animosity towards the accused, and the weapon was later recovered from

PAPPU @ HARI OMversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2009 INSC 42931 March 2009Disposed off

On Diwali night the deceased Ramesh was playing cards when appellant Pappu @ Hari Om and co-accused Bal Kishan arrived, quarrelled and later the appellant fired a 12‑bore gun, striking the deceased on the right shoulder/chest. The victim died in hospital. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC (m

BALKAR SINGHversusSTATE OF UTIARAKHAND

2009 INSC 43331 March 2009Case Partly allowed

Balkar Singh was convicted by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court for the murder of two persons and attempted murder of a third under Section 302 and 307 IPC, based on the testimony of an injured witness and two eye‑witnesses. The appellant contended that the facts did not satisfy the statutory requirements

BHASKAR RAMAPPA MADAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2009 INSC 43431 March 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, the husband and in‑laws of a married woman who committed suicide, were charged under Sections 306 and 498A IPC for alleged dowry harassment. The trial court acquitted them, holding that the complainant‑investigating officer’s involvement did not taint the prosecution and that the evidence was insufficie

HANUMANTAPPA BHIMAPPA DALAVAI & ANRversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2009 INSC 43531 March 2009Dismissed

The appellants, Hanumanthappa Bhimappa Dalavai and another, were convicted for murder and grievous hurt after a violent altercation in which they used a crow‑bar, stick and iron rod, resulting in two deaths. They appealed, claiming the right of private defence under Sections 96, 97 and 100 of the IPC. The Supreme Court

PRADEEP KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2009 INSC 43631 March 2009Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Pardeep Kumar, was convicted of dowry harassment (s.498A IPC), dowry death (s.3048 IPC) and murder (s.302 IPC) after his wife died from burns allegedly caused by a gas cylinder. The trial and High Courts upheld all three convictions, sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder and ten years for dowry

KRISHNA GHOSHversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2009 INSC 43731 March 2009Dismissed

Krishna Ghosh was convicted under Sections 498‑A (cruelty) and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife Yogmaya, who was found dead in their matrimonial home within one year and four months of marriage. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence: multiple witnesses saw the bod

SADHU SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2009 INSC 43831 March 2009Case Partly allowed

The case involved Sadhu Singh and two accomplices who were convicted for the murder of Jagdev Singh after Sadhu Singh fired a shot while confronting the deceased on a tractor. The accused claimed the shooting was in exercise of the right of private defence under Sections 96‑106 of the IPC. The Supreme Court examined th

CHAMAN LAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2009 INSC 43131 March 2009Dismissed

The appellants purchased a plot of land through a General Power of Attorney (GPA) that was later cancelled, but the GPA holder concealed this and executed sale deeds in their favour. The complainant filed a suit and later a criminal complaint alleging conspiracy, cheating and criminal breach of trust, leading to charge

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusSHYAM BEHARI & ANR.

2009 INSC 43231 March 2009Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed the acquittal of Shyam Behari and another accused who had been convicted by a trial court under IPC sections 302/34 and 201/34 on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the evidence regarding the accused being the last person seen

STATE OF U.P.versusRAMA KANT & ORS.

2009 INSC 43031 March 2009Dismissed

The incident occurred on 23 October 1979, where the State alleged that the accused committed murder and related offences under Sections 302, 149, 323, 148 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted the accused, but the Allahabad High Court acquitted them, citing several doubts about the prosecution's c

SHIVAPPA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2008 INSC 42731 March 2008Dismissed

The appellants were charged with murder under Sections 302, 148 and 149 of the IPC for allegedly assaulting Shrishail Shivappa Jagadale, resulting in his death with twenty injuries. The trial court acquitted them, relying on discrepancies between medical evidence on time of death and eyewitness accounts, and on the del

COLLECTOR & DIST. MAGISTRATE AND ORS.versusS. SULTAN

2008 INSC 42831 March 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of a preventive detention order issued under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 against several individuals described as "goondas". The High Court had quashed the order on the grounds that the cited incidents were stale, did not affect public order, a

STATE OF M.P.versusBADRI Y ADAV AND ANR.

2006 INSC 19131 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed the acquittal of Badri Yadav, who had been convicted for murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34. Two key witnesses, PW‑8 (Mohd. Amin) and PW‑9 (Zakir Ali), originally testified as eye‑witnesses under s.164 CrPC and were cross‑examined as prosecution witnesses in 1990. In 1994 they fi

SMT. SANDHYA JADHAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2006 INSC 19231 March 2006Case Partly allowed

The appellant Sandhya Jadha and co‑accused, who were tenants, assaulted their landlord when he came for rent and, during the ensuing quarrel, the appellant delivered a knife blow to the back of the landlord's nephew, who later died. They were convicted under Section 302 IPC (murder) and related offences. On appeal, the

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusC. UMA MAHESWARA RAO AND ANR.

2004 INSC 21931 March 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed the acquittal of two public servants who were members of a tender opening committee and were alleged to have demanded and accepted Rs 5,000 each as gratification for clearing a tender file. The complainant lodged a police complaint and was caught in a trap; the money was recovered.

