Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Indian Penal Code, 1860

3,190 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 2,001–2,200.

TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAMversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH)

2016 INSC 15711 February 2016Dismissed

The appellant, Tekan alias Tekram, was convicted under Section 376 IPC for raping a blind, illiterate girl after promising marriage. The trial and High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant appealed, challenging both the conviction and the sentence of s

BHIM SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF UTIARAKHAND

2015 INSC 10711 February 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the death of Prema Devi, who died within five months of marriage with extensive burn injuries and traces of poison. The prosecution alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband Bhim Singh and his brothers in connection with dowry demands, invoking Sections 304‑B of

DASIN BAI@ SHANTI BAIversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2015 INSC 10511 February 2015Dismissed

The appellant, Dasin Bai, was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for setting the deceased, Raju Rajak, on fire after pouring kerosene on him. The prosecution relied on the victim's oral dying declaration recorded in hospital, which was corroborated by two eyewitnesses present at the time. The defence argued that

SONU GUPTAversusDEEPAK GUPTA & ORS.

2015 INSC 10411 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sonu Gupta, alleged that a withdrawn dowry harassment complaint was tampered with and a photocopy was used to register FIR No.73/2002 against her husband and his relatives, facilitating their anticipatory bail. She filed a criminal complaint in 2010 claiming forgery of the FIR. The Judicial Magistrate, a

VIJAYANDER KUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

2014 INSC 8911 February 2014Dismissed

The appellants, directors of a textile firm, were accused by a supplier (informant) of fraudulently transferring company assets and issuing post‑dated cheques that later bounced, leading to an FIR under Sections 420 and 120‑B IPC. The police concluded the matter was civil, but the magistrate rejected this view and took

RAJENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2013 INSC 8911 February 2013Dismissed

The appellant, Rajendra Singh, a tailor, was charged under s.302 IPC for murdering Kishan Singh Rana by repeatedly stabbing him with a pair of scissors after a dispute over unstitched cloth. The trial court acquitted him, citing discrepancies in the eye‑witness statements of Makhan Singh (PW‑2) and Deepa (PW‑3). The Hi

BALBIR SINGH BEDIversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2013 INSC 8811 February 2013Dismissed

Balbir Singh Bedi, a retired District Commander of the Punjab Home Guard, claimed he was eligible for substantive promotion to Battalion Commander under Rule 8 of the Punjab Home Guard (Class‑I) Rules, 1988, which mandates selection on a "seniority‑cum‑merit" basis. While his case was considered alongside other candida

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

DINESH GUPTAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2024 INSC 3211 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, Karan Gambhir, filed a police complaint in Gautam Budh Nagar alleging that the promoters of three Delhi‑based companies had induced his firm to give short‑term loans which were later converted into equity. The FIR, registered on 29 July 2018, listed the accused companies and promoters with incomplete a

MEERAversusSTATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVOTRIYUR POLICE STATION CHENNAI

2022 INSC 3511 January 2022Case Partly allowed

In 2006 a married woman self‑immolated after allegedly being subjected to cruelty by her mother‑in‑law over jewelry, while her husband was abroad. A complaint under Sections 498A and 306 IPC led to the conviction of the mother‑in‑law, her husband, sister‑in‑law and father‑in‑law, with the mother‑in‑law receiving one ye

SMRUTI TUKARAM BADADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

2022 INSC 3911 January 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a miscellaneous application seeking implementation of guidelines for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses in criminal matters, following earlier pronouncements in Sakshi and Bandu @ Daulat. The Court examined the need for special centres to provide a barrier‑free environment for vuln

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusJOGENDRA & ANR.

2022 INSC 3011 January 2022Case Partly allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed the High Court's judgment that set aside the convictions of Jogendra (husband) and Badri Prasad (father‑in‑law) under Sections 304‑B and 498‑A of the IPC for the death of their wife/ daughter‑in‑law Geeta Bai, who immolated herself while five months pregnant. The trial court had con

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusSHAIKH ISTIYAQ AHMED & ORS.

2022 INSC 3811 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Shaikh Istiaq Ahmed was convicted in Mauritius for possession of heroin and sentenced to 26 years. He was transferred to India under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 and sought to have his sentence reduced to 10 years, the maximum punishable term under Section 21(b) of the NDNDPS Act, invoking Section 13(6) of t

SRI SURESH KUMAR GOYAL AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2019 INSC 4611 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant alleged that the appellants had forged his signature to obtain bonus shares of Reliance companies and refused to return the original shares, leading to a criminal complaint under various IPC sections. The magistrate initially dismissed the complaint, but a revision remanded it, after which the appellant

DEBAPRIYA PALversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2017 INSC 125211 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Debapriya Pal, was convicted along with his alleged accomplice A I for the double murder of Anusha Sarkar and her mother Maya Sarkar, based primarily on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution's case rested on the appellant's alleged friendship with A I, recovery of blood‑stained clothes, a laptop belon

STATE OF ASSAMversusRAMEN DOWARAH

2016 INSC 3811 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Assam appealed the Gauhati High Court’s order that acquitted Ramen Dowarah of rape (s.376 IPC) and reduced his murder conviction (s.302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (s.304 Part II) on the basis that the sexual intercourse was consensual and the fire‑setting was a spur‑of‑the‑moment act

SUPREME COURT WOMEN LAWYERS ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2016 INSC 116311 January 2016Disposed off

The Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking that the legislature impose chemical castration as an additional punishment for perpetrators of rape against girl children. The petition highlighted alarming incidents of child sexual abuse and argued that the Indian Penal Code d

RAVINDER SINGHversusSUKHBIR SINGH & ORS.

2013 INSC 3011 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Ravinder Singh, owner of agricultural land, filed two criminal writ petitions seeking to quash FIRs filed by Sukhbir Singh. The second petition was filed without disclosing the earlier one, leading to a contempt proceeding which the High Court closed after the counsel apologized. Sukhbir Singh then lodged a criminal co

MR. JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.)versusJANEKERE C. KRISHNA & ORS. ETC.

2013 INSC 3111 January 2013Disposed off

The Karnataka Lokayukta post of Upa‑Lokayukta became vacant and the Chief Minister advised the Governor to appoint Justice Chandrashekaraiah without consulting the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, as required by s.3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The High Court quashed the appointment, holding th

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

2012 INSC 1611 January 2012Matter referred to larger bench

An explosion on a Delhi bus in 1997 killed four people and injured twenty‑four. Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali, a Pakistani national, was charged under Sections 302, 307 IPC and Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act and was convicted and sentenced to death. The trial proceeded for years with the accused largely unre

VIKAS KUMAR ROORKEWALversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS,

2011 INSC 2711 January 2011Disposed off

The petitioner, son of a murdered Superintending Engineer, filed a transfer petition under Section 406 of the CrPC seeking to move the murder trial from Haridwar to Delhi, alleging that witnesses were being threatened by the accused's powerful gang and that the investigating and prosecuting agencies had failed to prote

KAMLESHWAR PASWANversusSTATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH

2011 INSC 3211 January 2011Dismissed

Kamleshwar Paswan was convicted for the murder of his two young sons and the attempted murder of a third child after a neighbour witnessed him beating the children with a wooden stick. The trial court sentenced him to death under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, a sentence confirmed by the High Court. On

BENGAI MANDAL @ BEGAI MANDALversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2010 INSC 2911 January 2010Case Partly allowed

The appellant and a co-accused entered the deceased's house at night and the co-accused poured acid on her, causing severe burns and eventual death. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, along with other offences, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supre

DR. SOHAIL MALIKversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2025 INSC 141510 December 2025Dismissed

