Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Indian Penal Code, 1860

6,145 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 401–600.

BECHAARBHAI S. PRAJAPATIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2008 INSC 27329 February 2008Disposed off

Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati, a police sub‑inspector, stopped a luxury bus carrying a marriage party and demanded payment for the release of the bus documents. The Anti‑Corruption Bureau arranged a trap using anthracene‑powder‑marked currency notes, which the officer accepted and concealed in his trouser pocket. The marked

SURJIT SINGH AND ORS.versusBALBIR SINGH

1996 INSC 33329 February 1996Dismissed

The respondents filed a private criminal complaint alleging that the appellants forged an agreement and signatures to claim possession of property, invoking offences under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B. The magistrate took cognizance of the complaint on 27 September 1983. The appellants later filed a civil s

AJAY MALIKversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

2025 INSC 11829 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from FIR No. 60/2017 alleging wrongful confinement, trafficking and conspiracy against Ajay Malik for employing a tribal domestic worker. Malik sought quashing of the criminal proceedings and compounding of the offences, supported by a no‑objection affidavit from the complainant, while the State opposed

SUSHILA AGGARWAL AND OTHERSversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 10629 January 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined two questions referred to a larger bench: whether an order of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) must be limited to a fixed period, and whether such bail terminates when the accused is summoned or when charges are framed. Relying on the Constitution Benc

SHEESH RAM AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2014 INSC 6329 January 2014Dismissed

The case involved the murder of Bairam, the son of complainant Heera, arising out of a long-standing land dispute and enmity between the parties. The trial court convicted all accused under Sections 148, 302 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 IPC, but the Rajasthan High Court acquitted four accused and convicted the remaining thr

SATNI BAIversusSTATE OF M. P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH)

2010 INSC 6729 January 2010Dismissed

Satni Bai was convicted of murdering her four‑year‑old son under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence: witnesses (her brother‑in‑law, sister‑in‑law and a 16‑year‑old girl) saw her standing near the corpse with a blood‑stained axe, the axe and her saree were found blood‑stained, and the pos

GOBARBHAI NARANBHAI SINGALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2008 INSC 11229 January 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two murder cases in which the accused, Jayrajsinh Temubha Jadeja, had been granted regular bail by the Gujarat High Court on the grounds of prolonged judicial custody, non‑commencement of trial and prior compliance with temporary bail conditions. The State of Gujarat contended that the High C

SUDESH KUMARversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2008 INSC 11329 January 2008Dismissed

Sudesh Kumar was convicted under IPC s.392 r/w s.34 and the Arms Act for a robbery committed on 7 March 1981 and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed, claiming benefit under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, asserting that he was under 21 years of age at the time of the offence b

SOM MITTALversusGOVT. OF KARNATAKA

2008 INSC 11729 January 2008Dismissed

The appellant, a Managing Director of a company, was charged under Sections 25 and 30(3) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 after a woman employee was raped and killed while travelling to work. He filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quash of the complaint, claiming exempti

SIMON AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2004 INSC 6629 January 2004Dismissed

The case concerns a police convoy ambushed by a land‑mine blast and subsequent gunfire, killing 22 people. Four members of Veerappan's gang (Simon, Gnana Prakash, Madhiah and Bilavendra) were convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, IPC, the Explosive Substances Act and the Arms Act and

STATE OF M.P.versusDESHRAJ AND ORS.

2004 INSC 6729 January 2004Dismissed

Eleven accused were tried for the death of Ramdin and injuries to three witnesses arising from a sudden quarrel over a bullock‑cart fare. The trial court convicted ten of them under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, holding that the prosecution could not link specific injuries to specific accused, and acquitted one

BHARAT RAM MEENAversusRAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR AND ORS .

1997 INSC 7929 January 1997Dismissed

Bharat Ram Meena, a Munsiff/Judicial Magistrate, challenged adverse remarks recorded in his 1990 Annual Confidential Report (ACR) that questioned his integrity, impartiality, and conduct. The remarks were based on allegations of unauthorized absences during election duties and alleged manipulation of judicial records,

STATE OF HARYANAversusPALA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 14129 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

In December 1989, the deceased Rati Ram was attacked by two accused who struck him with musals on the head and body, causing multiple injuries. He died five days later from septicaemia that the autopsy report linked to the head injury, which was deemed sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The tri

KARAM SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

1996 INSC 14429 January 1996Dismissed

Karam Singh, a Punjab police constable, was convicted under IPC Section 323 and released on probation, while being acquitted of murder (Sec. 302) and grievous hurt (Sec. 324). He applied for reinstatement, but the police authorities rejected his request under Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules. The Punjab & Haryan

DARSHAN SINGH &. ANOTHERversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1988 INSC 2829 January 1988Case Partly allowed

The appellants, Darshan Singh and Buggar Singh, were convicted of murdering Mukand Singh, his wife Pritam Kaur and daughter Harbans Kaur. The prosecution alleged a property‑dispute motive, asserting that the accused sought to eliminate heirs to a share of agricultural land. The defence challenged the motive, the timing

ASHOK KUMARversusSTATE (DELHI ADMJNISTRATION)

1980 INSC 1329 January 1980Appeal(s) allowed

Ashok Kumar, a 19‑year‑old college student, was convicted of scooter theft (two years' imprisonment and a Rs.2,000 fine) and car theft (converted to an offence under Section 411 IPC, resulting in six months' imprisonment and a Rs.500 fine). He appealed solely on the sentence, arguing his youth and the time already serv

VISHNU KUMAR SHUKLA & ANRversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR

2023 INSC 102628 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Vishnu Kumar Shukla and his wife, were charged under IPC sections 448, 454 and 380 for allegedly breaking into a shop and stealing goods. They contended that the complaint was frivolous, based on a forged tenancy agreement, and that the FIR was an abuse of process. The trial magistrate rejected their di

ABHISHEK SAXENAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR

2023 INSC 108828 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Abhishek Saxena, was charged under IPC sections 323, 384 and 406 for alleged assault, extortion and criminal breach of trust arising from a FIR filed on 4 September 2016. He had earlier filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and a guardianship application under the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890, befo

JAI PRAKASHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 129428 November 2019Dismissed

The case concerned the murder of Ravi Prakash, alleged to have been committed by accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 under Sections 302 and 120B IPC. The trial court convicted the three accused based on the testimony of two eye‑witnesses and medical evidence, but the High Court acquitted them, finding material inconsistencies in th

NARAYAN MALHARI THORATversusVINAYAK DEORAO BHAGAT AND ANR.

2018 INSC 111728 November 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellant's son and daughter‑in‑law were teachers at a school where the first respondent, Vinayak Bhagat, repeatedly called and harassed the daughter‑in‑law. Despite the son’s attempts to stop the calls, an altercation occurred and the son later committed suicide, leaving a note blaming the respondent. An FIR under

CHHANNU LAL VERMAversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2018 INSC 111228 November 2018Case Partly allowed

Chhanun Lal Verma was convicted of murdering three persons and attempting to murder others, and was sentenced to death and life imprisonment by the Sessions Court, a decision affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to apply the "rarest of rare" doctrine correctly, as the

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusMANGA SINGH

2018 INSC 112028 November 2018Leave granted

The State of Himachal Pradesh prosecuted Manga Singh for raping his nine‑year‑old cousin who was staying at her aunt's house. The child testified that the accused forced her to sleep with him and inserted his private part into hers, a claim she reported to school teachers who lodged an FIR. The trial court convicted th

MANOHAR LAL SHARMAversusSANJAY LEELA BHANSALI & ORS.

2017 INSC 115628 November 2017Dismissed

The petitioner, Manohar Lal Sharma, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a direction that the film "Padmavati" not be exhibited abroad without a certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and that the CBI register an FIR against the film's producers under Section 7 of the Cinematograph Ac

ISHWAR PRATAP SINGH & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2017 INSC 115528 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were originally charged under IPC sections 323, 504 and 506. Two years later, following a complaint to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, the Commission directed the police to add an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, resulting in a supplementary charge‑

RAM AUTAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2016 INSC 107028 November 2016Case Partly allowed

The incident arose when the deceased's cattle trespassed into the fields of the appellants, leading to a heated exchange. Later that day, while seated in adjacent compounds, an altercation escalated; the appellants, urged by others, fetched a gun and shot the deceased, who was also assaulted with lathis. The trial cour

MOHD. HASHIMversusSTATE OF UP & ORS.

