Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2,851 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 2,001–2,200.

DHARAMVEER AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 1349 March 2010Dismissed

The appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of two persons, based on medical evidence, post‑mortem reports and the testimony of two eye‑witnesses. They appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136, challenging the conviction on grounds of

SANGAPPA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2010 INSC 1369 March 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were tried for offences under Sections 447, 504, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were acquitted by the trial court. The State appealed, and the High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting them under Section 304(Part‑II) read with Section 34, without providing a detailed re‑appreciation of the e

KHILAN & ANRversusSTATE OF M.P.

2010 INSC 1379 March 2010Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted eight persons for the murder of Toophan Singh, alleging a land dispute and an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons. The trial court convicted Prema, Khilan, Gainda and Sangram Singh under IPC sections 302 and 34, sentencing them to life imprisonment, while acquitting four o

JAVED MASOOD AND ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2010 INSC 1389 March 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Javed Masood and another were convicted for murder (Sec. 302 IPC) based primarily on the testimony of the deceased's brother (PW‑5), who lodged a Parcha Bayan. Independent witnesses, including the shop owner (PW‑6) and several police personnel (PW‑18, PW‑29, PW‑30), testified that the brother and other a

SUMITversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2026 INSC 1459 February 2026Disposed off

The appellant, brother‑in‑law of a deceased woman alleged to have died in a dowry case, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court granted anticipatory bail but limited its effect only until the filing of the charge‑sheet, after which the protection ceased and

RAVIversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2025 INSC 1709 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Ravi was convicted of murdering his first wife Jamni by strangulation based largely on circumstantial evidence and hostile witness testimony. The prosecution's case relied on a Zero FIR, a post‑mortem report indicating asphyxia, and the recovery of a rope, while key eyewitnesses turned hostile. The Suprem

B.V. RAM KUMARversusSTATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 1949 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an officiating director of a medical institute, reprimanded an assistant professor in a high‑pitched voice for filing complaints against him during the COVID‑19 pandemic. The professor filed an FIR alleging offences under Sections 269, 270 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, claiming the director's admonit

PAPPUversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2022 INSC 1649 February 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Pappu, lured a seven‑year‑old girl under the pretext of picking lychees, raped and murdered her, and later disclosed the location of her body to the police. He was convicted by the trial court and the High Court of offences under IPC sections 376, 302 and 201 and POCSO sections 5 and 6, and sentenced to

ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDYversusSUSHIL ANSAL AND ANOTHER

2017 INSC 1239 February 2017Disposed off

The case arose from the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire that killed 59 people. Sushil Ansal (the licencee) and his brother Gopal Ansal were convicted under Sections 304‑A, 337, 338 and 36 of the IPC and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, which the Delhi High Court reduced to one year. The Supreme Court, in a two‑ju

YERRAM VIJAY KUMARversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

2026 INSC 429 January 2026Case Partly allowed

The dispute arose between the promoters of M/s Shreemukh Namitha Homes Pvt Ltd and two former directors over alleged illegal convening of an extraordinary general meeting, appointment of directors, and filing of false documents on the MCA website. The complainant filed a private complaint before the Special Court, whic

XversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER

2026 INSC 449 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a criminal appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to Respondent No.2, who was accused of gang‑rape, sexual assault and recording the act against a minor under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act. The FIR was lodged on 2 December 2024 and a chargesheet file

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusANURUDH & ANR

2026 INSC 479 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against a High Court order that granted bail to the accused Anurudh and directed that a medical board determine the victim's age in all POCSO cases. The accused was charged under IPC sections 363 and 366 and POCSO sections 7 and 8 for allegedly abducting a 12‑year‑old girl. The High

RINA KUMARI @ RINA DEVI @ REENAversusDINESH KUMAR MAHTO @ DINESH KUMAR MAHATO AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 559 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The husband, Dinesh Kumar Mahto, obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, Reena, in 2022, yet she continued to live apart, alleging mental cruelty, dowry demands, and a miscarriage. Reena filed a maintenance suit under Section 125 of the CrPC in 2019 and was awarded ₹10,000 per month. The

MAMTA KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2025 INSC 499 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mamta Kaur, was charged under Section 306 of the IPC in FIR No.13 dated 14‑02‑2023. She applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, which the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the appellant had cooperated with the investigation and that the

GOVERDHAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 479 January 2025Case Partly allowed