The case involved an IAS officer (the aggrieved woman) who alleged that an IRS officer (the appellant) sexually harassed her at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. She filed a complaint under the POSH Act before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of her own department, the Department of Food and Public Distribution. The app

JAYEDEEPSINH PRAVINSINH CHAVDA & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 96010 December 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellants, husband and in‑laws, were charged under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the IPC for the alleged suicide of the wife after twelve years of marriage, based on a FIR filed by her father. They sought discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, arguing that no prima facie case existed, particularly for abetment o

DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA & OTHERSversusSTATE OF TELANGANA & ANOTHER

2024 INSC 95310 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The marriage between appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 deteriorated, leading the wife to file an FIR under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act alleging cruelty and dowry demands, while also implicating the husband’s parents and sisters-in-law. The appellants contended that the FIR was a retaliatory

ROHTAS & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2020 INSC 69410 December 2020Disposed off

The appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender were convicted for attempt to murder under IPC s.307 read with s.149 and for rioting with deadly weapons under s.148. They challenged the convictions on the ground that, after the acquittal of three co‑accused, the remaining number fell below the statutory minimum of five requ

SAEEDA KHATOON ARSHIversusSTATE OF UP & ANR

2019 INSC 135510 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, mother of a deceased woman, alleged that her daughter was murdered by her son‑in‑law (the second respondent) rather than having committed suicide. During the trial of a friend of the second respondent for abetment of suicide under IPC s.306, the trial court, on the basis of the appellant’s testimony and

ABCDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 134710 December 2019Disposed off

The petitioner (ABCD) filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing that investigations under FIR No.58/2018 (rape) and FIR No.256/2018 (extortion) be transferred from Delhi Police to an independent central agency, along with protection under Section 438 of the CrPC. The Court examined the progress of the investig

RAJAversusSTATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2019 INSC 134610 December 2019Dismissed

The case involved seven accused of a dacoity during which five eye‑witnesses were seriously injured. All six of the accused (Nos.1‑6) were identified by the injured witnesses in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and were convicted under Sections 394, 395, 396 and 449 of the IPC; accused No.7 was acquitted. On appeal,

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusM/S. VISAKHA INDUSTRIES

2019 INSC 135210 December 2019Disposed off

The appellant, Google India Private Limited, was summoned under a criminal complaint alleging defamation (IPC ss.120B, 500, 501 r/w s.34) for articles posted in a Google Group hosted by it. It filed a petition under CrPC s.482 seeking to quash the summons, arguing it was not an intermediary and that Section 79 of the I

SHANTHAMALLESHAPPAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2018 INSC 118310 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The accused were charged under Section 436 read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly throwing kerosene on a thatched shed and setting it alight. The trial court convicted all four accused and imposed fines; the High Court enhanced the sentence of accused No.1 and set aside the convictions of the others. On appeal,

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

YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2015 INSC 104110 December 2015Disposed off

The petitioners, senior public servants accused of possessing assets disproportionate to their known income under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, challenged the constitutionality of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, which created special courts for s

SHLOK BHARDWAJversusRUNIKABHARDWAJ & ORS.

2014 INSC 85410 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The husband and wife married in 1996; the husband filed for divorce in 1997 and the wife filed a criminal case alleging cruelty under Sections 498‑A, 406, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial magistrate acquitted all accused in 2002. While the parties later settled their differences and obta

VEER SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2013 INSC 81810 December 2013Dismissed

The appellants Veer Singh and others were convicted for the murder of twelve persons and the attempted murder of a family member, based primarily on the testimony of a severely injured eye‑witness, Harshan Kaur, supported by medical reports, a hostile witness, and forensic material. The appellants challenged the reliab

KAILASH NATHversusSTATE OF U.P.

2009 INSC 129810 December 2009Dismissed

The case involved a night‑time shooting in which Deep Singh was killed and his wife Chhoti was injured; eight persons were alleged to have participated. The trial court convicted all seven surviving accused under Sections 302, 149 and 307 of the IPC. The Allahabad High Court acquitted four accused who had not caused an

R. RAJENDRANversusKAMAR NISHA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 130410 November 2025Case Allowed

The appellant, a doctor, was alleged to have had an extramarital affair with respondent No.1, resulting in the birth of a child in 2007 while she was married to Abdul Latheef. Respondent No.1 filed criminal complaints for cheating and harassment and sought a DNA test to establish the appellant as the biological father,

ROHIT TANDONversusTHE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

2017 INSC 109610 November 2017

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Rohit Tandon challenging the denial of regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Court held that the threshold conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied, as the prosecution presented substantial evidence of the appellant’s involvement

KAMAL PRASAD & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF CHHATTISGARH)

2023 INSC 89510 October 2023Dismissed

The appellants Kamal Prasad, Shersingh and Bhavdas were convicted for murder, attempted murder and offences under the Explosive Substance Act based on the testimony of three eyewitnesses who identified them at the scene where bombs and weapons were used, resulting in the deaths of Chetram and his son Kapildeo. The appe

N. S. MADHANAGOPAL & ANR.versusK. LALITHA

2022 INSC 132310 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, a society treasurer, alleged that the appellant, N.S. Madhanagopal, hurled unparliamentary words during a dispute over waste‑water flow, and claimed offences under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene words) and 341 (wrongful restraint). The High Court refused to quash the proceedings, but the Supreme Court ex

GALI JANARDHAN REDDYversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2022 INSC 105910 October 2022Disposed off

Gali Janardhan Reddy, accused of several serious offences under the IPC, Indian Forest Act and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, was granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2015 with a condition that he not visit Bellary (Karnataka) and Ananthapuram and Cuddapah (Andhra Pradesh). He later applied to

BILAL HAJAR @ ABDUL HAMEEDversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2018 INSC 94510 October 2018Dismissed

The appellant, A-6, was convicted under Section 120-B of the IPC for participating in a criminal conspiracy to murder Siva. The prosecution alleged that nine accused met at A-6's house on 1 September 1991, decided to kill Siva, and the murder was carried out on 5 September 1991 by some of the accused. The conviction re

PRADEEP BISOI @ RANJIT BISOIversusTHE STATE OF ODISHA

2018 INSC 95010 October 2018Dismissed

The appellant, Pradeep BisoI, was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC for causing the death of Bhaskar Sahu through a bomb and acid attack. The victim had given a detailed statement to the investigating officer on 5 December 1990 under Section 161 of the CrPC, but died on 25 March 1991, more than three months later

SANTOSH S/O DWARKADAS FAFATversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2017 INSC 102710 October 2017

Santosh was accused under Section 408 IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for receiving misappropriated food grains. He applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the trial court and the Nagpur High Court. After depositing the alleged amount, he obtained interim protection, but the

MD. JAMILUDIN NASIRversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2014 INSC 70710 October 2014Case Allowed

The Supreme Court delivered a judgment on 21 May 2014 in MD Jamiluddin Nasir v. State of West Bengal concerning an alleged offence of waging war against the State under IPC 121. Subsequent to that judgment, the parties filed criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking correction of typographical and factual errors in the

AVTAR SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2012 INSC 46210 October 2012Dismissed

The case arose from a violent clash on 9 April 2003 between two groups over a disputed piece of land in Marori, Punjab. The accused, armed with gandasis, kirpans and swords, attacked members of the complainant’s family, killing Amarjit Singh (father of PW‑10) and injuring several others. The appellants pleaded self‑def

MOHD. IMRAN KHANversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

2011 INSC 73610 October 2011Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined appeals by Mohd. Imran Khan and Jamal Ahmed against their conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC. The Court held that the prosecutrix, Monika, was a minor (under 16) at the time of the offence, based on her birth certificate and the acknowledged margin of error in radiological age estimate

JUPALLY LAKSHMIKANTHA REDDYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 109610 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, JVRR Education Society, was accused of cheating and forgery for allegedly submitting a forged fire No‑Objection Certificate (NOC) to obtain recognition and renewal of affiliation for its college, which operated from a building 14.20 metres high. The charge sheet under sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC c

VINOD KUMAR PANDEY & ANR.versusSEESH RAM SAINI & ORS.