2016 INSC 106628 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were convicted under IPC sections 323 and 498‑A and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. They sought release on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The question before the Supreme Court was whether Sect

SURESH &ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2014 INSC 81928 November 2014Disposed off

The appellants Suresh and others were convicted for kidnapping and murdering Devender Chopra and his son Abhishek, and for concealing evidence, under IPC sections 302, 34, 364-A, 201 and 120-B. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence, including the recovery of the victims' bodies and belongings at the accu

K. RAVI KUMARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2014 INSC 82028 November 2014Disposed off

The appellant K. Ravi Kumar was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and cruelty under Section 498‑A IPC for stabbing and setting his wife on fire. He appealed, contending that the killing occurred during a sudden quarrel without pre‑meditation, thus falling within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The Supreme Court

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusSANKAR GHOSH

2013 INSC 79228 November 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Sankar Ghosh, a Sepoy of the Kolkata Armed Police, was arrested and charged under IPC sections 392, 395 and 412 and Arms Act sections 25 and 27 for alleged involvement in a dacoity. A departmental inquiry found him guilty and he was dismissed from service. The Sessions Court later acquitted him on the ground that the p

MADHU @ MADHURANATHA & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2013 INSC 79428 November 2013Disposed off

The appellants Maohu @ Madhuranatha and others were convicted for the robbery‑murder of the son of PW‑22, based largely on circumstantial evidence, and were sentenced to death under Sections 302 and 364 IPC read with Section 34. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that circumstantial evidence alone can s

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSHAMBHU KEWAT AND ANOTHER

2013 INSC 79528 November 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The accused Shambhu Kewat and Banwari Kewat assaulted shopkeeper Abdul Rashid with an iron rod, causing grievous injuries and were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, receiving a ten‑year rigorous imprisonment sentence. After the conviction, the victim and the accused reached a monetary settlem

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION FARIDKOTversusM/S SH. DURGA JI TRADERS & ORS.

2011 INSC 82328 November 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Punjab State Warehousing Corporation filed a private criminal complaint under Sections 406 and 409 of the IPC alleging a shortage of rice entrusted to the respondents. The trial court had earlier exempted the complainant from personal appearance, but later dismissed the complaint in default on the ground that the c

GURRAM CHAKRAVARTHYversusSTATE OF A.P.

2008 INSC 135628 November 2008Disposed off

Gurram Chakravarthy was convicted under Section 304(8) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had not examined the defence witnesses who were called to rebut the presumption created

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusMANMATHARAJ

2008 INSC 135728 November 2008Dismissed

The State of Tamil Nadu appealed the acquittal of Manmatharaj, who had been convicted by the trial court for murder and for causing the disappearance of evidence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, based primarily on an extra‑judicial confession recorded by the Village Administrative Officer (PW‑1). The Madras High

SONTI RAMA KRISHNAversusSONTI SHANTI SREE AND ANR.

2008 INSC 135828 November 2008Dismissed

The appellant, Sonti Rama Krishna, filed a complaint alleging that his son, Venkateswara Rao, had been insulted by his wife, Sonti Shanti Sree, after their arranged marriage, and that the insult drove the son to commit suicide. The police registered a case under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment of suicide, but the A

BHUVANESHWAR YADAVversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2008 INSC 135928 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal against a Patna High Court order that granted bail to two accused convicted of murder (IPC s.302) and illegal possession of arms (Arms Act s.27) without providing any reasons. The High Court had earlier rejected bail applications, later allowing the petitioners to renew the bail ple

AMBIKA MANDALversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

2008 INSC 136128 November 2008Disposed off

Ambika Mandal was convicted under IPC sections 304‑C and 306 and under the Dowry Prohibition Act for dowry‑related offences. She appealed the conviction, but the appeal was transferred from the Patna High Court to the Jharkhand High Court after the reorganisation of states. The appellant received no notice of the trans

SHIVNATH PRASADversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2008 INSC 136228 November 2008Disposed off

Shivnath Prasad was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code by the trial court and the appellate court. He filed a revision petition in the Patna High Court, which was dismissed by a cryptic order without addressing his contentions that key evidence – the doctor, the informant, and the post‑morte

BABASAHEB APPARAO PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2008 INSC 136328 November 2008Dismissed

The appellant, Babasaheb Apparao Patil, was convicted along with three others for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the testimony of two eye‑witnesses, PW‑10 and PW‑11, whose statements contained minor contradictions and an alleged omission regarding th

SADASHIO MUNDAJI BHALERAOversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2006 INSC 91828 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved seventeen police officials charged under Sections 302, 34 and 201, 34 IPC for the alleged custodial death of a suspect, Dilip, during interrogation. The prosecution relied on eye‑witnesses, many of whom had criminal records, and on fingerprint/thumb‑impression evidence to identify the dead body, but s

SURENDRA PASWANversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2003 INSC 68028 November 2003Dismissed

The appellant was convicted of murder under Sections 302 and 34 IPC for shooting the deceased, based primarily on the testimony of three eyewitnesses. The defence argued that the prosecution failed to explain the minor injuries on the accused, did not submit the recovered bullet for chemical/ballistic examination, and

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSMT. SHEELA DEVI AND ORS. ETC

2003 INSC 68228 November 2003Dismissed

The Kanpur Development Authority (KDA) floated a housing scheme in 1978 for Middle Income Group (MIG) with an estimated cost of Rs. 48,000 per house, with a clause that escalation could not exceed 10%. The respondents applied within the deadline, but due to litigation initiated by some other applicants, the KDA delayed

STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.versusMD. KHALIQUE AND ANR.

2001 INSC 58428 November 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Bihar filed an FIR alleging that six government revenue officers colluded with two private individuals to forge assessment orders under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1955, thereby misappropriating state funds. The FIR, registered under IPC sections 419, 420, 467 and 120B, named eight accused. The Patna High

SUKHAN RAUT AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

2001 INSC 58528 November 2001Disposed off

The incident occurred on 21 July 1981 when a group of accused, armed with lathis, entered the field of Sardari Raut and Hakim Raut to forcibly dispossess them of land. During the confrontation, Sukhan Raut ordered Bhaiya Mani Raut to strike Sardari Raut, who received a blow to the head and later died, allegedly after a

"COMMON CAUSE", A REGISTERED SOCIETY THROUGH ITS DIRECTORversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 140228 November 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court issued a clarificatory order modifying its earlier judgment (1 May 1996) in Writ Petition (C) No. 1128 of 1986, which had provided for discharge or acquittal of accused whose criminal trials were pending for a prescribed period. The Court held that the relief does not apply where the pendency is cause

WASSAN SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

1995 INSC 79528 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Wassan Singh and two co‑accused attacked a gathering at Hazara Singh's house; during the fray Singh was injured multiple times and, fearing grievous hurt, fired his gun, inadvertently killing an innocent woman, Bholan. He was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 304 Part I IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms

SRIPATI SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS SON GAURAV SINGHversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

2021 INSC 68728 October 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellant advanced Rs 2 crore to respondent No.2 as a business loan, secured by cheques described as "security" and promised to be repaid by June/July 2015. The cheques were presented for encashment in October 2015 after the repayment deadline and were dishonoured for insufficient funds. The appellant filed crimina

THWAHA FASALversusUNION OF INDIA

2021 INSC 68828 October 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined bail applications of two accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) for alleged offences under Sections 38, 39 and 13. The Court held that the charge‑sheet material did not show reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations under Sections 38 and 39 were prima fac

M/S. SHREE MAHAVIR CARBON LTD.versusOM PRAKASH JALAN (FINANCER) & ANR.