HRIDAYA RANGAN PD. VERMA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

2000 INSC 17831 March 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The three Verma brothers sold land to a cooperative society, received part payment, and later the society's cheques bounced. The society filed a criminal complaint alleging cheating and related offences, claiming the brothers concealed a pending partition suit. The brothers filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrP

SURESH SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

1999 INSC 14231 March 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Ten persons were tried for forming an unlawful assembly and murdering Mahipal. The trial court convicted six, of whom the High Court upheld convictions of Suresh Singh and Mohinder Singh under s.302 IPC and of Chander Pal under s.304(1) IPC. The appellants argued that they acted in private defence as Mahipal was chasin

S. HANUMANTHA RAOversusS. RAMANI

1999 INSC 14331 March 1999Dismissed

The husband filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion, alleging that his wife removed and threw her mangalsutra, preserved copies of letters she had written to him, and sought the intervention of the Women Protection Cell under IPC 498A. The trial court granted divorce on the basis of

MANI RAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

1993 INSC 13131 March 1993Dismissed

Mani Ram and his brother Hari Ram had a dispute with Hazur Singh. On the day of the incident Singh went to his field, ate a meal brought by his wife Surjeet Kaur and son Jaskaran, and was subsequently shot by Mani Ram with a licensed pistol; Hari Ram allegedly encouraged the act. The trial court acquitted both accused

STATE OF ORISSAversusDAMBURU NAIKO AND ANR.

1992 INSC 9731 March 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Orissa prosecuted Dambru Naiko and another accused for kidnapping and gang rape of a village girl, Manguri Bhotruni, under IPC sections 366, 376 and 34. The victim identified the two respondents in an identification parade and medical examination showed injuries to her private parts, which the trial court

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusKARUPPUSAMY AND ORS.

1992 INSC 9931 March 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Tamil Nadu prosecuted accused Karuppusamy and Natarajan for the murder of Muthusamy and the attempted outraging of Anjali's modesty, alleging that the accused used aruvals to cut off the victim's head and assault the woman. Four eye‑witnesses, including a rustic woman (PW‑1) and a child (PW‑2), testified t

MOOL CHAND ETC. ETC.versusJAGDISH SINGH BEDI AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1992 INSC 10031 March 1992Dismissed

The case arose from a violent incident during a wedding procession on 17 November 1972 in which Ramesh Chand was shot dead and several others injured. The accused—Kashmiri Lal, Madan Lal, Babu Ram, Jagdish Singh Bedi and Prem Pal—were convicted by a Sessions Court for conspiracy to murder, murder, attempt to murder and

DARSHAN SINGH @ BHASURI & ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1983 INSC 2931 March 1983Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the murder case of five persons and injuries to three others in Kaila village, where ten accused were tried under sections 302, 120B and 149 of the IPC. The prosecution relied on three eye‑witnesses, a dying declaration of Sohan Singh, and firearms recovered from the accused, while the FIR fi

RAGHBIR SINGHversusSIATE OF HARYANA

1980 INSC 6031 March 1980Dismissed

The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, was accused of subjecting a theft suspect to severe flagellation in police custody, resulting in the suspect's death by asphyxiation. The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonmen

KARAN SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 13331 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Karan Singh, was convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC for the alleged dowry death of his wife, Asha Rani, who committed suicide within two years of marriage. The prosecution's case relied on the testimonies of three witnesses, whose statements about dowry demands were found to contain sign

KULDEEP SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2025 INSC 13731 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Kuldeep Singh, was charged under Sections 366, 376 and 506 IPC for alleged abduction and rape of his wife, Respondent No.3, after she filed a statement alleging forced marriage. The appellant contended that the marriage was solemnised voluntarily under Sikh rites and that, under Exception 2 to Section 37

BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIAversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2024 INSC 7731 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia, purchased a portion of land from a Power of Attorney (PoA) holder who had been authorized by the landowners to manage, sell, and register their property. A FIR was lodged alleging criminal offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC, claiming the sale deed was fraudul

JOSEPH SHINEversusUNION OF INDIA

2023 INSC 8731 January 2023Disposed off

The Union of India filed a miscellaneous application seeking clarification of the Supreme Court’s decision in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, which struck down Section 497 of the IPC, asking whether the judgment also affects the applicability of Sections 45, 63 of the Army Act, 1950 and analogous provisions in the Air

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

SUSHIL SETHI AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 11831 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, the Managing Director and Director of SPML Infra Ltd, were charged under IPC sections 420 and 120B for allegedly supplying sub‑standard turbines for the Nurang Hydel Power Project of Arunachal Pradesh. The FIR was lodged in 2000, a chargesheet filed in 2004, but summons were only served in 2017. The Hig

BASHEERA BEGAMversusMOHAMMED IBRAHIM & ORS.

2020 INSC 11631 January 2020Dismissed

The case concerned the alleged murder of D2 and D1 in December 1990, for which eight accused were convicted under sections 120B, 302 and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence – a lorry purchase, broken glass, alleged iron‑rod attacks and a purported conspiracy at a hotel – but failed to prove

STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.versusGOBINDA BEHERA

2020 INSC 11931 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent applied for a constable position in the Odisha State Police, declaring that he was not involved in any criminal case. Verification later revealed his involvement in a case under multiple IPC sections, leading to his discharge and an Original Application (OA) before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, whi

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusYOGENDRA SINGH JADON & ANR.