2025 INSC 109510 September 2025Disposed off

The case concerned two Central Bureau of Investigation officers, Vinod Kumar Pandey and Neeraj Kumar, who were alleged to have committed a series of cognizable offences under the IPC, prompting writ petitions seeking registration of FIRs against them. The Delhi High Court, after examining the complaints and a prelimina

AKHTAR ALI @ ALI AKHTAR @ SHAMIM @ RAJA USTADversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 109710 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for the rape and murder of a minor girl based on circumstantial evidence, a disputed 'last seen' theory, alleged motive of lust, and DNA forensic reports. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the motive, the reliability of the last seen testimony, and the integrity of the forensic

PRAVIN KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2020 INSC 54210 September 2020Dismissed

Pravin Kumar, a CISF Sub‑Inspector, was accused of fabricating a General Diary entry, intimidating a subordinate to give false testimony, and collecting bribes from BPCL contractors. An enquiry under CISF Rules found him guilty and recommended dismissal; the disciplinary authority dismissed him, and the appellate autho

DR. (SMT.) MANORAMA TIWARI AND OTHERSversusSURENDRA NATH RAI

2015 INSC 102010 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved the death of a 14‑year‑old girl who underwent surgery in a government hospital performed by three medical officers. The girl's father filed a criminal complaint alleging murder under Section 304A of the IPC. The doctors filed an application under Section 197 of the CrPC seeking a sanction from the Sta

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

SANGILI @ SANGANATHANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2014 INSC 62010 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sangili, was convicted of murdering a schoolboy, Muthuramaligam, on the basis of circumstantial evidence that included a phone call, alleged motive, and the recovery of a bicycle and knives. The prosecution failed to produce any eyewitnesses, did not establish a motive, and could not prove the last seen

SUNIL DAMODAR GAIKWADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2013 INSC 60110 September 2013Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Sunil Damodar Gaikwad, murdered his wife and two sons and attempted to kill his daughter, later reporting the incident to police. He was convicted under IPC sections 302 and 307 and sentenced to death for the murder and life imprisonment for the attempt. The appeal centered on whether the death sentence

VILAS PANDURANG PAWAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2012 INSC 38610 September 2012Dismissed

The complainant, Savita Madhav Akhade, alleged that she and her family were insulted and assaulted on caste grounds by Vilas Pandurang Pawar and others, leading to an FIR under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused applied for anticipatory

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,

RAMABORA @ RAMABORAIAH & ANRversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2022 INSC 80910 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants (A‑1 and A‑2) were convicted by the Karnataka High Court for murder under Section 302 IPC, overturning their acquittal by the Sessions Court, while the other 20 accused remained acquitted. The prosecution alleged that 22 persons formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, trespassed into the

PARUBAIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2021 INSC 39310 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Parubai, the second wife of Gulab, was convicted under Sections 302 and 436 of the IPC for allegedly setting fire to the house that killed her husband's first wife Mandabai and two children. The prosecution's case relied on the fact that Parubai emerged uninjured, kerosene residues on a child's frock, and a motive infe

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

SAROJBEN ASHWINKUMAR SHAHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

2011 INSC 57010 August 2011Appeal(s) allowed

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against a partnership firm and its two partners. The complainant later applied under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to join two additional partners as co‑accused, relying solely on the firm's registration document that listed them

ROHINI SUDARSHAN GANGURDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2024 INSC 51910 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde, was charged under Section 306 of the IPC for allegedly abetting her husband’s suicide by harassing him over money and property. The husband was found hanged in their jointly owned house, and the mother filed an FIR alleging physical and mental abuse by the wife. The trial court

MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2018 INSC 59410 July 2018Dismissed

The case arose from a factional clash in which the deceased, Machindra Joshi, was attacked with swords, knives and a motorcycle chain by the appellants Motiram Padu Joshi, Ratan Maruti Vaskar, Devidas Maruti Vaskar and Ramnath Joshi, leading to his death. The trial court acquitted all accused, holding that the eyewitne

JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2013 INSC 45810 July 2013Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted under IPC sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty) and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. He later claimed to have been a juvenile at the time of the offence, asserting an age of 13 years 8 months, but documentary and medical evidence established his age as about 17 years, making hi

ANAND MOHANversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2012 INSC 27710 July 2012Dismissed

The case concerned the murder of a District Magistrate during a funeral procession of a political leader, where 36 persons were charged. The trial court convicted A‑1 (Anand Mohan) and six others under sections 147, 302/149, 307/149 and 302/109, sentencing A‑1, A‑3 and A‑4 to death. The High Court acquitted A‑2 to A‑7

BABLE @ GURDEEP SINGHversusSTATE OF CHATTISGARH TR.P.S.O.P. KURSIPUR

2012 INSC 27810 July 2012Dismissed

The appellant Bable @ Gurdeep Singh was convicted under IPC s.302 r.w. s.34 for the murder of Ishwari Verma. He challenged the conviction on the grounds that the FIR lost its relevance because the informant turned hostile, the oral dying declaration was not corroborated, his injuries were unexplained, and the acquittal

ARVIND KEJRIWALversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 40010 May 2024

Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, was arrested on 21 March 2024 by the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with alleged offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and related statutes. He challenged the arrest before the Supreme Court, arguing that the legality of his detention was sub judic

SRI GULAM MUSTAFAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

2023 INSC 51110 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Gulam Mustafa, Managing Director of GM Infinite Dwelling, was named as Accused No.18 in an FIR filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC provisions, arising from a long‑standing land ownership dispute that had been litigated in civil courts for o

REKHA JAINversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

2022 INSC 54910 May 2022Case Partly allowed

The original complainant lodged a complaint against her husband, Kamalesh Mulchand Jain, alleging that he cheated her and took 2 kg of gold jewellery, leading to an FIR under Section 420 of the IPC. During investigation, the gold jewellery was found in the possession of the husband’s wife, Rekha Jain, who was also char

A. SLVAPRAKASHversusSTATE OF KERALA

2016 INSC 39710 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department, issued a letter dated 9 June 1992 that the prosecution termed a "stage certificate" for a Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) construction project. Payments amounting to 50% of the contract value were subsequently released to the contractor, A‑3. The trial co

GURNAIB SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2013 INSC 33910 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Gurnaib Singh was convicted for the death of his young wife Amarjeet Kaur, who allegedly committed suicide after being harassed for a dowry demand of Rs 50,000. The trial court and the Punjab High Court upheld a conviction under Section 3048 IPC (dowry death) and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imp

STATE OF HARYANAversusJANAK SINGH & ETC.