2013 INSC 72728 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Shree Mahavir Carbon Ltd filed a criminal complaint under IPC sections 420, 406, 468, 471 (also 419, 486) alleging cheating, siphoning of funds and falsification of accounts by Om Prakash Jalan and others. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons. The respondents moved the High Court under CrPC s.482

SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 74928 October 2010Dismissed

The appellant husband and his mother‑in‑law were accused of dowry death after the bride, aged about 24, was found strangled and burnt in her matrimonial home within three years of marriage. The prosecution proved, on circumstantial evidence, that the accused repeatedly demanded a Maruti car as dowry, harassed the victi

PRABIR MONDAL AND ANR.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2009 INSC 120328 October 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Prabir Mondal, others and Mongal Das were convicted under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for an alleged attempt to murder the complainant in a pump room. The prosecution claimed the victim was attacked with a knife, resulting in incised injuries to his left palm and cheek. The medical injur

ROMESH LAL JAINversusNAGINDER SINGH RANA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 54028 October 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a FIR lodged by a Sub‑Inspector (the respondent) against M/s Jain Gas Agency under the Essential Commodities Act, which the appellant claimed was false and alleged that the officer had misappropriated gas cylinders and accepted a bribe. The Special Judge directed the investigating officer to obtain

BISHNA@ BHISWADEB MAHATO AND ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2005 INSC 54128 October 2005Disposed off

The case arose from a violent altercation over a disputed plot of land in Bhadsa village, where the accused, armed with various weapons, chased and assaulted the complainants, resulting in the death of Prankrishna Mahato and injuries to several others. The accused claimed private defence of property and person, arguing

TRILOKI NATH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2005 INSC 54228 October 2005Dismissed

The appellants, who owned a plot of land, removed wood that villagers had piled for Holika Dahan and chased a servant away. A confrontation ensued about 300 paces from the plot, during which the accused Jitendra fired a shot killing Nanhe. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 149 IPC; the High C

BALDEV SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 54328 October 2005Dismissed

Baldev Singh, an Indian Army officer enrolled in 1978, was arrested in 1987 and convicted under Sections 302, 34 and 452 of the IPC, leading to his dismissal in 1990. The High Court acquitted him in 1992, after which he claimed reinstatement, arrears of pay for the custody period (March 1987‑September 1993) and pension

JAI KARAN AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2003 INSC 57128 October 2003Dismissed

The appellants Jai Karan, Veer Bhadra and Babu were convicted for murder and related offences under Sections 148, 149, 302 and 323 of the IPC after a prosecution case that relied heavily on the testimony of an injured eyewitness, PW‑2, who was a relative of the deceased. The appellants challenged the credibility of PW‑

S. VASUNDARAversusCANARA BANK AND ORS.

1996 INSC 123528 October 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, a manager of Canara Bank, was convicted by a criminal court for offences under Sections 420, 477A of the IPC and Sections 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to one year imprisonment with fines. The High Court later suspended the sentence pending appeal. The bank is

MAHABIR BISWAS AND ANR.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

1994 INSC 49728 October 1994Disposed off

Mahabir Biswas and Shiba (Bijoy Krishna Dutta) were convicted of murder under IPC 302/34 for the killing of two rickshaw passengers. The prosecution's case rested on retracted judicial confessions of the accused and physical discoveries (a sword, a watch, and a ring) linked to the confessions. The Supreme Court held th

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENTversusSHAMBU SARAN PANDEY AND ORS.

1994 INSC 49928 October 1994Disposed off

The Principal of a university institution was charged with misappropriating funds and served with a charge‑sheet. He requested inspection of the documents referred to in the charge‑sheet, but the enquiry officer postponed inspection until the final hearing, which the Court held to be a procedural error. The enquiry pro

CHOTKAUversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2022 INSC 103228 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Chotkau, was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a six‑year‑old girl based solely on the testimonies of three prosecution witnesses and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court found serious contradictions in the witnesses' accounts regarding the FIR filing, the handling of the

MAHESHWAR TIGGAversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2020 INSC 56428 September 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Maheshwar Tigga was convicted by the trial court and the Jharkhand High Court for rape, voluntarily causing hurt and wrongful restraint under Sections 376, 323 and 341 IPC, based on the prosecutrix’s allegation that he assaulted her when she was a minor. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecutrix was indeed a m

ROMILA THAPAR AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2018 INSC 91228 September 2018Disposed off

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

HEMUDAN NANBHA GADHVIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2018 INSC 90928 September 2018Dismissed

The appellant was convicted under IPC s.376(2)(f) for sexually assaulting a nine‑year‑old girl. The victim initially identified the appellant in a test identification parade (TIP) but later turned hostile and refused dock identification. The High Court upheld the conviction on the basis of the FIR, medical report, seme

SOMASUNDARAM @ SOMUversusSTATE REP. BY DY. COMM. OF POLICE

2020 INSC 41228 September 2016Matter referred to larger bench

The case concerned the abduction and murder of former MLA M.K. Balan. The prosecution’s case against appellants A‑3 (Manickam), A‑4 (Somasundaram) and A‑15 (Bomb Selvam) relied primarily on the testimony of two alleged accomplices, PW‑10 and PW‑11, supported by peripheral witnesses and documentary evidence. The trial c

NASIB HUSSAIN SIDDI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2011 INSC 71928 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

In 2003 a police constable attempted to escort two men to the police station; one, Hussain Ibrahim Siddi, grabbed and pushed the constable while his wife and mother intervened verbally. All three were convicted under IPC sections 325, 506(2), 333, 342 and 114 and sentenced to three years, later reduced by the Gujarat H

BALJINDER SINGH @ BITTUversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2011 INSC 72028 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

In July 1994, Baljinder Singh and his brother Bhupinder Singh assaulted Kulwinder Singh, the owner of a cart that had inadvertently entered their paddy field, inflicting knife and fist injuries. The trial court convicted Baljinder under IPC sections 326 and 324, sentencing him to four years rigorous imprisonment with a

RAJESH KUMARversusSTATE THROUGH GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI-II

2011 INSC 72228 September 2011Disposed off

The appellant Rajesh Kumar was convicted of murdering two children, aged four years and eight months, and was sentenced to death by the trial court and the Delhi High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the death penalty was justified under the "rarest of rare" doctrine, emphasizing the need to balance

BRUNDABAN MOHARANA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF ORISSA

2010 INSC 65328 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, the in‑laws of Amani Moharana, were convicted by the trial court for murder based on two dying declarations of the deceased, one recorded by a doctor (PW‑8) and another by a police officer (PW‑9) under Section 161 of the CrPC. The High Court discarded the doctor’s declaration as a Xerox copy but upheld

RAJA GOUNDER & ANR.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2010 INSC 65528 September 2010Dismissed

The appellants, Raja Gounder and others, were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of their brother amid a land dispute. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the deceased's widow, who was also the sister‑in‑law of the accused, and on medical evidence showing multiple injuries

K.RADHAIversusC.B.I., COCHIN UNIT

2007 INSC 98328 September 2007

The appellant, a clerk in Syndicate Bank, was found to have opened a false bank account and fraudulently withdrawn Rs.42,000. She was charged under IPC sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (s.13(1)(d) read with s.13(2)). The trial court convicted her and sentenced her to two year

BHAGWAN BAHADUREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2007 INSC 98528 September 2007Case Partly allowed

The appellant Bhagwan Bahadure was convicted by the trial court and the Bombay High Court for murder (s.302 IPC) after allegedly striking the deceased Kachrabai on the head with a stick, causing injuries that led to her death. The appellant challenged the conviction on two grounds: that the key eyewitnesses (the victim

STATE OF PUNJABversusMOHINDER SINGH AND ORS.