The trial court convicted two brothers, Goverdhan and Rajendra, and their father Chintaram for the murder of Suraj under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, based primarily on the testimony of Suraj's mother, Lata Bai, who was the sole eye‑witness. The High Court upheld the convictions of the brothers but acquitted t

SHER SINGH @ PARTAPAversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 219 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sher Singh, was convicted under Sections 3048 and 498A IPC for the alleged dowry‑related suicide of his wife, Harjinder Kaur, who had reportedly complained of dowry harassment two months before her death. The prosecution alleged that the husband and his family demanded a motorcycle and a fridge, leading

SUNIL BHARTI MITTALversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2015 INSC 189 January 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether a Special Judge could summon individuals who were not named in the CBI charge‑sheet in the 2G spectrum case, on the basis that they were the "alter ego" of the companies charged. The Court held that while a magistrate may summon a non‑named person if prima facie material exists, the S

UDAI SHANKAR AWASTHIversusSTATE OF U.P. ANR.

2013 INSC 279 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a work order awarded to Manish Engineering Enterprises by IFFCO, which was later cancelled, leading the firm to seek payment through arbitration and writ petitions. After the arbitrator rejected the claim of removal of items from IFFCO premises, the complainant filed multiple criminal complaints

GOVIND MANDAVIversusSTATE OF CHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 13998 December 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Govind Mandavi was convicted for murder under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 and for an offence under the SC/ST Act based on the testimony of the deceased's wife (PW‑2) and her father‑in‑law (PW‑1), who identified the accused after a delayed statement and a Test Identification Parade (TIP). The Supreme Court examined

T.P. GOPALAKRISHNANversusSTATE OF KERALA

2022 INSC 12628 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Agricultural Officer, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC for misappropriating funds during 1992-1994. He argued that the prosecution in the 2003 cases was barred by double jeopardy because he had already been tried, convicted, or acquitted in three earlier cases (1999)

K.S. RANGANATHAversusVITTAL SHETTY

2021 INSC 8378 December 2021Dismissed

The appellant, K.S. Ranganatha, was charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of a cheque issued to the respondent, Vittal Shetty, for a loan of Rs.3,75,000. The trial court acquitted the appellant, but the Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal, finding that the respondent had

NARINDER S. CHADHA & ORS.versusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.

2014 INSC 8448 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a circular issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai that added Condition No.35 to licences for eating houses, prohibiting the sale of tobacco and any apparatus such as hookah, and imposing specific dimensions for smoking areas. The Court held that Section 6 of the Cigarettes Act

IRAPPA SIDDAPPA MURGANNAVARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2021 INSC 7078 November 2021Disposed off

The appellant, Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar, was convicted of raping and murdering a five‑year‑old girl, R, and disposing of her body in a stream. The prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts, the appellant’s own disclosure statement, and post‑mortem evidence to establish the crime. The Supreme Court held that the chai

BIJENDER @ MANDARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2021 INSC 7068 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

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

MRS. ANITA MALHOTRAversusAPPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL & ANR.

2011 INSC 7898 November 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Anita Malhotra, a former non‑executive director of Lapareil Exports (P) Ltd., resigned on 31‑08‑1998. In 2004 the company issued cheques that were later dishonoured, and the Apparel Export Promotion Council filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, naming Malhotra as accused director. Malho

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusPARMESHWAR RAMLAL JOSHI AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 12058 October 2025Disposed off

The complainant, Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, lodged FIRs alleging threats and interference in his granite mining business by a former minister and police officials, and sought transfer of the investigation to the CBI. He first filed a criminal writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn. He

DASHWANTHversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2025 INSC 12038 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for murder, kidnapping, rape and offences under the POCSO Act based on four alleged pillars of evidence: a last‑seen‑together theory, CCTV footage, a confession‑derived disclosure statement and DNA profiling. The Supreme Court examined whether each of these pillars was

PRASHANT SINGH RAJPUTversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

2021 INSC 6458 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

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

M/S GIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITEDversusMANOJ GOEL

2021 INSC 6378 October 2021Case Partly allowed

M/S Gimpex Private Limited sued Manoj Goel for dishonour of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the first set of cheques bounced, the parties entered into a deed of compromise in March 2013, under which new cheques were issued; those too were dishonoured, leading to a second criminal comp