2013 INSC 33610 May 2013Case Partly allowed

The State of Haryana appealed against a Punjab & Haryana High Court order that reduced the imprisonment terms of two accused, Joginder Singh and Janak Singh, for rape and related offences to the time they had already served. The trial court had convicted them under IPC Sections 376, 506 and, for Janak Singh, also 511,

ATMARAM & ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2012 INSC 22210 May 2012Dismissed

The five accused, Atmaram and four others, attacked two brothers and their sister with farsi, dharia and lathis, resulting in the death of one brother. The prosecution relied on the testimony of two injured eye‑witnesses (PW‑1 and PW‑2) and medical evidence showing ten injuries, including fatal head wounds. The appella

RAJESH BHATNAGARversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012 INSC 22510 May 2012Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the murder of Ms. Renu, who was burnt to death after her husband, brother‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law allegedly poured kerosene on her for refusing to meet dowry demands for a refrigerator, television and cooler. The trial and High Courts had convicted all three accused under Section 304B of the

MRUDUL M. DAMLE & ANR.versusC.B.I. NEW DELHI

2012 INSC 22610 May 2012Case Allowed

The petitioners, a husband and wife accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, sought transfer of their criminal trial from the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini Court, New Delhi to the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Court of Sessions at Thane, Maharashtra, arguing that most of the 92 witnesses (88) were located in Maha

SALIM GULAB PATHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SHO

2012 INSC 22710 May 2012Dismissed

The appellant, Salim Gulab Pathan, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly setting his wife on fire. The prosecution's case rested on the victim's dying declaration, recorded by a police constable after being certified by a doctor as conscious and fit, and corroborated by eyewitnesses who heard the victim imp

PARA SEENAIAH & ANR.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

2012 INSC 22810 May 2012Dismissed

The accused were charged with offences including assault (ss.324, 326 IPC) and murder (s.302 IPC) arising from a village feud. Four eyewitnesses saw the attack and the deceased gave a statement to the police implicating the accused. The trial court acquitted them of murder but convicted three of them under s.326, later

DHARMATMA SINGHversusHARMINDER SINGH & ORS.

2011 INSC 37110 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was charged under several IPC offences based on a FIR filed by respondent No.1, while a cross‑case was filed against respondents No.1 and 2. After the magistrate permitted further investigation, the Superintendent of Police submitted a further report stating that respondent No.1 had acted in self‑defence

GURU DEV SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P.

2011 INSC 37710 May 2011Dismissed

The appellant, Guru Dev Singh, was one of three accused who attacked Bhola Singh and another man with a kirpan, lohangi and lathi, causing Bhola Singh's death. Eye‑witnesses PW‑1 and PW‑2 testified that the accused surrounded the victims, struck them on vital parts and threw the dead body into a nala; a post‑mortem sho

BALRAJE @ TRIMBAKversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2010 INSC 30210 May 2010Dismissed

Balraje (appellant) was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for inflicting a knife blow to the chest of Kailas, resulting in his death. The prosecution relied on eye‑witness testimony of the deceased's son (PW‑1), wife (PW‑2) and a neighbour (PW‑4), who identified Balraje as the assailant. The defence argued that

MONIRUDDIN AHMED @ LALU DEALER & ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010 INSC 30310 May 2010Dismissed

On 21 October 1982, the appellants, armed with spears, axes and bombs, attacked an informant and his associates, chasing them through paddy fields. Eye‑witnesses PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW12 testified that the appellants threw bombs and that appellant No.1 (Moniruddin Ahmed @ Lalu Dealer) struck the deceased with a spear, ca

MILIND S/O ASHRUBA DHANVE AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026 INSC 35510 April 2026Disposed off

The appellants were convicted under IPC sections 323 and 324 read with section 34 for assaulting a victim's family and were sentenced only to pay fines of Rs.500 and Rs.2,000 respectively. They appealed, seeking the benefit of sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, arguing that the Act should apply e

BHUPATBHAI BACHUBHAI CHAVDA & ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 29510 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The father and son appellants were acquitted by the Sessions Court of murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34. The State appealed, and the Gujarat High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting them of murder and assault under s.323. The Supreme Court examined whether an appellate court can overturn an acquittal and held

SUBHASH @ SUBANNA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

2024 INSC 29410 April 2024Dismissed

The appellants were convicted for the murder of Mahadevappa after he went to their house to inquire about a blocked pathway and was brutally assaulted with a stick, chopper and stones, leading to his death. The appellants argued that they acted in private defence, claiming the victim had provoked them, and contended th

RAVISHANKAR TANDONversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2024 INSC 29910 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for murder under Sections 302, 34, 120B and 201 of the IPC based largely on their statements recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the subsequent recovery of the victim's body from a pond. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt tha

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusARYAN SINGH ETC.

2023 INSC 33810 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed appeals after the Punjab & Haryana High Court, exercising its power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, quashed the criminal proceedings against Aryan Singh and Gautam Cheema, holding that the charges were not proved and the prosecution was malicious. The ac

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusVIKAS MISHRA @ VIKASH MISHRA

2023 INSC 34510 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI arrested Vikas Mishra for offences under sections 409 and 120B of the IPC and obtained a seven‑day police‑custody remand on 16 April 2021. Mishra was hospitalized on 18 April and subsequently released on interim bail on 21 April, which was later cancelled on 8 December 2021 for non‑cooperation. He filed an appl

THE STATE OF RAJASTHANversusKANHAIYA LAL

2019 INSC 51010 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The victim Raju was attacked on the head with an axe by the accused Kanhaiya Lal and died from the injuries. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court reduced the conviction to Section 304 Part I, r

VIJAY MOHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2019 INSC 50910 April 2019Dismissed

The appellant, Vijay Mohan Singh, was accused of pouring kerosene on his wife, causing fatal burns, and was charged under Sections 302 r/w 34, 498A, 304B r/w 34 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4, 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court acquitted him, discarding the victim's dying declaration and other material evide

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusNIRMALA DEVI

2017 INSC 32510 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed against the Himachal High Court’s order that replaced the trial court’s imprisonment sentences for Nirmala Devi with a fine of Rs.30,000. The trial court had convicted her under IPC sections 307 (attempt to murder), 328 (causing hurt by poison) and 392 (robbery) and sentenced her

SURAIN SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2017 INSC 32310 April 2017Disposed off

Surain Singh was convicted of murder (Sec. 302 IPC) for killing two men during a violent clash between rival factions in a court of the Executive Magistrate. The clash erupted when Singh, objecting to the presence of a rival, drew his kirpan and struck several persons, resulting in two deaths. He appealed to the Suprem

CHARANDAS SWAMIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2017 INSC 32210 April 2017Dismissed

The case concerns the murder of Gadadharanandji, the newly elected Chairman of the Vadtal Temple Board of Trustees, who was allegedly kidnapped, strangled and his body burnt and dumped in Rajasthan by a group of temple functionaries. The prosecution proved the accused's motive—fear of losing control over temple finance

MD. JAMILUDIN NASIRversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2015 INSC 31610 April 2015Case Allowed

The appellants were convicted under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code for waging war against the State in a trial court in West Bengal. They appealed the conviction to the Calcutta High Court, which upheld the judgment. Subsequently, the appellants filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions before the Supreme Court seek

RAJA @ RAJINDERversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 31210 April 2015Dismissed

The appellant Raja Rajinder was convicted of murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC sections 302, 201 and 34, based primarily on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution established that the deceased was last seen with the appellant, that a knife, blood‑stained clothes and burnt blanket were rec

LAXMIversusUNION OF INDIA

2015 INSC 31710 April 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court, hearing a writ petition filed by acid‑attack victims, examined the implementation of its earlier directions in Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) requiring a minimum compensation of Rs.3 lakh per victim and full medical assistance. The Court noted that several states and Union Territories had not fixed t

MS.SversusSUNIL KUMAR & ANR.

2015 INSC 31110 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Ms S, a minor, was raped by Sunil Kumar while guarding her crops. She reported the incident immediately, and a medical examination corroborated her account; three eyewitnesses also attested to the rape. The trial court acquitted the accused because no test identification parade had been conducted, despite the victim id

SWAROOP SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P.