2007 INSC 98628 September 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab prosecuted Mohinder Singh and others for the murder of Dalip Singh, alleging they used sharp weapons during a land dispute. The trial court convicted one accused under Section 302 IPC and the others under Section 302 read with Section 34, rejecting the defence that the FIR was delayed, the injuries

KHURSHEED AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

2007 INSC 99528 September 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The accused were convicted under Sections 325 and 323 of the IPC, each read with Section 34, for assaulting the complainant and his wife. Subsequently, the parties reached an amicable settlement and filed a deed of compromise seeking compounding of the offences. The appellants contended that both offences are compounda

GURMEET SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

2005 INSC 45328 September 2005Dismissed

Gurmeet Singh was convicted of murdering thirteen members of his own family in a moonlit night, using swords, after a dispute over his newly‑married wife and a co‑accused. The trial court sentenced him to death under Section 302 IPC, a sentence confirmed by the Allahabad High Court despite a split decision among its ju

HARDEEP SINGH SOHAL ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH CBI

2004 INSC 55728 September 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, doctors Hardeep Singh Sohal and Surinder Singh Sandhu, were convicted for the murder of Dr. Megh Raj Goel based largely on a confession recorded from the alleged conspirator Balwinder Singh under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and extra‑judicial confessions

ADDHAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2001 INSC 47128 September 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Addha was convicted of murder (Section 302 IPC) for allegedly striking the deceased Sher Singh with a lathi during a sudden quarrel between two groups. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of PW‑1, who did not specifically state that Addha caused the fatal head injury, only that he struck the ri

KALYAN AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2001 INSC 47228 September 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were charged with murder and related offences under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 and 1208 of the IPC for an incident alleged to have occurred on 27 June 1977 in Badayun, Uttar Pradesh. The trial court acquitted all accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

IN RE: MEPUNG TADAR BAGE, MEMBER, ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus

2025 INSC 104728 August 2025Reference answered

The President of India referred a matter under Article 317(1) of the Constitution seeking the removal of Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage, a member of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), alleging misbehaviour in connection with the leakage of the Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination question paper in

ANIL KHANDELWAL ETC.versusPHOENIX INDIA AND ANR.

2025 INSC 106928 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Bank of Baroda issued a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act to recover defaulted loans, but a clerical error inflated the outstanding amount, leading the borrower Phoenix India to allege defamation and file a criminal complaint under Sections 499, 500 and 501 IPC against the Bank's senior officers. The magistr

MANIK MADHUKAR SARVE & ORS.versusVITTHAL DAMUJI MEHER & ORS.

2024 INSC 63628 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the bail granted by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court to respondent No.1, who was accused of conspiracy, cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust in a massive financial scam involving a cooperative society. The prosecution alleged that the respondent withdrew approximately ₹9 cr

PREM PRAKASHversusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 63728 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Prem Prakash was in judicial custody for a separate ECIR (No. 4 of 2022) when the Enforcement Directorate recorded statements from him under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for a new ECIR (No. 5 of 2023). The High Court had denied his bail, relying on those statements, but the

MENOKA MALIK AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 75128 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a violent clash between CPI(M) and IPF workers in Karanda village, West Bengal, where a mob set fire to houses, assaulted occupants and caused five deaths and twenty‑four serious injuries. The trial court acquitted all 82 accused, relying on alleged inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, a stamped

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusMANINDER SINGH

2015 INSC 61428 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI alleged that Maninder Singh, together with a co‑accused, obtained credit facilities from New Bank of India by submitting forged documents and colluding with a bank manager, thereby cheating the bank of over Rs 10.62 lakh. After a lengthy investigation, a charge‑sheet was filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471

NARAYAN MANIKRAO SALGARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2012 INSC 35428 August 2012Case Partly allowed

The appellants were convicted under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 341, and 323 of the IPC for the death of Khushal Salgar. The prosecution relied on the testimony of two eye‑witnesses, a dying declaration, and forensic evidence. The Supreme Court examined whether the evidence established a common object to cause mur

MAHESH CHAND SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2009 INSC 109028 August 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mahesh Chand Sharma, purchased land and obtained possession, but the accused (Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Rajkumar) colluded with an area lekhpal to have the property mutated in their names through a false report. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to investigation and a charg

SUCHITA SRIVASTAVA & ANR.versusCHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

2009 INSC 108628 August 2009Disposed off

The case concerned a 19‑20‑year‑old woman with mild to moderate mental retardation, an orphan residing in a government welfare home, who became pregnant around the 19th week of gestation after an alleged rape. The Chandigarh Administration sought the High Court’s approval to terminate the pregnancy, invoking the Medica

STATE OF U.P.versusMUNSHI

2008 INSC 98928 August 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The trial court convicted two accused under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code for raping a girl aged about 17 years. The Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction, acquitting the accused on the basis that the girl was a consenting adult and that there was no reliable evidence of kidnapping or rape.

STATE OF U.P.versusRAJA @ JALIL

2008 INSC 98728 August 2008Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh alleged that the accused, Raja (also known as Jalil), abducted an 11‑year‑old girl, attempted to rape her and subsequently killed her. The trial court convicted him under IPC sections 302, 376 and 511, relying on circumstantial evidence and an alleged extra‑judicial confession, and imposed th

STATE OF H.P.versusSURESH KUMAR @ CHHOTU

2008 INSC 98428 August 2008Dismissed

The trial court convicted Suresh Kumar (Chhotu) under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376 of the IPC for kidnapping and rape of a girl, sentencing him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Himachal Pradesh High Court acquitted him, holding that the victim was over sixteen years of age and had accompanied the

STATE OF M.P.versusMUNNIBAI & ANR.

2008 INSC 98528 August 2008Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh charged Munni Bai and others with murder and culpable homicide by poisoning under Sections 302, 328 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted them based largely on the testimony of Munni Bai, who claimed the poison was mixed in a halua she had tasted. On appeal, the High Cou

SUBRAMANI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2002 INSC 35528 August 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Subramani and four others, were charged with murder, grievous hurt and criminal trespass after a violent clash over a disputed plot of land they had cultivated for over 50 years. The prosecution alleged that the deceased, a purchaser of the land, and his family attempted to plough the field, were assaul

GENTELA VIJAYAVARDHAN RAO AND ANR.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1996 INSC 95428 August 1996Dismissed

The appellants, G. Vijayavardhan Rao and another, were convicted of setting fire to a passenger bus, killing 23 people and injuring many, with the motive of robbery. They poured petrol into the bus, ignited it, and robbed passengers of cash, a wristwatch and clothing, as evidenced by recovered items and witness testimo

MAHESHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1996 INSC 95628 August 1996Disposed off

Mahesh was charged with the murder of Krishna Kumar after a dispute over grazing cattle in a field. The deceased and two other labourers asked Mahesh to remove his cattle, leading to an altercation in which Mahesh struck Krishna Kumar once on the head with a pharsa, causing instant death. The trial court, after evaluat

SHERA SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

1996 INSC 95728 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Three persons were tried for the murder of Sucha Singh. The trial court convicted all under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. On appeal, the High Court acquitted two co‑accused but upheld the conviction of Shera Singh, relying on the testimony of an approver (PW‑13) and treating the statement of a witness (P

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusANAND SINGH BISHT

1996 INSC 95828 August 1996Disposed off

Anand Singh Bisht, a Naik in the Border Security Force, was convicted under the BSF Act and IPC section 307 for injuring a cadet and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment. He had already spent about a year in pre‑trial detention and sought release by invoking Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whic

JAWALA RAM AND ANR.versusSTATE OF H.P.