NASIB SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2021 INSC 6428 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined appeals by Nasir Singh, a police officer acquitted in two separate trials—one for alleged gang rape (FIR 96) and another for alleged abetment of suicide (FIR 187). The Punjab and Haryana High Court had remitted both judgments for a fresh joint trial under Section 223 CrPC, claiming a miscarri

MANOJ MISHRA @ CHHOTKAUversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2021 INSC 6408 October 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted for kidnapping, rape, and related offences after the father of a minor girl filed a complaint alleging that the appellant and others had enticed and assaulted his daughter. The trial court and the Allahabad High Court upheld convictions under Sections 363, 366, 376-D IPC and Section 4 of the

MISS ‘AversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

2020 INSC 5808 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Miss A alleged sexual exploitation and her father lodged a complaint, leading to FIRs and the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT). The victim's statement was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, after which the accused (Respondent No.2) applied for a certified copy of that statement. The trial court reje

ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 5818 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Three postgraduate medical students were suspended from their college and hospital after a FIR was lodged alleging they were responsible for a junior colleague's suicide. The suspension was based solely on the FIR, not on a prima facie finding under Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999. The

SHEILA KAUL THROUGH MS. DEEPA KAULversusSTATE THROUGH C.B.I.

2013 INSC 6928 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Union minister, was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC for offences of corruption and criminal conspiracy. She applied to the trial court for exemption from personal appearance, citing her 98‑year age, severe heart disease and senile dementia, and a medical board report t

DR. RAJESH TALWAR AND ANR.versusC.B.I. AND ANR.

2013 INSC 6968 October 2013Dismissed

Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Nupur Talwar, accused of murdering their daughter Arushi and domestic help Hemraj, sought under CrPC s.233 read with s.91 the production of narco‑analysis, brain‑mapping, polygraph and other scientific test reports of three persons who had earlier been suspected in the case, as well as other docum

SUSHIL SHARMAversusTHE STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

2013 INSC 6908 October 2013Disposed off

The appellant, Sushil Sharma, was convicted of murdering his wife Naina Sahni and conspiring with an employee, A2, to burn her body in the tandoor of his restaurant. The prosecution proved the murder and the disposal of the body through a chain of circumstantial evidence, forensic analysis, and the recovery of the appe

SUNIL DUTT SHARMAversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

2013 INSC 6918 October 2013Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Sunil Dutt Sharma, was convicted under IPC s.304‑B for dowry death and sentenced to life imprisonment, while being acquitted of IPC s.302 murder. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. On appeal, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the life sentence was excessive or disproportio

TOFAN SINGHversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2013 INSC 7008 October 2013Matter referred to larger bench

Tofan Singh was convicted under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for allegedly trafficking 5.250 kg of heroin. The conviction rested primarily on a statement recorded by an investigating officer under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which the appellant claimed was

MAHAMUDUL HASSANversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2010 INSC 6888 October 2010Dismissed

A Bangladeshi national was convicted under the Foreigners Act, 1946 for illegal entry into India and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the conviction and seeking relief from the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether it

MANOJ MAHAVIR PRASAD KHAITANversusRAM GOPAL PODDAR AND ANR.

2010 INSC 6908 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, brother of the daughter‑in‑law who had filed a dowry harassment case under Sections 498A, 406 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act against her father‑in‑law, was accused by the father‑in‑law of stealing two gold bangles during a police raid on the matrimonial home. A complaint was filed, the magistrate took

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. & ANR.versusDATAR SWITCHGEAR LTD. & ORS.

2010 INSC 6938 October 2010Case Partly allowed

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (successor to MSEB) and its Chairman were accused by Datar Switchgear Ltd. of fabricating documents submitted to an arbitral tribunal, alleged to be offences under Sections 192 and 199 IPC read with Section 34. The High Court refused to quash the criminal complaint, p

ASOKE BASAKversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6958 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Asoke Basak, then Chairman of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB), was charged in a criminal complaint under Sections 405, 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly refusing to refund a Rs 5 lakh security deposit made by Datar Switchgear Ltd. (respondent No.2). The deposit was adjusted

P. DHARAMARAJversusSHANMUGAM & ORS.

2022 INSC 9408 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a cash‑for‑job scam in the Tamil Nadu Metropolitan Transport Corporation where candidates allegedly paid money to secure appointments, implicating the Transport Minister, his brother and personal assistant. An FIR was filed for offences under IPC sections 405, 420 and 506(1); the final police report