2020 INSC 12431 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a criminal appeal against Yogendra Singh Jadon and Harshvardhan Singh Jadon, alleging that they obtained cash credit facilities from District Cooperative Kendriya Bank through their father, the former President of the bank, without proper documentation, constituting fraud and conspirac

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSHANKAR GANAPATI RAHATOL & ORS.

2019 INSC 11931 January 2019Disposed off

In 1998 a complaint was lodged alleging that a group of accused assaulted the complainant, leading to charges under Sections 143, 147, 323 r/w 149, 325 IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The trial court acquitted all accused, and the State of Maharashtra applied for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of th

AJAY KUMAR GHOSHAL ETC.versusSTATE OF BLHAR & ANR.

2017 INSC 9031 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for a dowry death and related offences under the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court, noting certain procedural lapses, set aside the conviction and ordered a de novo retrial under Section 386(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court examined whether such la

HIRAMANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2013 INSC 6731 January 2013Dismissed

The appellant, Hiraman, was convicted of murdering his wife Chandrakala, who died from 91% burn injuries after allegedly being doused with kerosene. The conviction was based primarily on two dying declarations recorded at the hospital shortly after the incident. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that unc

SOU. SANDHYA MANOJ WANKHADEversusMANOJ BHIMRAO WANKHADE & ORS.

2011 INSC 8331 January 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sandhya Manoj Wankhade, filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband and his mother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law. The trial court and the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court deleted the mother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law from the proceedings on the groun

HARISHCHANDRA PRASAD MANI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.

2007 INSC 7931 January 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant alleged that his son was murdered by the accused through a conspiracy, with the body allegedly cremated after a false death certificate. The police investigation culminated in a final report which the Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted, and later, on 12 April 2005, the magistrate took cognizance of the

SELLAPPANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2007 INSC 8331 January 2007Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court reviewed the conviction of Sellappan for beating the deceased Periasamy, who later died from head injuries. The key issue was whether the injury satisfied the test for murder under Section 300(3) of the IPC – i.e., being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – or only "likely to c

IDRISH BHAI DAUDBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2005 INSC 5631 January 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Idrish Daudbhai (appellant) was convicted under IPC sections 302 and 34 for allegedly sharing a common intention with three co‑accused to murder Siddique Ahmed Patel and to cause hurt to Yusuf Adam Patel. The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of three eye‑witnesses and the FIR, alleging that the appellant stru

AMAR SINGHversusBALWINDER SINGH AND ORS.

2003 INSC 5231 January 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a shooting incident in which the complainant Amar Singh and his family were injured and his son Lakha Singh died. The trial court convicted Balwinder Singh and three others under Sections 302, 34 and 307 IPC based largely on the testimony of three injured eye‑witnesses and medical evidence. The Punj

BHAGWAN SWAROOPversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1992 INSC 3331 January 1992Appeal(s) allowed

Bhagwan Swaroop was charged with murder, attempt to murder, trespass and a violation of the Arms Act after he fired his father's licensed gun during a dispute over land. The father, Ramswaroop, was being beaten with a lathi by the complainant Shahjor Singh when Bhagwan, fearing for his father's life, shot the deceased

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.versusSURINDER PAL SINGH

1989 INSC 3231 January 1989Appeal(s) allowed

Surinder Pal Singh, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was accused of misappropriating twenty gold bricks recovered during an investigation and was charged under several IPC sections, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Treasure‑Trove Act. The investigation was carried out by an Inspector of the Crime Branch, whic

VINOD KUMARversusAMRITPAL @ CHHOTU & ORS.

2021 INSC 80230 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The accused five men were convicted by the Sessions Court for murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and related offences after violently assaulting the deceased Balveer Singh, causing multiple injuries to vital organs and ultimately his death. The High Court reduced the murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder un

MUKARRAB ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2016 INSC 108430 November 2016Dismissed

Mukarrab and Arshad were convicted for murder and related offences committed in 1994 and sentenced to life imprisonment. They later claimed they were juveniles at the time of the offence, invoking Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, despite having raised the plea for the firs

THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR.versusS. SAMUTHIRAM

2012 INSC 55030 November 2012Appeal(s) allowed

S. Samuthiram, a police officer of the Tamil Nadu Armed Reserve, was charged with eve‑teasing a married woman at a bus stand while intoxicated and with being absent from duty. A departmental inquiry found the charges proved and dismissed him from service. While his service appeal was pending, a criminal court acquitted

PRAMOD BHANUDAS SOUNDANKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2012 INSC 55130 November 2012Case Partly allowed

A dacoity was committed in which ten accused stole gold, silver and cash. One of the accused, Shivaji Kale, stole four silver chips weighing one kilogram each and sold them to jeweller Pramod Bhanudas Soundankar, the appellant. The appellant was charged under Sections 411 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code for dishonestl

IQBAL SINGH NARANG & ORS.versusVEERAN NARANG

2011 INSC 82730 November 2011Dismissed

The respondent filed a criminal complaint under IPC sections 193, 420 and 120‑B alleging that the appellants made false statements before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller, a statutory quasi‑judicial body, had earlier disposed of a related application, holding the complaint pending. A Judicial Magistrate later i