1995 INSC 50628 August 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under IPC sections 451, 426 read with 34 and sentenced to two months' imprisonment. The Himachal Pradesh High Court postponed the sentence under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on the condition that the appellants file an undertaking of good conduct, which they failed to

JANTA DAL ETC. ETC.versusH.S. CHOWDHARY AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1992 INSC 22628 August 1992Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a petition filed by H.S. Chowdhary, claiming to be a public‑interest litigant, seeking to quash a FIR and stop a letter rogatory to Switzerland in the Bofors scandal. The Court held that Chowdhary had no locus standi and that the petition did not fall within the definition of public‑interest

SONI DEVRAJBHAI BABUBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

1991 INSC 21428 August 1991Dismissed

The petitioner’s daughter died in August 1986 and the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 498-A IPC. After the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 inserted Section 304‑B IPC (dowry death) with effect from 19 November 1986, the petitioner sought to have the case transferred to a Court of Session for

BHAGWAN SWARUP AND ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

1991 INSC 21528 August 1991Disposed off

The father (A1) and son (A2) were charged with murder, conspiracy and abetment of the death of A2's wife, who was found dead in their house. The trial court acquitted them for lack of evidence of a conspiracy and of a homicidal death. The High Court convicted them under Sections 302, 201 and 120‑B IPC, sentencing both

A.K. SUBBAIAH & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

1987 INSC 23128 August 1987Dismissed

The State Government filed a criminal complaint under s.500 IPC, with sanction under s.199(2) CrPC, alleging defamation of the Director General of Police. The trial court took cognizance and issued process against the appellants. The appellants filed a revision petition under s.397 and s.401 CrPC challenging the issue

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusP. T. APPAIAH AND ANOTHER

1980 INSC 16728 August 1980Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed the acquittal of P.T. Appaiah and another, who had been convicted by a Sessions Judge for murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34. A Division Bench of the High Court upheld the conviction but was split on whether the offence was murder or culpable homicide. Under s.429 of the Code of

CHIRAG SEN AND ANOTHER ETC.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 90328 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, prominent badminton players and their coach, were accused in a private complaint of falsifying birth records to gain entry into age‑restricted tournaments, leading to the registration of an FIR under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 34 IPC. The complaint relied mainly on an unauthenticated 1996 GPF nomination

GAJANAN DATTATRAY GOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2025 INSC 91328 July 2025Dismissed

Gajanan Dattatray Gore was arrested for offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating and criminal breach of trust. He applied for regular bail before the High Court, which granted bail on the condition that he would deposit Rs 25,00,000 within five months, based on an affidavit‑undertaki

VERNONversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2023 INSC 65528 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the Bhima‑Koregaon violence of December 2017, after which the National Investigation Agency (NIA) expanded the investigation, searched the residences of several activists and arrested Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira. The prosecution alleged that the two were members of the banned CPI (Maoist) and

SANDEEP KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR

2023 INSC 65428 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

SHIV KUMAR SHARMAversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2022 INSC 76528 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a public servant, was convicted under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly manipulating measurement books and causing excess payment in school construction works. The prosecution alleged that he reduced

SANJAY PURAN BAGDE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2022 INSC 76628 July 2022Dismissed

On the night of 2-3 November 2015, the deceased Vilas Gawande was attacked by four accused; two of them wielded an axe while the other two, Sanjay Puran Bagde and Rajratna (Nandu) Bagde, held the victim. The victim’s wife, an eyewitness, testified that all four were present and that the accused had a pre‑meditated plan

THE STATE OF KERALAversusK. AJITH & ORS.

2021 INSC 36628 July 2021Dismissed

During the 2015 Kerala budget presentation, several opposition MLAs climbed onto the Speaker's dais and damaged furniture, leading to a criminal case under IPC sections 427, 447, 34 and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The public prosecutor sought to withdraw the prosecution under Section 321 of t

PARMINDER KAUR @ P.P. KAUR @ SONIversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2020 INSC 46728 July 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Parminder Kaur, a single woman living with her child and mother, was convicted under IPC sections 366A and 506 for allegedly enticing a minor girl to illicit intercourse with her tenant boy and for threatening the victim’s brother. The prosecution’s case rested on the testimony of the minor victim and he

V. K. MISHRA&ANR.versusSTATE OF UTIARAKHAND &ANR.

2015 INSC 52528 July 2015Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the death of Archana Mishra, who died of poisoning within six weeks of marriage, and determined that she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in‑laws in connection with dowry demands. The prosecution established the essential ingredients of Section 3048 IPC and the

SUDARSHAN KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2011 INSC 52328 July 2011

The appellant, Sudarshan Kumar, was convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetting the suicide of his wife, Sudesh, who could not conceive a child and was repeatedly harassed, beaten, and sent away by him. The trial court sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, a sentence upheld by the H

RAM NIWASversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 44028 July 2010Dismissed

Ram Niwas and four others were tried for the murder of Sher Singh and the attempted murder of Chanda. The trial court convicted Ram Niwas under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, acquitting the remaining accused and giving benefit of doubt to two of them. On appeal, the appellant argued that the testimony of two key witn

MAYANDIversusSTATE REP.BY INSP.OF POLICE

2010 INSC 44228 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a kitchen employee of a hotel, attacked the managing director with a concealed sickle, inflicting multiple injuries. The victim, a known heart patient who had undergone angioplasty, died the following day; medical evidence attributed death to myocardial infarction and not to the injuries. The trial court

BIRAPPA & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2010 INSC 44528 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved three accused—Birappa (A‑1), Kareppa (A‑2) and Muttappa (A‑3)—charged with the murder of Gulappa. The trial court convicted Birappa based primarily on the testimony of a single eyewitness, PW‑1, the brother of the deceased, while acquitting the other two. On appeal, the High Court upheld Birappa's con

BEERE GOWDAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2010 INSC 44628 July 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Beere Gowda, was charged with murdering his two‑and‑a‑half‑year‑old daughter Pallavi by forcibly administering a mixture of nitric and sulphuric acid, obtained from a goldsmith, while his second wife Indramma was a co‑accused. The Sessions Court acquitted both, holding that the child might have ingested

DEO NARAINversusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 44728 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Six persons were tried and convicted for the double murder of Ram Swarup and Ram Pratap Singh under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. While the appeal was pending, four of the accused died, and the High Court dismissed the appeal of the two survivors, Shiv Singh and Deo Narain. Deo Narain challenged his con

SATPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 44828 July 2010Dismissed

Satpal Singh was convicted of rape under Section 376 IPC for assaulting the minor Rajinder Kaur. He appealed, arguing that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate four‑month delay, that the victim was a major, and that the act was consensual because they were schoolmates. The Supreme Court held that the delay was explai

ARUMUGAMversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2010 INSC 45028 July 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Arumugam, murdered his step‑mother Saroja by strangling her with a rope. He made an extra‑judicial confession first to his step‑sister and shortly thereafter to the Village Administrative Officer, who recorded the statement and handed him over to police. The rope was recovered, and post‑mortem evidence s

LACHMAN SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2006 INSC 47628 July 2006Case Partly allowed

A dispute over water flow escalated into a roof‑side gunfight in which Lachman Singh, Dev Singh and Randhir Singh fired a revolver, killing Naib Singh and injuring several others. The trial court convicted all three under Section 302 IPC, Section 307 IPC with Section 34, and under the Arms Act. On appeal, the Supreme C

KRISHNAN AND ANR.versusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2003 INSC 33528 July 2003Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Krishnan and others, upholding their conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and for voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323. The Court held that the FIR was lodged immediately after the incident, negating any possibility of a fabricated stat

MOHAMMED AYNUDDIN @ MIYAMversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2000 INSC 36128 July 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a driver of an Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation bus, was convicted under IPC Section 304A after a passenger fell from the bus while boarding and was run over by the rear wheel, resulting in death. The trial, sessions, and high courts held him guilty of culpable negligence, imposing a three

SAHIB SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

1997 INSC 57828 July 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Sahib Singh was convicted under the IPC and TADA for the murder of Om Prakash based on the testimony of three brothers—sons of the deceased—and a confession recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act. The Supreme Court examined whether relatives of the deceased are competent witnesses, the effect of a delayed FIR, and t

ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) BOMBAYversusBABU MIYA SHEIKH IMAM AND ORS. ETC.

1983 INSC 8428 July 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The Assistant Collector of Customs intercepted a fishing vessel carrying 194 ingots of silver, suspecting smuggling. The accused were convicted under several statutes, including section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Bombay High Court set aside the conviction under the Customs Act, holding that the phrase

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusRAMDAS SHRINIVAS NAYAK & ANR.