GOLD QUEST INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2014 INSC 6118 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Gold Quest International Private Limited, a numismatic company, faced an FIR under Section 420 IPC and Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act after several customers alleged non‑delivery of promised gold coins. All claimants, including the primary complainant, settled their disputes wit

M/S. KRANTI ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusSH. MASOOD AHMED KHAN & OTHERS

2010 INSC 5828 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard two separate appeals filed by a builder (Kranti Associates) and Corporation Bank against orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) that dismissed their revision petitions without providing adequate reasons. The Court examined whether a quasi‑judicial bod

ALLARAKHA HABIB MEMON ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 5908 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for murder under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC based on the testimony of two alleged eyewitnesses – a police constable (PW‑12) and the first informant (PW‑11). The Supreme Court found that PW‑12, who had actually brought the weapons to the police station, never lodged a formal complaint

MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2023 INSC 6838 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an FIR registered under Sections 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC alleging that the appellants assaulted the complainant, seized Rs.2 lakh and forced signatures on a stamp paper during a land dispute. The Court considered whether the FIR disclosed the ingredients of dacoity, criminal intimidation or

SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2023 INSC 6878 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The victim Husna filed FIR No.175/2022 alleging that several persons threatened her to withdraw an earlier FIR against her father‑in‑law. The appellant, Salib alias Salu, was not named in the original FIR but his name appeared for the first time in the informant’s further statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. The

A. SREENIVASA REDDYversusRAKESH SHARMA AND ANR.

2023 INSC 6828 August 2023Dismissed

The appellant, an Assistant General Manager of State Bank of India, was accused of conspiracy to cheat the bank by sanctioning a large corporate loan and was charged under Sections 120‑B, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bank initially declined, then later granted, sanct

VARSHA GARGversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2022 INSC 8078 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the murder of an advocate, for which several accused were tried. During trial the prosecution sought the production of decoding registers of cellular companies to link the accused’s location with cell towers, and to summon the nodal officers as witnesses under Sections 91 and 311 of the CrPC. The tr

MAHENDRA SUBHASHBHAI VANKHEDEversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT ETC.

2017 INSC 7168 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a 19‑year‑old male, was convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC for kidnapping and raping a girl who was under sixteen. The girl had voluntarily left her home and stayed with the appellant for about ten days, and the sexual intercourse was described as consensual. The trial court sentenced him to t

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

2017 INSC 7138 August 2017Disposed off

Petitioners Monica Kumar and her brother alleged that police officers, acting under the influence of a medical college chairman, assaulted them while they were serving a dasti notice and later harassed them by forcing them to withdraw cases, filing a false FIR and chargesheet. The Supreme Court, after examining multipl

MRITUNJOY BISWASversusPRANAB @ KUTI BISWAS AND ANOTHER

2013 INSC 5258 August 2013Appeal(s) allowed

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

BHASKAR MISHRAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2011 INSC 5508 August 2011Dismissed

Bhaskar Mishra was charged under Section 307 of the IPC. Anticipating arrest, he filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the CrPC before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed. The Madhya Pradesh High Court later granted anticipatory bail for four weeks and directed him to seek regular bail, but Mi

RAJENDER SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2011 INSC 5518 August 2011

Inspector Kuldip Singh received secret information that the appellant was dealing in opium and sent a Ruqa to the police station, but he neither recorded the information in writing nor forwarded a copy to his superior as required by Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The DSP, Charanjit Singh, was alerted only by a wireless me

SARDAR RAVI INDER SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

2024 INSC 4728 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, trustees of a trust, entered into sale agreements with the second respondent and his brother, which later led to a suit for specific performance. The suit was withdrawn after an out‑of‑court settlement, but the second respondent filed a criminal complaint alleging fraud and other offences. The appellant

NARESH KUMARversusSTATE OF DELHI

2024 INSC 4648 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Naresh Kumar was convicted under Section 302 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC, for the murder of Arun Kumar, based on two incriminating circumstances – his exhortation to kill and his act of holding the victim to enable the brother’s stabbing. The conviction was affirmed by the High Court, but the appellant

DHARMENDRA KUMAR @ DHAMMAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2024 INSC 4808 July 2024Dismissed

The appellant, Dharmendra Kumar, was convicted for murder under s.302 read with s.34 IPC for stabbing Tillu during a dispute over a wall construction, with additional convictions under s.147, 148 and 149 later set aside. The Supreme Court examined whether alleged contradictions in witness testimonies, the inconclusive