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusKEDAR YADAV

2006 INSC 92930 November 2006Case Partly allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed a High Court order that reduced the ten‑year rigorous imprisonment awarded to Kedar Yadav for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to the period already served. The trial court had convicted Yadav for attempting to murder the complainant, Parvat Singh, who suffered

ANTAR SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2006 INSC 93630 November 2006Dismissed

On 6 July 1993, the deceased Keshrabai and her 15‑year‑old daughter Annuabai were attacked in their home. The appellant, Antar Singh, along with three others entered the house armed with deadly weapons while eight other persons surrounded the house. Badri assaulted the deceased, who suffered eight fatal injuries, inclu

STATE OF U.P.versusKISHAN

2004 INSC 68430 November 2004Disposed off

The accused Kishan was convicted of murder under Section 304 Part‑II of the IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. He appealed to the Allahabad High Court, seeking a lenient sentence on the ground that the offence occurred in 1988, and the High Court reduced his term to the period already served, orde

RAMAN BHAI NARAN BHAL PATEL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

1999 INSC 53430 November 1999Dismissed

The appellants (Accused Nos. 1‑4 and 6) were convicted for murder, attempted murder and related offences after a group assault on a printing press and the deceased’s residence, resulting in the death of Ramanbhai Mohanbhai. The prosecution relied on a dying declaration, medical evidence, and testimonies of six eyewitne

PADAM SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

1999 INSC 53530 November 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Padam Singh was convicted by a Sessions Court and upheld by a two‑judge High Court bench for murder and related offences under Sections 302, 307, 148, 452, 324 and 149 of the IPC, based largely on the testimony of four eyewitnesses who were hostile to the accused. The prosecution failed to explain how three members of

MUKHTIAR SINGH AND ORS .versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1995 INSC 81930 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The Special Court convicted Mukhtar Singh and several relatives under IPC sections 302 and 201 for the death of Pritam Kaur, relying mainly on the testimony of the deceased's cousin (PW‑3) and alleged extra‑judicial confessions. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of PW‑3, noting his failure to report the incide

DR. KRISHNA PAL AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

1995 INSC 81430 November 1995Dismissed

The accused five men were convicted for the murder of Amar Pal after the prosecution proved that they attacked him with knives, causing sixteen injuries and his death. The prosecution relied on three eye‑witnesses – PW2, PW3 and Dr. Rajveer Singh (PW6) – whose statements were recorded three weeks and 56 days after the

BHISHAM LAL VERMAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2023 INSC 95530 October 2023Dismissed

The petitioner, a project director, was charged under several IPC offences and the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the government sanctioned prosecution, a charge sheet was filed and the trial court took cognizance. In 2018 the petitioner filed a Section 482 CrPC petition challenging only the sanction order, which

MANAK CHAND @ MANIversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2023 INSC 95930 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC for allegedly raping his sister‑in‑law’s younger daughter, who was claimed to be a minor at the time. The prosecution’s case rested on the prosecutrix’s delayed testimony, a school register indicating a birth date of 04‑04‑1987, and a medical report that recorded her ag

BIRBAL NATHversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

2023 INSC 95730 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from an armed assault on Birbal Nath's uncle and aunt in a Rajasthan field, resulting in the uncle's death and injuries to the aunt, an injured eye‑witness. The trial court convicted the six accused under Sections 302, 307 and related offences, but the Rajasthan High Court acquitted them of the murder an

MANISH SISODIAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2023 INSC 95630 October 2023Dismissed

Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, appealed to the Supreme Court seeking bail in prosecutions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Indian Penal Code and an enforcement case under the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, 2002. The Court examined the scope of bail under s.45 of the PMLA, h

STATE OF MIZORAMversusDR. C. SANGNGHINA

2018 INSC 101930 October 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The State of Mizoram filed a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that Dr. C. Sangnghina had misappropriated public funds. The Special Court discharged him in 2013 because the prosecution sanction was issued by an authority not competent to grant it. The Governor later issued a valid sanction in D

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)versusPANKAJ CHAUDHARY AND ORS.

2018 INSC 101730 October 2018Disposed off

The State prosecuted Pankaj Chaudhary and three others for gang‑rape of a woman on 28 July 1997. The trial court convicted them under Section 376(2)(g) IPC based on the victim’s testimony, corroborated by her mother’s evidence, medical examination, and forensic DNA findings. The Delhi High Court set aside the convictio

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

B.D. KHUNTEversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 75330 October 2014Dismissed

B.D. Khunte, a jawan, was allegedly beaten and humiliated by his superior Sub Randhir Singh in a store room on 28 June 2006. Later that evening, while on guard duty, Khunte shot and killed Singh with his service rifle. He was tried by a Summary General Court Martial, convicted under Section 69 of the Army Act and Secti

BINOD KUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2014 INSC 75430 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, college officials, were charged under Sections 406 and 1208 IPC for criminal breach of trust after allegedly withholding a bill amount of Rs 34,505 owed to a contractor. The contractor had pursued civil remedies, but the second respondent filed a criminal complaint alleging misappropriation of the funds

ANUP SARMAHversusBHOLA NATH SHARMA AND ORS.