1982 INSC 5728 July 1982Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 challenging a Bombay High Court order that the Governor should exercise his own discretion, not the advice of the Council of Ministers, when deciding whether to grant sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the prosecutio

SHAIK AHMEDversusSTATE OF TELANGANA

2021 INSC 30828 June 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellant kidnapped a 13‑year‑old schoolboy and demanded a ransom of Rs 2 lakhs, but the prosecution failed to prove that he threatened the victim’s death or hurt, nor that his conduct created a reasonable apprehension of such harm. The Sessions Court and High Court convicted him under IPC s.364A, interpreting the

AMANULLA KHAN KUDEATALLA KHAN PATHANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

1999 INSC 26728 June 1999Dismissed

The appellant, Amanulla Khan, a member of a notorious gang, was detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 as a "dangerous person" after allegedly extorting money by threatening death and assaulting victims on three separate occasions. He challenged the detention, arguing that a single cr

N.S. GNANESHWARAN ETC.versusTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

2025 INSC 78728 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were charged under sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly diverting bank funds. Parallel civil recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal were settled through a One Time Settlement (OTS) in which the ba

BATLANKI KESHAV (KESAVA) KUMAR ANURAGversusSTATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

2025 INSC 79028 May 2025

The appellant, Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag, sought to quash FIR No. 103 of 2022 alleging offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, claiming the allegations of sexual relations under a false promise of marriage were fabricated. The de‑facto complainan

GURMEET SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2021 INSC 29928 May 2021Dismissed

Gurmeet Singh was convicted under Section 304‑B of the IPC for the dowry‑related death of his wife, who died after consuming poison within four years of marriage. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution had not proved the "soon before" dowry demand, that the presumption of causation under

SATBIR SINGH & ANOTHERversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2021 INSC 30128 May 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for dowry death (Sec. 304B IPC) and abetment of suicide (Sec. 306 IPC) after the victim died from severe burns within a year of marriage, allegedly following dowry harassment. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had proved the essential ingredients of Sec. 304B, including th

KUSTI MALLAIAHversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2013 INSC 35828 May 2013Dismissed

The appellant Kusti Malliah and his co‑accused were convicted for the murder of Neelagiri Parvamma and for stealing her ornaments, offences punishable under IPC ss.302, 404 read with s.34. The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of a sole eye‑witness (PW‑6) who saw the assault from a distance, corroborated by

SUJIT BISWASversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2013 INSC 35928 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was accused of raping and murdering a three‑year‑old girl and was convicted under Sections 376(2)(f) and 302 IPC, receiving a death sentence which was later commuted to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested mainly on two circumstantial facts – the appellant pointing out the location of the vict

KARAN SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

2013 INSC 35528 May 2013Dismissed

Karan Singh was convicted for the murder of Raj under IPC s.302, the prosecution alleging a motive of non‑payment of Rs 47,000 for a buffalo. Eye‑witnesses Maya Devi (PW‑3) and her daughter Birma (PW‑4) saw the appellant dragging the victim with a rope, and an independent witness (PW‑8) corroborated the allegation. The

RAVIRALA LAXMAIAHversusSTATE OF A.P.

2013 INSC 35728 May 2013Dismissed

The appellant, Ravirala Laxmaiah, was convicted for murdering his wife Balamani by strangulation and for dowry-related harassment under IPC sections 302 and 404. The trial court and High Court relied on circumstantial evidence, the appellant’s failure to explain the death (last‑seen theory), false statements to the vic

SWISS TIMING LIMITEDversusORGANISING COMMITTEE, COMMONWEALTH GAMES 2010 DELHI

2013 INSC 36228 May 2013Case Allowed

Swiss Timing Ltd., a Swiss company, entered into a contract with the Commonwealth Games 2010 Organising Committee to provide timing and scoring services. The Committee failed to pay the agreed fees, prompting Swiss Timing to invoke the arbitration clause in the agreement. The Committee objected, claiming the contract w

DAMMU SREENUversusSTATE OF A.P.

2009 INSC 84628 May 2009Dismissed

The appellant, Dammu Sreenu, had an illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased, Sitra Nagarjuna Rao. After the wife was taken away for counseling, the appellant forcibly removed her from her brother's house and kept her for four days, after which the deceased, feeling humiliated, expressed a desire to die and s

STATE OF PUNJABversusMANJIT SINGH & ORS.

2009 INSC 84728 May 2009Dismissed

The accused Kamaljit Singh and Manjit Singh, who were in an illicit relationship with Bhinder Kaur, the wife of Sewa Singh, murdered Sewa Singh and his three sons after the family harassed Bhinder Kaur. The trial court sentenced the two accused to death, while the High Court altered the death sentences to life imprison

BYVARAPU RAJUversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.

2007 INSC 66728 May 2007Case Partly allowed

The appellant Byvarapu Raju and his mother were convicted for the death of the appellant's father under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The appellant contended that the killing occurred during a sudden quarrel and should fall under Exception 4 to Section 300, reducing the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

CHUNNI BAIversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 57728 April 2025Case Partly allowed

Chunni Bai was convicted of murdering her two young daughters after the trial court and High Court upheld a Section 302 IPC conviction. She claimed she acted under the influence of an invisible power, asserting unsoundness of mind under Section 84 IPC. The Supreme Court examined the eyewitness testimony, medical autops

K.P. TAMILMARANversusTHE STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

2025 INSC 57628 April 2025Dismissed

The case concerns the honour killing of a Dalit boy, Murugesan, and his Vanniyar bride, Kannagi, in 2003. Police officers Sub‑Inspector K.P. Tamilmaran (A‑14) and Inspector M. Sellamuthu (A‑15) failed to register an FIR despite being informed of the murders and later fabricated evidence to implicate Dalit relatives whi

RAVISH SINGH RANAversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

2025 INSC 63528 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ravish Singh Rana, was accused by his live-in partner of raping her after refusing to marry, leading to FIR No. 482 of 2023 under IPC sections 376, 323, 504 and 506. The appellant sought quash of the FIR invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, arguing that the two-year cohabitatio

SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH BADALversusBALWANT SINGH KHERA AND ORS.

2023 INSC 46628 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a private complaint alleging that the Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) filed a false affidavit with the Election Commission of India, contradicting its constitution submitted to the Gurudwara Election Commission, thereby violating the secularism requirement of Section 29‑A of the Representation of People

PRAKASH AGGARWALversusGANESH BENZOPLAST LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2023 INSC 46428 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. (complainant) entered into Inter‑Corporate Deposit agreements with Morgan Securities & Credits Ltd., pledging shares as security. When the value of the pledged shares fell, the lender invoked the pledge and sold the shares to itself and its group companies in 2001. The complainant waited until 20

DIGAMBARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2023 INSC 44528 April 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellant Digambar, brother of the deceased Pooja, and his accomplice Mohan were convicted of murdering Pooja and her lover Govind, who were found dead after being taken on a motorcycle. The trial and high courts sentenced Digambar to death and Mohan to life imprisonment, deeming the case "rarest of rare". On appea

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANRversusVIJAYANAGARAM CHINNA REDDAPPA

2023 INSC 72628 April 2023Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed against a High Court order that granted a writ of habeas corpus, directing the release of a life convict (P. Reddy Bhaskar) who had escaped twice and was later sentenced to a one‑year simple imprisonment for kidnapping. After being granted special remission for his life sentence, th

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusPHOOLCHAND RATHORE

2023 INSC 44428 April 2023Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against the High Court's acquittal of Phoolchand Rathore, who had been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his wife under sections 302 and 201 IPC. The prosecution's case rested on alleged motive (a dispute over jewellery), a disclosure statement and recovery of blood

BOHATIE DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LRversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS

2023 INSC 46528 April 2023Disposed off

The mother of the deceased sought a reinvestigation of a murder case (IPC ss.302, 120B) by the Central Bureau of Criminal Investigation (CBCID) after the accused had been chargesheeted and a quashing petition dismissed. The Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, ordered the transfer of investigation to CBCID based solely on

STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusHEMENDHRA REDDY & ANOTHER. ETC.