2013 INSC 23410 April 2013Dismissed

In 1992, a 17‑18‑year‑old girl (PW2) was allegedly forced at knife point by Swaroop Singh to have sexual intercourse in a sugarcane field. She reported the incident immediately, and medical examination revealed a torn hymen; other witnesses corroborated her account and broken bangles were recovered from the scene. The

KAILASH @ TANTI BANJARAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2013 INSC 23710 April 2013Dismissed

The appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC for raping P.W.4, an agricultural labourer, and under Section 506B IPC for criminal intimidation. The trial court, after medical examination, concluded that the victim was about 14 years old and that the intercourse, though allegedly consensual, fell within the offence

RAM DHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

2012 INSC 16810 April 2012Dismissed

Petitioner Ram Dhan filed a complaint alleging his son had been kidnapped, leading to the conviction of Balraj and others under IPC 364 r/w 149. The son later testified that he had left voluntarily, prompting Balraj to file an FIR against the petitioner for false information under IPC sections 177, 181, 182, 195 and 42

POORANMALversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

2026 INSC 21710 March 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Pooranmal was convicted along with co‑accused Ladu Lal for the murder of Ladu Lal’s wife, Aruna, under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC. The prosecution’s case against Pooranmal rested solely on three pieces of circumstantial evidence: call detail records showing frequent communication with Ladu Lal, a

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusBALJEET SINGH

2026 INSC 22110 March 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI laid a trap after a complaint that Income Tax Inspector Baljeet Singh (A2) demanded a bribe of Rs 5 lakhs on behalf of Assessing Officer Arun Kumar Gurjar (A1). During the trap, marked notes smeared with phenolphthalein were recovered from A2's coat pocket and his hands turned pink in a sodium carbonate test, c

PURAN MALversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2022 INSC 29710 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the State of Haryana, challenged the High Court's order granting bail to Mahesh Kumar, accused of murder under Section 302 IPC, on the ground that the High Court failed to provide cogent reasons despite two prior bail rejections by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court examined the principles governing bail

PRITI SARAF & ANR.versusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

2021 INSC 17710 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a criminal complaint alleging that the second respondent, a property owner, cheated them in a commercial transaction involving the sale of a mortgaged plot, breaching the agreement and misappropriating funds, leading to FIRs under Sections 420, 406 and 34 IPC. The Delhi High Court, invoking its inh

CHARANJIT KAURversusBIKRAM SINGH & ANR.

2016 INSC 25710 March 2016Disposed off

Charanjit Kaur filed a criminal complaint under Sections 498A, 406 and 1208 of the IPC alleging dowry harassment and criminal conspiracy by her husband, Bikram Singh. The trial court convicted the husband and sentenced him to one year imprisonment for each offence, with a fine of Rs.1,000. The Sessions Court dismissed

SATISH KUMAR JAYANTI LAL DABGARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2015 INSC 19310 March 2015Dismissed

Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar was convicted under IPC sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping for marriage) and 376 (rape) for abducting and raping a girl who was under sixteen years of age. The trial court sentenced him to three years for kidnapping, five years for kidnapping for marriage and seven years rigorous

GURJIT SINGH ALIAS GORA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 18910 March 2015Dismissed

The case concerned the murder of Jagsir Singh on 17 October 1998. The prosecution alleged that Gurjit Singh alias Gora and Surjit Singh alias Sukha, armed with spades (kassi), struck the victim on the head and face after being urged by their parents, Gurdial Singh and Surjit Kaur, to teach the victim a lesson. The accu

VIJAYPALversusSTATE (GNCT) OF DELHI

2015 INSC 19410 March 2015Dismissed

Vijay Pal was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly setting his wife Savitri on fire with kerosene after a domestic quarrel. The prosecution relied on the oral dying declaration of the deceased to her brother, corroborative medical evidence showing 100% burns and kerosene residues, and eyewitness testimony of r

MD.ALL @ GUDDUversusSTATE OF U.P.

2015 INSC 19010 March 2015Dismissed

The appellants were convicted by the trial court and the Allahabad High Court for kidnapping and rape under IPC sections 363, 366 and 376 based largely on the testimony of the prosecutrix and her mother. The FIR was lodged eleven days after the alleged kidnapping, and the mother failed to file a missing report, raising

D. VELAYUTHAMversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SALEM TOWN, CHENNAI

2015 INSC 19110 March 2015Dismissed

The case involved two excise officers, a superintendent (Accused 1) and his subordinate (Accused 2), who demanded bribes from a manufacturer after issuing an illegal show‑cause notice. The complainant reported the demand, and a police‑led trap was set up; the bribe money was handed to Accused 2, who was caught and the

POOJA BHATIAversusVISHNU NARAIN SHIVPURI & ANR.

2014 INSC 17910 March 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Vishnu Narayan Shivpuri was charged under IPC sections 342, 326‑8 and 506 for allegedly throwing sulphuric acid on his wife, Pooja Bhatia. The Sessions Court denied his bail, but the High Court later released him on bail. After his release, the Superintendent of Police submitted a counter‑affidavit stating that Shivpur

PHOOL CHANDRA & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2014 INSC 93810 March 2014Dismissed

The petitioners, convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 506 of the IPC for a kidnapping case, appealed to the Allahabad High Court, were granted bail and sought an early hearing of their criminal appeal. The High Court ordered the case to be released and listed before an appropriate bench, prompting the petitioners to f

JITEN BESRAversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010 INSC 14110 March 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Jiten Besra was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his parents‑in‑law based on three circumstantial points: his presence in the village on the night of the killings, a strained relationship with the victims, and alleged blood stains on his clothing. The Supreme Court examined the evidence a

DR. ANAND RAIversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2026 INSC 14110 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The accused, Dr. Anand Rai, was charged under several IPC provisions and the SC/ST Act for allegedly taking part in a stone‑throwing scuffle at a public event. He sought discharge under s.227 CrPC, arguing that the SC/ST charges lacked essential ingredients such as the victim’s caste status and his knowledge of it. The

VASANT @ GIRISH AKBARASAB SANAVALE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 22110 February 2025Case Partly allowed

The deceased Geetha was allegedly set on fire by her mother‑in‑law, leading to her death. The trial court acquitted both the husband (appellant No.1) and the mother‑in‑law (appellant No.2) for offences under Sections 498A, 302, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court reversed th

NAUSHEY ALI & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2025 INSC 18210 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, residents of Barwara Khas village, were charged in 1991 with offences including Section 307 IPC for allegedly assaulting Mahmood with lathis and iron bars, leading to a fracture of his finger. After a police closure report deeming the complaint false, the trial court summoned the appellants, and the cas

SHARAFAT ALIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 17310 February 2022Disposed off

Sharafat Ali, convicted under IPC sections 302 and 34 and sentenced to life imprisonment, applied for premature release after serving 17 years, 9 months and 26 days. The Uttar Pradesh government rejected his application on vague grounds of possible victim resentment and alleged extremist nature, without examining his p

RAJESHBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ETC.

2020 INSC 16010 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, brothers residing in the UK, sought recovery of Rs.1.20 crore from their maternal uncle (appellant No.3) after the uncle advanced the sum for a land sale and later demanded repayment. The uncle issued four cheques, two of which were dishonoured; a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable I

ARUN SINGH & OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANOTHER

2020 INSC 16310 February 2020Disposed off

The appellants were charged under Section 493 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for allegedly demanding dowry and for deceitful cohabitation. The complainant filed an FIR after a purported compromise between the parties, and the High Court dismissed the appellants' petition under Section 482

SHARAD KUMAR SANGHIversusSANGITA RANE

2015 INSC 96110 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sharad Kumar Sanghi, Managing Director of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Ltd., was charged under Section 420 IPC for allegedly cheating a buyer by delivering a vehicle with a replaced engine after an accident. The complaint, filed under Section 200 of the CrPC, primarily alleged wrongdoing by the company but d

LOKESH SHIVAKUMARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2012 INSC 8610 February 2012Dismissed

The deceased, a money lender, was lured out by accused No.1 who owed him money. He was later found surrounded by four accused, including the appellant (accused No.2). The appellant picked up a piece of gobbaly tree wood and struck the victim on the head, causing fatal injuries; accused No.1 also threw a stone. All four

V.S. ACHUTHANANDANversusR. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI & ORS.