2012 INSC 49630 October 2012Dismissed

The petitioner bought a vehicle on hire‑purchase and alleged that the financier forcibly repossessed it, filing a criminal complaint. The Judicial Magistrate ordered interim custody to the petitioner, but the High Court of Assam quashed the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court examined whether a financier’s reposses

RAMACHANDRANversusSTATE OF KERALA

2012 INSC 49830 October 2012Dismissed

The appellant, Ramachandran, was convicted of murdering his wife Remani by forcibly administering the pesticide Furadan and subsequently smothering her. The trial court, upheld by the Kerala High Court, relied on testimonies of family members and a neighbour indicating daily physical abuse, a motive stemming from alleg

ANTHONY D'SOUZA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2002 INSC 45330 October 2002Dismissed

The appellants were convicted for the murder of a lorry driver and cleaner based solely on circumstantial evidence, including their alleged involvement in a road accident, medical treatment for injuries, recovery of a wrist‑watch belonging to the deceased, fertilizer bags and a blood‑stained wooden weapon, and their fa

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusPARAMASIVA PANDIAN

2001 INSC 53830 October 2001Leave Granted & Dismissed

Special Courts were created under the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 to try offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and later were also empowered to try NDPS offences. The EC (Special Provisions) Act lapsed in 1998, causing those courts to lose jurisdiction over EC cases, although they

THANEDAR SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2001 INSC 53430 October 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Thanedar Singh, was convicted for murder by the Madhya Pradesh High Court after the trial court had acquitted him. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in overturning the acquittal, focusing on the credibility of the eye‑witness (the victim's father), the correctness and timing of the

KHILLI RAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

1984 INSC 20530 October 1984Appeal(s) allowed

Khilli Ram, a Head Constable, was convicted under IPC s.161 and the Prevention of Corruption Act (sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2)) for allegedly accepting a bribe in a police‑trap. The prosecution relied on a decoy witness, two panch witnesses and several police officers, but many of these witnesses turned hostile or gave st

MUNIKRISHNA @ KRISHNA ETC.versusSTATE BY ULSOOR PS

2022 INSC 132230 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State prosecuted four appellants for the murder of a 72‑year‑old man in Ulsoor, alleging they confessed to the crime while in police custody and led investigators to a knife and stolen gold. The trial court and the Karnataka High Court convicted them under IPC s.302 r.w. s.34 and sentenced them to life imprisonment

BOHATTI DEVIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2022 INSC 105230 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to respondent No.2, who is charged with murder (IPC s.302) and criminal conspiracy (IPC s.120B). The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offences, the charge‑sheet details, the earlier

AJWARversusNIYAJ AHMAD & ANR.

2022 INSC 105430 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was charged in a FIR for the murder of two sons of the complainant, along with several other offences. Although not named in the FIR, his involvement emerged during investigation and he was later added to the charge‑sheet under Section 161 of the CrPC. The trial court denied bail, but the Allahabad High C

SUBED ALI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM

2020 INSC 56630 September 2020Dismissed

The State of Assam prosecuted Subed Ali and others for the murder of two men who were returning from a market on bicycles. The accused were alleged to have intercepted, assaulted, and killed the victims; one died on the spot and the other later in hospital. Five persons were originally charged, but two were acquitted o

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

GANGA BAIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2015 INSC 102930 September 2015Dismissed

Ganga Bai was tried and convicted for the murder of her daughter‑in‑law and two children under IPC s.302 read with s.34 and for destroying evidence under s.201, along with co‑accused Udai Lal and Daulat Ram. The trial court and the Rajasthan High Court upheld her conviction while acquitting the co‑accused. She appealed

GIRRAJ PRASAD MEENAversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2013 INSC 66130 September 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was kidnapped, as alleged in FIR No.115 of 2009 under IPC s.365, and the police investigated, recording statements under s.161 and s.164 CrPC. The charge‑sheet filed later named only two private respondents for offences under IPC s.323, s.343 read with s.34, omitting the kidnapping charge. The two accused

GUDDA @ DWARIKENDRAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2013 INSC 66030 September 2013Disposed off

The appellant Gudda (also known as Dwarikendra) was convicted of murdering three persons – a man, his pregnant wife and their five‑year‑old son – after inviting them to his rented house for lunch. The prosecution proved that the killings were pre‑planned and motivated by the appellant's suspicion about his wife's relat

SHAM @ KISHOR BHASKARRAO MATKARIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2011 INSC 73230 September 2011Case Partly allowed

Sham @ Kishor Bhaskarrao Matkari was convicted for murdering his brother Manohar, sister‑in‑law Meena and nephew Akhilesh, and for attempting to murder two other children, arising from a land‑dispute quarrel. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and seven years rigorous imprisonment, but the High Court en

OM PRAKASH & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2011 INSC 72830 September 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962 are non‑cognizable and, if so, whether they are bailable. It held that Section 9A of the Excise Act and Section 104(4) of the Customs Act expressly deem the offences non‑cognizable, and that the statutes themselves,

SONALI MUKHERJEEversusUNION OF INDIA

2009 INSC 116130 September 2009Dismissed

The case involved the death of Biswajit, alleged to be a murder committed by his wife Sonali Mukherjee (A‑1) and her alleged lover Assadid Poddar (A‑2) through gardenal poisoning. The trial court convicted both under s.302 IPC; the Madras High Court acquitted A‑2 and reduced A‑1's conviction to s.304(Part I) IPC. On ap

MURUGAN AND ANR.versusSTATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS, TAMIL NADU ANR.