2023 INSC 46028 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigated alleged disproportionate assets of D. Dwarakanadha Reddy and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, filed a closure report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in 2008, and the Special Judge accepted it. In 2013 the CBI obtain

SANTOSH @ BHUREversusSTATE (G.N.C.T.) OF DELHI

2023 INSC 44328 April 2023Disposed off

The case concerned the murder of Hari Shankar whose body was found in an apartment rented by the appellant Santosh @ Bhure. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence – tenancy of the flat, the presence of blood, a suicide letter allegedly written by co‑accused Neeraj, and recovery of a knife and blood‑stained c

KALABHAI HAMIRBHAI KACHHOTversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2021 INSC 27428 April 2021Dismissed

The appellants, three villagers, were convicted for the murder of Gokalbhai and the assault of two others after a quarrel over rent and animosity. The prosecution presented 32 witnesses, medical and post‑mortem reports, serological evidence and the testimony of injured witnesses who identified the accused. The defence

PAWAN KUMARversusSTATE OF H.P.

2017 INSC 41528 April 2017Dismissed

The appellant, previously acquitted of kidnapping and rape offences, repeatedly threatened and teased the victim, a teenage girl, leading her to set herself ablaze and die. The victim’s dying declaration, recorded by a Head Constable in the presence of a doctor, implicated the appellant as the sole cause of her death.

UPENDRA PRADHANversusSTATE OF ORISSA

2015 INSC 36228 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Upendra Pradhan was convicted for murder under IPC sections 302 and 34, based on the High Court's reversal of an acquittal granted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The appellant contended that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence and that the benefit of doubt should apply, also challenging the re

HARI SHANKERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2015 INSC 36128 April 2015Case Partly allowed

Hari Shanker and three others were convicted for the murder of Shiv Shanker under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution's case rested on the eye‑witness PW2 who said Hari fired the first shot, striking the victim's wrist, while other accused fired the fatal abdominal shot. The High Court acquitte

GOLBAR HUSSAIN AND ORS.versusSTATE OFASSAMANDANR.

2015 INSC 36528 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were acquitted by the trial court for a murder under IPC s.302 read with s.149, but the High Court convicted them on the basis of testimonies of two related witnesses, PW‑4 and PW‑5, who were brothers of the deceased. The Supreme Court examined two issues: the scope of an appellate court's power in an ap

NATHA SHANKAR MAHAJANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2011 INSC 34028 April 2011Dismissed

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly beating his wife and setting her ablaze. The sole basis of the conviction was the victim's dying declaration, recorded by an executive magistrate and endorsed by the treating doctor as being made while she was conscious. The appellant contended that any do

BUDDHU SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

2011 INSC 34128 April 2011Case Partly allowed

Three accused—Buddhu Singh, his father Ledwa Singh and brother Balchand Singh—grappled with the deceased and Buddhu delivered a single axe blow that struck the victim's head, causing fatal injuries. The trial court and the High Court convicted all of them under Section 302 IPC for murder and sentenced them to life impr

ROOPSENA KHATUNversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2011 INSC 34328 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Roopsena Khatun, a 15‑year‑old orphan girl, was convicted of murdering a child, Baby Khatun, by allegedly drowning her in a pond and stealing a silver chain from the corpse. The prosecution's case rested on four circumstantial pieces: the accused’s alleged disclosure and pointing out the body, an extra‑judicial confess

KANWARJIT SINGH KAKKARversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

2011 INSC 33928 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Two government doctors were alleged to have engaged in private practice after hours, charging Rs 100 per patient, in violation of a government circular that prohibited such practice without permission. An FIR was lodged under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section

A.C. MUTHIAHversusBOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ANR.

2011 INSC 33728 April 2011Matter referred to larger bench

The appellant, a former President of the BCCI, challenged an amendment to Clause 6.2.4 of the BCCI's Regulations that exempted IPL, Champions League and Twenty‑20 events from the ban on administrators having commercial interests. He argued that the amendment was made to benefit the second respondent, who as a BCCI offi

S. KHUSHBOOversusKANNIAMMAL AND ANR.

2010 INSC 24728 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The actress S. Khushboo made remarks in a 2005 news‑magazine survey endorsing societal acceptance of premarital sex and live‑in relationships. Several members of the PMK political party filed criminal complaints alleging defamation, obscenity, indecent representation of women and incitement under the IPC and the Indece

VIJENDER KUMAR @ VIJAYversusSTATE OF DELHI

2010 INSC 25028 April 2010Dismissed

Vijender Kumar, son of a bus operator, suspected his helper Yogesh of stealing part of the bus fare. After a personal search recovered Rs 100, Kumar became angry, beat Yogesh and then retrieved a knife from a nearby scooter to stab him in the abdomen, causing Yogesh's death. He was convicted under Section 302 IPC for m

MOHAN MALI & ANR.versusSTATE OF M.P.

2010 INSC 25128 April 2010Disposed off

Mohan Mali and another were convicted under IPC sections 302, 324 and 326 and sentenced to life imprisonment. One co‑accused, Dhanna Lal (appellant No.2), claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000,

STATE OF PUNJABversusNIRMAL KAUR

2009 INSC 63128 April 2009Dismissed

Nirmal Kaur, who operated a coaching centre, was charged under several IPC offences and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court framed charges under the Act, but the High Court quashed them, holding that she was not a public servant. The State appealed,

TUTUL KUMAR! SENversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

2009 INSC 63428 April 2009Disposed off

The appellant, an informant, lodged an FIR alleging that the respondent had raped her, invoking Sections 376 and 493 of the IPC. The respondent filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, contending that the informant's age was misstated and therefore no offence was made out. The trial court rejec

GURMEJ SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2009 INSC 62728 April 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Gurmej Singh, a police officer who was a deemed witness in a criminal trial, challenged a High Court order directing the State to prosecute him without giving him any notice. The Supreme Court held that such directions violated the principles of natural justice, particularly the rules of audi alteram par

BATAKRUSHNA PARIDAversusSTATE OF ORISSA

2009 INSC 63528 April 2009Dismissed

The case arose from a long-standing rivalry between two hamlets of Saruali village. On 2 November 1982, members of the Parida hamlet, armed with lathis and guns, entered the Dehury hamlet. Batakrushna Parida fired a shot that killed Sahadev Dehury and injured others. The trial court convicted Batakrushna under Section

MAL SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P.

2009 INSC 63628 April 2009Dismissed

The case concerns the murder of Jogadia and injuries to his wife Thavlibai and son Thakur Singh in Madhya Pradesh. The trial court convicted Mal Singh, Lal Singh and Juansingh under sections 302, 307 and 323 read with section 34 of the IPC, while acquitting Nanki Bai. On appeal, the High Court altered the convictions,

YOGESH @ SACHIN JAGDISH JOSHIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2008 INSC 53428 April 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a minor at the time, was alleged to have conspired with his family members, an employee and a friend to murder Kunal Parihar, the complainant's son, based largely on threatening phone calls and a motive of a disputed marriage. The prosecution charged the appellant and fifteen others under Sections 302, 1

DINESH M.N. (S.P.)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2008 INSC 53228 April 2008Dismissed

The appellant, a senior IPS officer of Rajasthan, was arrested in connection with the alleged fake encounter killings of Sohrabuddin and his wife. The trial court granted him regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., relying on the accused's clean service record and the alleged criminal antecedents of the victim.

DR. NARENDRA K AMINversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

2008 INSC 53328 April 2008Dismissed

Dr. Narendra Kamin, accused in the Sohrabuddin fake‑encounter case and charged with several serious offences under the IPC and the Arms Act, was granted bail by the Additional City and Sessions Judge. The State of Gujarat filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cancel the bail, an

SUNEET GUPTAversusANIL TRILOKNATH SHARMA & ORS.

2008 INSC 53528 April 2008Dismissed

The appellant, Suneet Gupta, entered into a partnership with M/s K.M. Agencies, which later faced a dispute when the other partner joined M/s Mangla Agencies and allegedly misrepresented the firm's status to the principal, Johnson & Johnson, resulting in payment to the latter firm. Gupta filed a criminal complaint unde

P.D. AGRAWALversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 26428 April 2006Dismissed

P.O. Agrawal, a junior manager of State Bank of India, was repeatedly accused of misbehaving with senior officers and customers, leading to suspension and a series of disciplinary proceedings. After being acquitted in criminal trials, the bank’s disciplinary authority dismissed him, despite one charge being disproved.