2011 INSC 11610 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the award of a hydro‑electric project contract by the Kerala State Electricity Board to K.P. Poulose at rates far above the probable amount, allegedly facilitated by Minister R. Balakrishna Pillai, a Board member and a close associate. The prosecution proved that the Minister, the Board member and an

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

KUSUM SHARMA & OTHERSversusBATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE & OTHERS

2010 INSC 9510 February 2010Dismissed

The appellants filed a complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and medical negligence after the death of the husband who underwent adrenal surgery at Batra Hospital. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint, finding no negligence.

JAYABENversusTEJAS KANUBHAI ZALA & ANR

2022 INSC 2810 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case involves the murder of Mukeshbhai, the husband of complainant Jayaben, who was brutally beaten and tied to a gate by five accused persons. The accused were identified in a Test Identification Parade, and the incident was captured on CCTV and a mobile phone. The High Court had released the principal accused, Te

SANKATH PRASADversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2020 INSC 2810 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sankath Prasad, was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for shooting the complainant's son during an altercation over a disputed plot. The incident occurred when the appellant retrieved a country-made pistol from his house and fired at the complainant, but the son intervened and was shot, later dyi

LAVGHANBHAI DEVJIBHAI VASAVAversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2018 INSC 2010 January 2018Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava, was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for striking his wife, Shakuben, with a wooden object during a sudden altercation over delayed lunch preparation, leading to her death ten days later. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the facts warranted a convictio

SALONI ARORAversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2017 INSC 4310 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was prosecuted under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code for making a false complaint to a public servant. The prosecution failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires a written complaint by the public servant before a prosecution can be lau

STATE OF GUJARATversusRATANSINGH @ CHINUBHAL ANOPSINH CHAUHAN

2014 INSC 2010 January 2014Dismissed

The State of Gujarat charged Ratansingh under sections 376, 302 and 201 of the IPC for the alleged rape and murder of a seven‑year‑old girl. The trial court convicted him, awarding a death sentence for murder and life imprisonment for rape. On appeal, the Gujarat High Court acquitted him, holding that the prosecution’s

CHINNAM KAMESWARA RAO AND ORS.versusSTATE OF AP. REP. BY HOME SECRETARY

2013 INSC 2810 January 2013Dismissed

The appellants were accused of murdering a man and injuring another after a prior confrontation. The trial court acquitted them, but the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted them under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC, imposing life imprisonment. The appellants challenged the High Court's

ARUN BHANDARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 2910 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Arun Bhandari, an NRI, paid Rs.1.05 crore as part payment for a plot in Greater Noida on the basis of an agreement with respondents Savita Singh and Raghuvinder Singh, who later transferred the property to a third party. When the property was not delivered, Bhandari filed an FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of

SURENDER KUMARversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2025 INSC 14129 December 2025Dismissed

Surender Kumar was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC for stabbing the deceased with four knife blows to vital parts, causing fatal injuries. The appellant argued that the incident fell under one of the four exceptions to Section 300 IPC, seeking a conviction for a lesser offence. The Supreme Court examin

M/S SUVARNA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

2021 INSC 8549 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka filed a criminal complaint against a private respondent (original accused No.1) and others for offences under Sections 120B, 408, 409, 420 and 149 of the IPC. A charge‑sheet was filed only against accused No.1 after a thorough investigation. The High Court of Karnataka quashed the proceedings on

GULABversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2021 INSC 8529 December 2021Dismissed

Gulab was convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly exhorting his co‑accused Idrish to shoot the deceased. The prosecution relied on three eyewitnesses, all relatives of the victim, who consistently testified that Gulab arrived with a lathi, urged Idrish to kill, and that Idris

BHAGCHANDRAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2021 INSC 8519 December 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellant Bhagchandra was convicted of murdering his two brothers and a nephew during a property dispute, with the prosecution relying on the ocular testimony of several rustic village witnesses who identified him as the assailant wielding an axe. The trial court sentenced him to death under IPC sections 302, 201 a

THE STATE BY S.P. THROUGH THE SPE CBIversusUTTAMCHAND BOHRA

2021 INSC 8559 December 2021Dismissed

The CBI alleged that Uttamchand Bohra aided a senior income‑tax officer (A‑1) in acquiring a flat through a company, thereby helping the officer amass assets disproportionate to his known income. The prosecution’s case rested on Bohra’s custody of the sale deed and the fact that his employee witnessed its execution, al

MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS.versusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2016 INSC 11189 December 2016Disposed off

On 10 February 1994, a group of accused assembled unlawfully in Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu, and attacked the family of the deceased Rajendran, killing eight persons including a one‑year‑old child. The trial court convicted the accused under various provisions of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment for each

HDFC SECURITIES LTD. & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2016 INSC 11199 December 2016Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by HDFC Securities Ltd. and its officers challenging the registration of an FIR and a magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC directing police investigation into alleged unauthorized trades. The appellants argued that the order caused irreparable injury and should be q

SAT PARKASHversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 9099 December 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Sat Parkash was convicted under IPC sections 363, 366, 366-A and 376 for allegedly kidnapping, forcing marriage, procuration and raping a 15‑year‑old girl, Sushila, who later died by suicide. The appellant challenged the conviction on the basis of Sushila's suicide note, which stated she left home of her own free will

SELVARAJ @ CHINNAPAIYANversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2014 INSC 8469 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Selvaraj was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly strangling his infant daughter, based on testimony of the mother, mother‑in‑law and a sister, who later turned hostile, and on a medical report that did not conclusively indicate homicide. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the hostile

K.K. SINGHAL & ORS.versusSTEEL STRIPS LTD.

2014 INSC 8459 December 2014Dismissed

The appellants K.K. Singhal & Ors. issued 33 cheques that were dishonoured, leading the respondent Steel Strips Ltd. to file 26 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The parties later entered into a settlement at Chandigarh, where the respondent agreed to withdraw the complaints in exchange fo

KUNWARPAL @ SURAJPAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR.

2014 INSC 8499 December 2014Dismissed

The appellants were convicted under IPC sections 302 and 34 for the murder of Ranjit Singh, allegedly attacked with lathis and tabbal by the accused amid a land dispute. The prosecution relied on eye‑witnesses PW3 Atmaram and PW4 Chaman Lal, whose testimonies were corroborated and supported by a post‑mortem report esta

UMA SHANKAR GAUTAMversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2014 INSC 8479 December 2014Dismissed

The appellant, accused No.1, was convicted along with five others for offences under Sections 147, 149 and 302 of the IPC for the murder of Kalua. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant and two others, but acquitted accused Nos.5 and 6 on the ground that no lathi injuries were found on the deceased and t

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC (LAW AND ORDER-F) AND ANOTHER.versusNABILA AND ANOTHER.

2014 INSC 8529 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the Secretary to the Government (Law & Order‑F), appealed against a Madras High Court order that quashed a preventive detention order issued under Section 3(1)(a) of the National Security Act, 1980 against a man arrested in September 2012 for alleged breach of the Official Secrets Act. The High Court had

MARY PAPPA JEBAMANIversusGANESAN & ORS.