2008 INSC 110730 September 2008Dismissed

The appellants were convicted under IPC s.307 for a violent assault on two witnesses, after the trial court had acquitted them. The State appealed the acquittal under CrPC s.378, and the Madras High Court set aside the acquittal, finding the trial court's reasons untenable. The appellants contended that an appellate co

SIDHARTH ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

2005 INSC 46230 September 2005

The State of Bihar prosecuted three accused—Amit Das, Sidharth and Rohan Prakash—for the murder of a student named Abhishek, alleging a conspiracy in which Amit Das shot the victim with a country‑made pistol supplied by Sidharth. Amit Das made a detailed confession before a Judicial Magistrate (recorded under Section 1

VISHWA MITTERversusO. P. PODDAR AND OTHERS

1983 INSC 13730 September 1983Appeal(s) allowed

Vishwa Mitter, a dealer and constituted attorney of the owners of a registered trademark for beedies, filed a criminal complaint before a Sub‑Divisional Magistrate alleging offences under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and Section 420 of the IPC against several respondents. The magistra

SURAJ SINGH GUJAR & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2024 INSC 66130 August 2024Disposed off

The appellants were convicted under IPC sections 323, 324 and 325 read with section 34 for an assault incident that occurred between close relatives. They later executed a compromise deed on 29 January 2024, seeking the Court’s permission to compound the offences. The Supreme Court examined whether the conviction for t

DIBAKER NUNIA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF ASSAM

2022 INSC 88630 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Dibakar and Babul were convicted for murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC based primarily on the testimony of the deceased's parents, who claimed to have witnessed the assault. The trial and High Courts accepted this testimony despite inconsistencies, such as the parents allegedly returning home,

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusRAJA ETC.

2018 INSC 77130 August 2018Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against the acquittal of three accused in a murder case where the victim, Shabu, was shot dead and his brother Riyazuddin injured. The trial court had convicted the accused under IPC s.302 read with s.34 based on the testimony of Imamuddin, a lawyer and brother of the victim, who cla

ASHIQ HUSSAIN FAKTOOversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2016 INSC 63030 August 2016Dismissed

The petitioner, Ashiq Hussain Faktoo, was convicted by the Supreme Court in 2003 under TADA and the IPC for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Review and curative petitions filed earlier were dismissed. He subsequently filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking release on the ground of the doctrine of ex de

C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2010 INSC 55330 August 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the convictions of thirty‑one accused arising from a "Rasta Roko" agitation during which a university bus carrying 47 female students was set ablaze, killing three girls and injuring many others. The Court upheld the death sentences of the three principal accused (Nedu, Madhu and Muniappan) f

HARISHCHANDRA LADAKU THANGEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2007 INSC 87830 August 2007Disposed off

The deceased Dwarkabai disappeared while working in her field and her body was found days later. The appellant, Harishchandraladakuthange, had a prior dispute with her and was alleged to have threatened her. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including a claim that the accused and the deceased were last

R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAIversusSTATE OF KERALA

2000 INSC 42530 August 2000Dismissed

R. Balakrishna Pillai, a former Kerala minister, was convicted under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for abusing his office to supply electricity to a private firm in Karnataka. He filed a criminal appeal before the Kerala High Court and subsequently moved a transfer petition in the

P. SATYANARAYANA AND ANR.versusP. MALLAIAH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 97230 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The wife filed a complaint under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code alleging bigamy by her husband, who claimed he had married a second time after ten years of desertion. The trial magistrate acquitted the husband, finding no evidence that a second Hindu marriage had been solemnized according to the tests laid down i

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusNIKKU RAM AND ORS.

1995 INSC 51930 August 1995Case Partly allowed

The deceased Roshani was married in 1985 and, five to six months later, her husband, mother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law allegedly demanded additional dowry items such as a television, fan and buffalo. The mother‑in‑law allegedly inflicted a wound with a sickle; the deceased later ingested naphthalene balls and died of poi

L. V. JADHAVversusSHANKARRAO ABASAHEB PAWAR & OTHERS

1983 INSC 10830 August 1983Appeal(s) allowed

L.V. Jadhav, the father of the bride, complained that during his daughter's marriage the groom's father and son demanded Rs. 50,000 as dowry, threatening to halt the ceremonies. The Judicial Magistrate issued summonses, but the Bombay High Court quashed the proceedings, holding that no offence under Section 4 of the Do

STATE OF PUNJABversusGURNAM @ GAMA ETC.