SURENDRA SINGH@ BITTUversusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2006 INSC 26628 April 2006Case Partly allowed

The appellant Surendra Singh was prosecuted for the death of Ram Singh after a dispute over cattle damage to agricultural fields. The prosecution alleged that after a heated exchange and scuffle, the appellant’s elder brother Rajendra Singh urged him to kill Ram Singh, leading the appellant to fire a single shot that s

STATE OF U.P.versusVEER SINGH AND ORS.

2004 INSC 32028 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh prosecuted several accused for the murder of members of two families. The sole surviving witness, Harbhajan Kaur (PW‑4), gave a statement that was recorded as a dying declaration, although she later survived. The trial court convicted five accused based on her statement and other evidence, bu

ARVIND YADAVversusRAMESH KUMAR AND ORS.

2003 INSC 26028 April 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Arvind Yadav, brother of a murder victim, challenged a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that released several convicted murderers, including Ramesh Kumar, on licence despite the Probation Board’s refusal to recommend release. The High Court had bypassed a remand to the State Government, reasoning that a fresh considerat

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusNATHU AND ORS.

2003 INSC 26128 April 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed the acquittal of four accused who were part of an unlawful assembly that entered the victim's house, broke the wall and murdered two children. The High Court had held that only the accused who delivered the fatal blow could be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, findin

VISVESWARANversusSTATE REP. BY S.D.M.

2003 INSC 26228 April 2003Dismissed

The appellant, a police constable, was convicted under IPC sections 346, 366 and 376 for raping a young woman after abducting her and her husband. The appellant appealed, arguing that he was not positively identified by the victim or witnesses and that the failure to hold a test identification parade rendered the convi

SHAIKH UMAR AHMED SHAIKH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1998 INSC 20228 April 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under TADA and the IPC for the murder of a police constable during the 1992 Bombay riots, based primarily on the in‑court identification by two constable witnesses. The trial court had rejected the identification parade evidence, finding a strong possibility that the suspects had been show

MOHD. HADI RAJA ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

1998 INSC 20328 April 1998Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether officers of public sector undertakings and government companies, which may be deemed "State" under Article 12 because of deep governmental control, fall within the definition of "public servant" for the purposes of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The petitioners arg

AKHILESH HAJAMversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

1995 INSC 31228 April 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Akhilesh Hajam was convicted of murdering his mother, sister, wife and daughter based largely on circumstantial evidence, including a timeline of the killings, an alleged disclosure statement leading to the recovery of a blood‑stained iron angle, and assertions that he had absconded and was intoxicated. The trial court

SURJIT SINGH ALIAS GURMIT SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1992 INSC 12728 April 1992Dismissed

Surjit Singh, a serving soldier, was charged along with his brothers and two others for criminal trespass, murder of the village Sarpanch, and grievous hurt. He claimed an alibi, asserting he left the village at 4 p.m. on the day of the crime and was traveling by train to his unit, and also argued that there was confus

NADODI JAYARAMAN ETC.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

1992 INSC 12828 April 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a trade‑union rivalry that culminated in the murder of Prathab Chandran, a union vice‑president, on 15 June 1972. Six accused, including A‑2 (Nadodi Jayaraman) and A‑3 (Dilli Bai), assaulted the victim with iron rods and pipes, causing multiple injuries; the head injury was fatal. The trial court conv

STATE OF U.P.versusDR. RAVINDRA PRAKASH MITTAL

1992 INSC 12928 April 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed the acquittal of Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, who was charged with murdering his second wife and attempting to conceal the crime by burning her body. The trial court had convicted him under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC based on a chain of circumstantial evidence, but the Allahabad

SMT. CHAND DHAWANversusJAWAHAR LAL AND ORS.

1992 INSC 13028 April 1992Appeal(s) allowed

Smt. Chand Dhawan filed a criminal complaint alleging bigamy under Sections 494 and 109 IPC, claiming her husband Jawahar Lal had married another woman while their marriage subsisted. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons against the husband, the second wife, and their parents. The husband mo

K.T.M.S. MOHD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA

1992 INSC 13428 April 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The Enforcement Directorate seized Rs.4,28,713 in 1966 and recorded statements from appellants K.T.S. Mohammed and M. Jamal Mohammed under Section 39 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA). Both appellants later retracted those statements, claiming they were obtained under duress, and the Income‑Tax Officer reco

SURINDER KUMAR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

1992 INSC 13528 April 1992Dismissed

Surinder Kumar's second wife, Sheema, died from severe burn injuries. Kumar and his son were convicted of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and of cruelty under Section 498‑A, based primarily on a dying declaration recorded before a Judicial Magistrate, with a doctor's certificate that she was conscious. On a

KAILASH KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1987 INSC 13228 April 1987Dismissed

Amandeep Kaur was brutally murdered by being doused with kerosene and set alight by her mother-in‑law, Kailash Kaur, and sister‑in‑law Mahinder Kaur, allegedly to extract additional dowry. The deceased’s dying declaration, a letter to her father detailing dowry harassment, and medical and police testimony formed the ba

IMRAN PRATAPGADHIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR

2025 INSC 41028 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Rajya Sabha member, posted a video of a mass‑marriage on the social‑media platform X, in which a poem was recited in the background. The poem was alleged to promote communal enmity, leading the police to register an FIR under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. T

AKHILESHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 43128 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed an FIR alleging that four persons shot his father dead over a boundary dispute. While the chargesheet named only two of the alleged shooters, the trial court, relying on the testimonies of two prosecution witnesses, summoned the other two persons under Section 319 of the CrPC. The High Court set asi

MOHD MUSLIM @ HUSSAINversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI

2023 INSC 31128 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mohd Muslim, was arrested in 2015 in connection with a seizure of 180 kg of ganja and charged under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution relied on statements of co‑accused, the appellant’s confessional statement and bank‑transaction records, but failed to produce any direct evidence li

STATE OF PUNJABversusDIL BAHADUR

2023 INSC 30728 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab appealed against the High Court's order reducing the sentence of Dil Bahadur, who had been convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC for rash and negligent driving that caused one death and two injuries. The High Court had lowered the term from two years rigorous imprisonment to eight months,

PULEN PHUKAN & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF ASSAM

2023 INSC 30528 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved the murder of Pradip Phukan, alleged to have been committed by a group of thirteen persons who entered his house and assaulted him with sharp weapons, resulting in his death. The trial court convicted eleven accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 326, 447 and 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life

SHIVA KUMAR @ SHIVA @ SHIVAMURTHYversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2023 INSC 30628 March 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted under IPC sections 366, 376 and 302 for raping, kidnapping and murdering a woman, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder. The appellant appealed, arguing that only the High Court or Supreme Court can impose a modified punishment such as a fixed-term life senten

HARITA SUNIL PARABversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 29028 March 2018Dismissed

Harita Sunil Parab, a practising advocate in Mumbai, filed FIRs in Delhi and Ghaziabad alleging offences under various IPC sections and later sought to have those cases transferred to Mumbai, claiming threats from the accused, fear of a biased investigation and personal inconvenience. The Supreme Court examined whether

SHIVAWWA AND ANRversusTHE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.

2018 INSC 28528 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, Chanabasayya, was killed when he fell from a tractor‑trailer owned by respondent No.2 while returning from unloading maize at Holealur. His father filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation from the insurer (respondent No.1), the vehicle owner (respondent No.2) an

VIRUPAKSHAPPA GOUDA AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

2017 INSC 28328 March 2017Dismissed

Virupakshappa Gouda and another were charged under several IPC sections, including 302 and 149, for an alleged honour killing. They applied for bail repeatedly; the trial court and High Court rejected the first two applications and a Special Leave Petition, but a third application was granted bail by an Additional Sess

KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARKALGUD POLICE

2017 INSC 27628 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved an alleged unlawful assembly in which members of two rival groups clashed, resulting in the death of a farmer, Channegowda. The accused were convicted by the Karnataka High Court on charges including murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and assault (Sec. 324 IPC) despite the trial court’s acquittal. On appeal, the S

SANGHIAN PANDIAN RAJKUMARversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

2014 INSC 22628 March 2014Disposed off

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

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