2013 INSC 8119 December 2013Disposed off

Mary Pappa Jebamani filed a criminal complaint alleging assault and verbal abuse under IPC sections 294(b) and 323. The summary trial court acquitted the accused because two key eyewitnesses turned hostile and the trial court found the evidence insufficient. The Sessions Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the

PANNEY @ PRATAP NARAIN SHUKLA & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2009 INSC 12949 December 2009Dismissed

The appellants Panney @ Pratap Narain Shukla and Channey @ Prabhu Narain Shukla were convicted for the murder of Shivdhari, who was killed by a bomb, a pistol shot and a neck cut during a land‑dispute. The trial court sentenced them to death, a decision affirmed by the High Court and upheld on appeal. In the Supreme Co

SAJEEVversusSTATE OF KERALA

2023 INSC 9989 November 2023Dismissed

The case concerned the conviction of two accused, Sajeev (A10) and Roy (A11), for their role in a conspiracy to mix methyl alcohol with spirit and sell it as illicit liquor, which caused seven deaths, eleven cases of blindness and injuries to over forty persons. The trial court and Kerala High Court convicted them unde

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

RAVI NAMBOOTHIRIversusK.A. BAIJU & ORS

2022 INSC 11879 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ravi Namboothiri, was elected councilor of Ward No.5 of Annamanada Gram Panchayat in 2015. After his election, the respondent filed an election petition alleging that the appellant had failed to disclose a past conviction under the Kerala Police Act (Section 38 read with Section 52) in Form 2A, thereby f

MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD.versusM. MANI

2017 INSC 10889 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) dismissed two drivers, M. Mani and the late T.A. Mathivanan, after a departmental enquiry found them guilty of theft of a heavy machine while on duty. The employees were later acquitted of the theft charge in a criminal trial under IPC s.379. They challenged their dismissals in a La

MAHAVIR SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2016 INSC 10149 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned Mahavir Singh, who was convicted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for murder under Section 302 IPC, overturning an acquittal by the trial court. The prosecution's case relied on the statements of several eyewitnesses, the seizure of a gun and cartridges from the accused, and alleged enmity between

SHEORAJ SINGH AHLAWAT & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2012 INSC 5159 November 2012Dismissed

The appellants, the husband and his parents‑in‑law, were charged under Section 498A IPC for alleged dowry harassment and a specific incident of abandonment. They sought discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC, claiming the allegations were false. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 239 and the standard for

RAM CHANDRA BHAGATversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2012 INSC 5139 November 2012Dismissed

The appellant, Ram Chandra Bhaghat, was convicted under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code for deceiving the complainant into believing she was his lawful wife, cohabiting with him for nine years and bearing two children. The prosecution proved that the appellant obtained a signed marriage registration form, induced

SHANTIBHAI J. VAGHELA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

2012 INSC 5189 November 2012Dismissed

Two minor children residing in a Gurukul (ashram) went missing and were later found dead in the Sabarmati river. An FIR was lodged against seven ash​ram inmates under Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act and other offences. The High Court quashed the FIR in

MONICA BEDIversusSTATE OF AP.

2010 INSC 7659 November 2010Disposed off

Monica Bedi and four co‑accused were convicted under the Indian Penal Code (sections 120‑B, 419, 420) and the Prevention of Corruption Act for a conspiracy to obtain a passport in an assumed name. Bedi argued that her conviction violated Article 20(2) of the Constitution because she had already been tried and sentenced

OM PAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 7669 November 2010Dismissed

The appellant Om Pal Singh was convicted for the murder of Rishipal Singh under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution established a long-standing enmity, prior attempts on the victim's life, and presented eyewitness testimony of PW‑2 and PW‑3 who described the shooting. A dying declaration recorded by the Tehsildar, though

SANKAR PADAM THAPAversusVIJAYKUMAR DINESHCHANDRA AGARWAL

2025 INSC 12109 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a liaison for a private university, was issued a cheque of Rs.5 crore by the respondent, who was the Chairman and authorized signatory of Orion Education Trust, but the cheque was dishonoured. The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and

CHANDRA PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P

2023 INSC 8879 October 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellant, accused No.2, was convicted by the High Court of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and of causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC. The conviction under Section 302/34 was based on the appellate court’s alteration of the original charge (Section 302 with Sections 148

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

SANJIT SAHA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2023 INSC 10859 October 2023Matter referred to larger bench

Sanjit Saha and Anil Saha, convicted under IPC 376(2)(g) and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, filed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) together with an application for exemption from surrender. The Chamber Judge rejected the exemption, gave them six weeks to surrender and later two weeks to file surrende

KARULAL & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2020 INSC 5829 October 2020Dismissed

The appellants were convicted under Sections 148, 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Madhavji. The prosecution relied on three eyewitnesses—two of whom were close relatives of the deceased and one unrelated witness—whose testimonies were consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. The defence a

DASHRATH SINGH CHAUHANversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2018 INSC 9409 October 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a DESU employee, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.4,000 from a complainant and to have directed the complainant to give the money to a co‑accused, who accepted it. The trial court acquitted both accused of conspiracy under Section 120‑B IPC but convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2)

RAJESH KUMAR C. K. JAINversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2017 INSC 10199 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute involved a settlement recorded on a bond paper of Rs.100 filed with the Assistant Commissioner, Yadgiri. The accused, Rajesh Kumar C.K. Jain, was alleged to have taken the bond paper from the court file on 16 July 2010, leading to an FIR and his conviction under Section 379 IPC by the trial court. On appeal

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)versusBRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN KUMAR AND ANR.

2017 INSC 10189 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of NCT of Delhi appealed against the discharge of Brijesh Singh @ Arun Kumar and others by a Special Court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The key dispute was whether charge‑sheets filed in courts outside Delhi could be counted towards the "continuing unlawful activity" requireme

YALLAWA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2015 INSC 10319 October 2015Dismissed

The case arose from a 1991 incident in which a group of accused set fire to the house of Channabasappa, resulting in the death of ten persons. The trial court acquitted the accused, but the Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting them under various IPC provisions including murder, arson and criminal con

MOFIL KHAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2014 INSC 10169 October 2014Dismissed

Mofil Khan and two co‑accused brutally murdered eight members of their own family, including women, children and a physically disabled boy, to obtain property. The trial court sentenced them to death, a decision affirmed by the Jharkhand High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the "rarest of rare" doc

RAJ PAUL SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE THROUGH P.S. MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD

2012 INSC 4599 October 2012Dismissed

The appellants were convicted of murder for stabbing the husband of the complainant after the husband warned them to stop abusive behavior. The trial and high courts upheld the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC based on the testimony of two eye‑witnesses. On appeal, the accused argued that th

GEETAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 10899 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Geeta, was convicted under Section 306 of the IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of her neighbour, Sarika, who set herself on fire after a series of verbal and physical altercations. The trial court held that Geeta's abusive language and the involvement of her family created a hostile environment tha

ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR.versusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 6689 September 2024Dismissed

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued multiple summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) requiring the appellants, Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee, to appear in Delhi and produce documents related to a coal theft and money‑laundering investigation. The appellants challenged the s

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

STALINversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2020 INSC 5409 September 2020Case Partly allowed

Stalin, the accused, was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for stabbing the deceased with a knife during a quarrel at a beer party. He appealed, arguing that the single blow and lack of pre‑meditation should reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II, invoking Exce

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

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusCHANDGI RAM & ORS.