2025 INSC 96030 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were convicted under the NDPS Act for transporting 750 kg of poppy husk after a seizure in 2009. They appealed their convictions, and the High Court acquitted them, relying solely on the principle from Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab that an informant cannot also be the investigator. The State of Punjab ch

MADDURI GANGARAJU @ BABU RAOversusMADDURI SUNANDA & OTHERS

2025 INSC 99130 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The marriage between Madduri Venkateswara Rao and Madduri Sunanda was dissolved by a California divorce decree in 2007. After returning to India, Sunanda filed a matrimonial suit, a domestic violence case, and an FIR under sections 494 and 498A IPC against her husband and his relatives. The parties later resolved all d

SURYAKANT BABURAO @ RAMRAO PHADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 83230 July 2019Case Partly allowed

The case arose from a quarrel in which accused No.1 (Devraj) fired a pistol at PW‑6, inflicting a chest wound capable of causing death, and also shot PW‑7 in the knee, while accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted the victims with sticks and fists. The trial court convicted all three under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 an

SUNITAversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2019 INSC 82830 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The victim Sushila's charred remains were recovered from a burning 'Bitora' in Village Kailash and DNA testing identified her. The prosecution alleged that the appellant Sunita, a cousin of the victim's husband, was the last person seen with the victim and her children, citing hostile witnesses who claimed to have seen

STATE OF M.P.versusMOHAN & OTHERS

2013 INSC 50330 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The accused fired multiple gunshots at complainants, causing lacerated wounds that did not involve vital organs. They were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment by the trial court. The High Court reduced the sentence to the time already served, h

SRINIVAS GUNDLURI & ORS.versusM/S. SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION & ORS.

2010 INSC 45730 July 2010Disposed off

SEPCO filed a criminal complaint alleging that SSVG misappropriated advance money, invoking sections of the IPC for fraud and cheating. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, after a bare reading of the complaint, exercised his power under CrPC s.156(3) to order the police to register an FIR and investigate, without fir

RAMGOPAL & ANR.versusSTATE OF M.P. & ANR.

2010 INSC 45830 July 2010Hearing Adjourned

The petitioners, convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt, sought relief on the ground that they had reached an amicable settlement with the victims. The Court examined whether such a settlement could lead to their acquittal despite the offence being non‑compoundable un

S. ARUL RAJAversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2010 INSC 45930 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Arul Raja, was accused of murdering Aladi Aruna and of conspiring with co‑accused to commit the crime. The High Court convicted him on the basis of a post‑arrest statement by co‑accused A1, treating it as a dying declaration and a confession, and on alleged motive stemming from a rivalry over college aff

MOHAMMAD YASINversusSTATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) AND ORS.

2009 INSC 97430 July 2009Dismissed

Mohammad Yasin appealed against the Delhi High Court order that dismissed his petition seeking a CBI investigation and a FIR under s.302 IPC into the death of his brother Yunus (alias Anees) while in police custody. Yunus, a proclaimed offender with a history of multiple criminal cases, was arrested on 4 August 1999, s

GHUREY LALversusSTATE OF U.P.

2008 INSC 87730 July 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Ghurey Lal was tried for murder under IPC s.302 and related offences. The trial court acquitted him, finding that the prosecution's version of a single shot causing both a bullet wound to the deceased and pellet injuries to a witness was implausible, based on medical and ballistic expert testimony that two different fi

SHIVJEE SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

2008 INSC 87930 July 2008Disposed off

The case arose from a violent incident on Holi in 1993 where Satya Narain Singh and his son Ambika Singh, along with several others, threw stones at a house and Ambika Singh fired a gun, killing one person and injuring others. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code a

PONNAM CHANDRAIAHversusSTATE OF A.P.

2008 INSC 88030 July 2008Case Partly allowed

Sixteen accused attacked the deceased with weapons, leading to his death. The trial court convicted all under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and related provisions, and the High Court upheld convictions of some while acquitting others. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the relatives of the deceased, who were k

KALPANA MAZUMDARversusSTA TE OF ORI SSA

2002 INSC 31330 July 2002Disposed off

The accused Subash Chandra Panda, Kunja Ramana, Narayan Mazumdar and Kalpana Mazumdar were convicted for kidnapping and murdering a four‑year‑old boy allegedly as a human sacrifice. The prosecution’s case rested mainly on the testimony of PW‑14, an employee of Panda, who claimed to have witnessed the entire crime, and

SMT. BHATORIversusSMT. RAM PIARI

1996 INSC 80630 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sm. Bhatori, executed a general power of attorney in favour of respondent‑2, granting him authority to manage her agricultural land, including alienation. Respondent‑2 used this authority to file a suit against the appellant and subsequently executed sale deeds transferring the same land to his wife, Ram

MOHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

1979 INSC 13430 July 1979Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mohan Singh, was accused of causing the disappearance of evidence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code after a murder was committed on 4 March 1978. The prosecution alleged that his car, used to transport the victim's body, was washed on 8 March 1978, and on that basis the Sessions Judge framed a c

SURENDRANversusSUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2021 INSC 31730 June 2021Case Partly allowed

Surendran, a bus driver, caused a road accident on 16 February 1995 and was charged under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500, with a default month’s imprisonment for the fine under Section 337. The con

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSATINDER KAUR @ SATWINDER KAUR & ORS.

2020 INSC 44730 June 2020Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after Satpal Singh, a Qatari resident, died in a road accident in India in 1998, leaving his widow Satinder Kaur and three minor children as dependants. The Court held that the deceased's income should be calculated from his 1984 emp

SANTOSH BAKSHIversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2014 INSC 43730 June 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Santosh Bakshi, filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her in‑laws alleging dowry harassment. After a compromise was reached, her brother‑in‑law filed an affidavit claiming the complaint was false and sought action under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Co

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CBIversusNIRALA YADAV @ RAJA RAM YADAV @ DEEPAK YADAV

2014 INSC 42530 June 2014Dismissed

The accused, Nirala Yadav, was arrested for offences under the IPC, Arms Act and POTA. After the statutory 90‑day period for filing a charge‑sheet elapsed without a charge‑sheet or an extension application, he filed an application under s.167(2) CrPC for bail. The CBI then filed an application for a 30‑day extension, a

DR. (MRS.) MALATHI RAVI, M.D.versusDR. B.V. RAVI M.D.