LAL MOHAMMAD MANJUR ANSARIversusTHE STATE OF GUJRAT

2024 INSC 4758 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC based on eyewitness testimony, an alleged extra‑judicial confession to his employer (PW‑19), and a dying declaration by the victim (PW‑24). The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the extra‑judicial confession, noting that the appellant had worked for th

THE STATE OF PUNJABversusPARTAP SINGH VERKA

2024 INSC 4838 July 2024Dismissed

The State of Punjab appealed against the High Court's order setting aside a trial court's summons of Dr. Partap Singh Verka under Section 319 of the CrPC for alleged offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR alleged that Verka, a doctor employed in a government hospital, dem

SHIV PRATAP SINGH RANAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2024 INSC 4818 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Shiv Pratap Singh Rana, was charged under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC for allegedly raping and threatening the prosecutrix by promising marriage and blackmailing her with photographs. The prosecution’s case relied on the prosecutrix’s statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C

P. SASIKUMARversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2024 INSC 4748 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted for the murder of a 14‑year‑old girl under sections 302/34, 449, 404 and 201 of the IPC, based largely on circumstantial evidence and the dock identification of two witnesses who had never seen him before the incident and who identified him while he wore a monkey cap that obscured his face.

FRANK VITUSversusNARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU & ORS.

2024 INSC 4798 July 2024

Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national, was charged under Sections 8, 22, 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The Special Judge granted him bail but imposed two conditions: a certificate of assurance from the High Commission of Nigeria that he would not leave India and a requirement to drop a PIN on Google Maps to disclose his locati

KHIM SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014 INSC 4788 July 2014Dismissed

Khim Singh was convicted of murdering his wife Himuli Devi with a kulhari (axe) and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. The trial and High Court relied solely on circumstantial evidence, including testimonies of the appellant's mother, sister‑in‑law, the village pradhan and a neighbour, the recovery o

MAQBOOL @ ZUBIR @ SHAHNAWAZ AND ANR.versusSTATE OF AP.

2010 INSC 3758 July 2010Dismissed

The appellants Maqbool, Zubir and Shahnawaz were convicted for murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and conspiracy (Sec. 120B IPC) based on eyewitness testimony, medical evidence and entries from a diary recovered during investigation. They challenged the convictions alleging that the witnesses were interested, the identification par

SANATAN NASKAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010 INSC 3768 July 2010Dismissed

The case involved the murder of Phool Guha and robbery of her house, for which Sanatan Naskar and another accused were arrested after they allegedly led police to stolen wrist watches and a camera. The trial court and the High Court convicted them under Sections 302, 34, 392 and 411 IPC, relying on a chain of circumsta

UDAY CHAKRABORTY & ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010 INSC 3778 July 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Uday Chakraborty and his relatives for dowry death under Sec. 304B IPC read with Sec. 498A IPC. Although the FIR did not explicitly mention a dowry demand, the Court held that the cumulative documentary and oral evidence, including the execution of a "Chuktiparta" at the time

ASHOK KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 3798 July 2010Case Partly allowed

Ashok Kumar was convicted under Section 304‑8 IPC for the death of his wife, who died from burn injuries allegedly after being harassed for a dowry demand of Rs.5,000. The appellant argued that the alleged demand did not constitute "dowry" within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and that the phrase

VIJETA GAJRAversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2010 INSC 3808 July 2010Disposed off

The complainant filed an FIR alleging dowry demands, criminal breach of trust and illicit relations against Vijeta Gajra under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC. Gajra sought to quash the FIR via a petition under Article 226 and Section 482 of the CrPC, arguing she was not a "relative" of the complainant or her husband.

DHARNIDHARversusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 3828 July 2010Dismissed

The appellants were convicted for the murders of Bahadur Singh and his father Pyare Lal. The prosecution proved that four accused, armed with guns and a spear, killed Bahadur Singh, after which all five accused, including Dharnidhar, proceeded to kill Pyare Lal with guns and a kulhari. The defence argued that the key e

PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2010 INSC 3838 July 2010Dismissed

The petitioner, Pravinbhai Kashirambhai Patel, complained of a mob assault and theft on 11 September 2008, filing three separate police complaints that contained differing versions of the incident. Respondents No.2 and No.3 obtained anticipatory bail from an Additional Sessions Judge, which the petitioner sought to can

UMASHANKAR YADAV & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR.