2014 INSC 6149 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan prosecuted Chandgi Ram and others for the murder of Surender, alleging that the accused beat him to death with iron rods, pipes and lathis, constituting offences under IPC s.302 read with s.34 and s.452. The trial court convicted the accused based on the testimony of the deceased's wife, two mino

PINAKIN MAHIPATRAY RAWALversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2013 INSC 5989 September 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal, was convicted under Sections 498A and 306 IPC for allegedly causing his wife's suicide through an extra‑marital relationship with his colleague (A‑2). The Supreme Court examined whether the alleged relationship amounted to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A and whether i

RAGHUVANSH DEWANCHAND BHASINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2011 INSC 6689 September 2011Dismissed

The appellant, a practising advocate, was charged under IPC s.324. After failing to appear on 7 August 2002, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued a non‑bailable warrant (NBW) returnable on 31 October 2002. The appellant appeared on 12 August and the warrant was cancelled, but on 15 August the police insp

G. REDDEIAHversusTHE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

2011 INSC 6699 September 2011Dismissed

The appellant, G. Reddeiah, brother‑in‑law of R. Sreenivasulu, challenged a preventive detention order issued under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, which was passed on 12 November 2010 after the detenue had been released on bail. The detenue was alleged to have repeatedly felled, cut an

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

RAM NARESHversusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 5959 September 2010Dismissed

In 1978, appellant Ram Naresh shot at Ram Vilas, injuring him; the FIR was lodged the next morning at a police station 9 km away. The trial court and the Allahabad High Court convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined wheth

MANISH SISODIAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 5959 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, was arrested in 2023 in connection with CBI and ED investigations into alleged irregularities in Delhi’s excise policy. He remained in custody for about 17 months without trial, and his multiple bail applications were rejected by the trial court and the Delhi

R. JAYAPALversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

2019 INSC 8859 August 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant R. Jayapal was convicted of murder (s.302 IPC) for stabbing the deceased Poondhaisezhiyan, who later died from a chest wound. He claimed he acted in private defence to protect his wife from the deceased, who allegedly intruded into their house with a group and attempted to assault her. The trial court rej

SIDDALINGversusTHE STATE, THROUGH KALAGI POLICE STATION

2018 INSC 6849 August 2018Dismissed

The appellant was married to Kavitha, who committed suicide within four months of their marriage, allegedly due to dowry harassment and the husband's illicit relationship with another woman. The prosecution presented documentary evidence of a Panchayat agreement in which the husband admitted cohabiting with the other w

M/S. HCL LNFOSYSTEM LTD.versusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2016 INSC 5859 August 2016Dismissed

The case concerned HCL Infosystem Ltd., a co‑accused in the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) scam, where the sole public servant co‑accused had died before any charge was framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The issue was whether the Special Judge appointed under s.3(1) of the PC Act could

PHOOL KUMARIversusOFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL, TIHAR, NEW DELHI AND ANR.

2012 INSC 3319 August 2012Disposed off

Phool Kumari was convicted under IPC sections 323, 342, 307 and 34 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, later reduced to five years. While incarcerated in Tihar Central Jail she was assigned work as a Sewadar in the Medical Inspection room. She claimed wages for the work done, but the prison superintendent and a vis

MAHENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF UTIARANCHAL

2011 INSC 5589 August 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Mahendra Singh, a police constable, shot and killed Janardhan Pathak, a forest gate‑keeper, claiming the incident occurred during a scuffle in which he was attacked. The trial court convicted him of murder under IPC s.302 and sentenced him under the Arms Act; the High Court affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court examin

PYLA MUTYALAMMA @ SATYAVATHIversusPYLA SURI DEMUDU & ANR.

2011 INSC 5649 August 2011Case Allowed

The appellant, Pyla Mutyalamma, filed a Section 125 Cr.P.C. application for maintenance against her husband, alleging a valid marriage in 1974 and desertion after 25 years. The trial magistrate found her to be the lawful wife with two surviving children and awarded Rs.500 per month. The husband appealed, claiming a pri

LAKHANversusSTATE OF M.P.

2010 INSC 4899 August 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Lakhan, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly burning his wife, Savita. Two dying declarations were recorded: the first by an Executive Magistrate stating the death was accidental, and the second by a police ASI accusing the appellant of pouring kerosene and setting her alight. The trial and

VIRENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2010 INSC 4909 August 2010Dismissed

The appellant Virendra Singh, along with his father Hakim Singh and brother Kamlesh, went armed to the house of Bhagirath to force him to reap their crop. When Bhagirath refused, the father and Virendra beat his son Baburam, and on the father's exhortation Kamlesh shot Bhagirath, causing his death. The trial court and

ATBIRversusGOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

2010 INSC 4919 August 2010Dismissed

The appellants Atbir and Ashok were convicted for the murder of three members of their step‑mother's family, based solely on the dying declaration of the surviving victim, Sonu (Savita), recorded by a police officer in the presence of a doctor. The Supreme Court held that the declaration was reliable, made in a fit sta

GAURAV MAINIversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2024 INSC 4889 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for kidnapping a minor for ransom, robbery and criminal conspiracy under IPC sections 364A, 392 and 120B. The prosecution's case relied on the statements of the victim and his father, but the victim's family never reported the incident to police and the key witness, the grandfather, was ne

VINOD JASWANTRAY VYAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 4909 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal against the conviction of two police officers for the death of Jeeva, who allegedly died from custodial torture at Amraiwadi police station. The trial and High Court had upheld the conviction, later reducing the charge from murder (Sec. 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to

RATNU YADAVversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2024 INSC 4879 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ratnu Yadav, was convicted by the Sessions Court and upheld by the High Court for murder of his step‑mother under Section 302 IPC, based primarily on an alleged extra‑judicial confession before a village officer (PW‑1) and the testimony of the deceased’s brother (PW‑5) that the appellant dragged the vict

P RAMESHversusSTATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2019 INSC 7379 July 2019Dismissed

The appellant was convicted of murder and dowry death under Sections 302 and 498A IPC. During trial, the prosecution sought to record the testimony of the appellant's two minor children, aged eight and six, but the trial judge excluded their evidence, deeming them incompetent because they did not know the judge or lawy

VINAY SHARMA & ANR.versusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2018 INSC 5919 July 2018Dismissed

The petitioners, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar Gupta, filed review petitions challenging the Supreme Court's order dismissing their criminal appeals in the Nirbhaya gang‑rape case. They raised numerous grounds, including the abolition of the death penalty, alleged errors in the assessment of eye‑witness testimony, the i

STATE OF HARYANAversusKRLSHAN & ANR.

[2017] 7 S.C.R. 2519 July 2017Case Partly allowed

In 1980 a hooch tragedy in Kalanwali, Haryana, caused 36 deaths and 44 permanent blindings after victims consumed liquor adulterated with methyl alcohol. Krishan and Som Nath, licensees of the liquor vend, were convicted by the trial court under IPC sections 302, 328 and 120B. The High Court acquitted them, holding tha

OM PRAKASHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2015 INSC 4919 July 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a soldier, was involved in a drunken altercation at a farewell party where the deceased Dafadar Ram Pratap attempted to intervene and was later found stabbed to death. The appellant surrendered to police, gave a voluntary confession, and was tried before a General Court Martial, which convicted him of cu

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.versusASHOK KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

2014 INSC 4819 July 2014Dismissed

The State of Bihar filed a criminal appeal against an FIR lodged in 2002 against IAS officer Ashok Kumar Singh for alleged corruption while he was Managing Director of the Bihar State Financial Corporation. The FIR was issued by the Bihar Vigilance Investigation Bureau after the bifurcation of Bihar into Bihar and Jhar

MANOJ & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2013 INSC 4529 July 2013Dismissed

The appellant Manoj and his relatives were convicted for the dowry death of Meena Devi, who died from burns after being allegedly doused with kerosene and set alight at the behest of her husband, mother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law. The prosecution relied heavily on a dying declaration recorded by Dr. Rajinder Rai, which w

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