2014 INSC 42630 June 2014Disposed off

The husband, Dr. B.V. Ravi, filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging desertion, and also sought restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court found no proof of desertion and granted restitution, but the wife, Dr. Malathi Ravi, later lodged FIRs against the husband, lead

BAL MANOHAR JALANversusSUNIL PASWAN & ANR.

2014 INSC 43030 June 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The father of the complainant filed a murder complaint against five persons, including Bal Manohar Jalan, who was listed as accused No.4 in the FIR. The investigating magistrate later took cognizance only against accused No.1 and discharged the remaining accused, also rejecting the complainant's protest‑cum‑complaint p

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusTHAKUR SINGH

2014 INSC 42230 June 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed the acquittal of Thakur Singh, who was convicted by a trial court for murdering his wife Dhapu Kunwar inside a locked room. The prosecution proved that the wife died of asphyxia and that Singh had confined himself, his wife and child in the room, which was later forced open. The High Cou

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

SHENBAGAVALLI AND ORS.versusTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT AND ANR.

2025 INSC 60730 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, including the deceased's wife, were charged under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide after the husband Dinesh died by suicide on 09‑12‑2013. The prosecution relied on a torn diary page alleged to be a suicide note claiming continuous harassment by the accused from 10‑11‑2013 onward. The Supreme Cou

RAJU @ UMAKANTversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2025 INSC 61530 April 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant Raju was convicted of kidnapping, gang rape and wrongful confinement under IPC sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 342, and of an offence under the SC/ST Act 3(2)(v). The prosecution relied primarily on the uncorroborated but consistent testimony of the prosecutrix, who described being abducted, gagged, and sexua

RASHMI CHOPRAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2019 INSC 60030 April 2019Disposed off

The appellants, members of the family of Nayan Chopra, were summoned under IPC sections 323, 504, 506 and 498A, and the Dowry Prohibition Act, after a complaint was filed by the victim's father following a divorce proceeding in the United States. The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the complaint under Section 482

S. K. MIGLANIversusSTATE NCT OF DELHI

2019 INSC 60230 April 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a manager in Bank of Baroda, was charged with forgery and related offences for opening a fictitious savings account to encash a refund cheque. He filed an application under Section 197 of the CrPC seeking discharge on the ground that prosecution sanction was required, arguing that he was a public servant

THONGAM TARUN SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MANIPUR

2019 INSC 59930 April 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellants, a police driver and a singer, were convicted of gang rape of a 16‑year‑old girl and of criminal conspiracy under Sections 376(2)(g) and 120‑B IPC, receiving fifteen years and ten years rigorous imprisonment respectively, to run concurrently. They challenged the conviction on the ground that no charge wa

KALABAIversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 59030 April 2019Case Partly allowed

The deceased, Lalita Bai, was burned to death after her sister‑in‑law, Kalabai, threw a burning kerosene stove at her during a domestic quarrel. The trial court convicted Kalabai of murder under Section 302 IPC based on the victim’s dying declaration, imposing life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court was asked t

DEEPAK KHINCHIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2012 INSC 19430 April 2012Disposed off

Deepak Khichi, a trader of explosive and inflammable substances, was implicated in a fire that killed 14 people and injured many others. The Sessions Court initially discharged him of charges under the Explosive Substances Act (ESA) on the ground that no sanction under Section 7 of the Act had been produced. The Distri

C. MAGESH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2010 INSC 25630 April 2010Disposed off

The case arose from a labour dispute at BPL Engineering Ltd., where a bus carrying loyal employees was attacked, set on fire and several persons were injured and two women died. A charge sheet was filed against 49 accused; the trial court convicted seven of them. The High Court upheld those convictions and additionally

ANKUSH MARUTI SHINDE & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2009 INSC 64930 April 2009Disposed off

The case involved six accused who were charged with dacoity, murder and gang rape of a minor girl and her family members. The trial court convicted all of them under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 307, 34, 397, 395 and 396 of the IPC and sentenced each to death; the High Court confirmed death for three and reduced the senten

STATE OF A.P.versusE. SATYANARAYANA

2009 INSC 64830 April 2009Dismissed

E. Satyanarayana was charged with murdering his wife and minor son. The trial court convicted him on the basis of an alleged extra‑judicial confession made to the Village Administrative Officer and the recovery of a blood‑stained sickle, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The Andhra Pradesh High Court acquitted him,

RANBIR SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2009 INSC 65030 April 2009Case Partly allowed

The appellants, Ranbir Singh and others, were convicted under sections 148, 302, 324, 323 read with s.34 IPC for the death of Balwan and injuries to three others, pleading self‑defence. The Supreme Court examined whether the death occurred in the exercise of the right of private defence and whether the accused exceeded

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