2025 INSC 6538 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, members of a child‑rights NGO, accompanied labour officials during a raid on a brick kiln to rescue alleged bonded child labourers. A dispute arose over whether the children should be taken to the police station for interrogation or statements recorded on site, leading the officials to lodge an FIR alle

WARISversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2025 INSC 7128 May 2025

The appellant, Waris, was convicted under Sections 302, 201, 376(2)(i) and 376AB of the IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act for raping and killing his step‑daughter. During the trial, his original counsel withdrew and he could not afford a new lawyer, so the trial court appointed a legal‑aid defence counsel on th

RENUKA PRASADversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

2025 INSC 6578 May 2025

The case concerns the murder of Ramkrishna, allegedly orchestrated by his son A1 and associates over a sibling rivalry concerning assets. The trial court acquitted six accused (A1‑A6) because the majority of the 87 witnesses turned hostile and the prosecution failed to prove motive, conspiracy, preparation, or identifi

SELVAMANIversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2024 INSC 3938 May 2024Dismissed

The appellant, one of five accused, was convicted for gang rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376(g) and 506(1) of the IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The victim, her mother and aunt turned hostile during cross‑examination, three and a half months after their exami

PRIYANKA MISHRA & ORSversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2023 INSC 7298 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The wife (Respondent No.2) filed a criminal complaint alleging dowry harassment, cruelty and forced abortion against her husband’s parents and in‑laws under IPC sections 498‑A and 34 and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellants moved to quash the FIR under CrPC s.482, arguing that the wife had lived abroad for most of

BIRENDRA PRASAD SAHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2019 INSC 6498 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Bireendra Prasad Sah, received a bank memo on 4 December 2015 about two dishonoured cheques and issued a legal notice on 31 December 2015, within the 30‑day period prescribed by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After unsuccessful attempts to obtain proof of service from the postal department, he sen

GURWINDER SINGH @ SONU ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

2018 INSC 4578 May 2018Case Partly allowed

Two families assembled near a tubewell to settle a land dispute when a verbal altercation escalated into a scuffle. Gurwinder Singh fetched an axe from an adjacent room and, while Satnam Singh restrained the victim, struck Harbhajan Singh on the head, causing severe head injuries; both accused also sustained injuries.

STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SP, CBIversusLALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD Y ADAY

2017 INSC 4528 May 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Jharkhand, represented by the CBI, appealed against the Jharkhand High Court’s order quashing several criminal cases arising from the fodder scam on the ground that the accused had already been convicted in one case, invoking Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the CrPC (double jeopardy).

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusSMT. KALLO BAI

2017 INSC 12878 May 2017Dismissed

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kallo Bai, the owner of a tractor and trolley used to transport teak without a permit was seized and a confiscation order was made under Section 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969. The lower courts held that confiscation could not occur until the accused’s g

MAHARAJI EDUCATIONAL TRUSTversusHOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

2017 INSC 12888 May 2017Disposed off

Maharaji Educational Trust borrowed Rs.75 crore from HUDCO and mortgaged six properties. It later exchanged 21 acres of one mortgaged property with Avas Parishad and entered into a sale agreement for the entire 63.45 acres (including the exchanged land) with SGS Constructions, which was subject to an interim injunction

PURUSHOTIAM DASHRATH BORATE &ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2015 INSC 3928 May 2015Dismissed

The accused, a cab driver and his accomplice, abducted a young woman who was a night‑shift employee, gang‑raped her and murdered her in a pre‑planned, brutal manner. The prosecution proved the crime through a chain of circumstantial evidence, forensic findings and confessional statements, leading to convictions under I

SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. (NOW STATE OF UTIARAKHAND)

2015 INSC 3958 May 2015Dismissed

On 24 September 1996, seven accused, armed with lathis, knives and khukris, demanded that two students withdraw their names from a college election at D.A.V. (P.G.) College, Dehradun. When the students refused, the accused assaulted them; Alok Chandana later died of his injuries while Vipin Singh Negi was also injured.

MR. VIKRAM BAKSHI & ORS.versusMS. SONIA KHOSLA (DEAD) BY LRS.

2014 INSC 3818 May 2014Disposed off

Two business groups that had entered into a joint venture fell out over shareholding and director appointments, leading to a cascade of more than 80 proceedings, including company law petitions, contempt suits and criminal complaints under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court noted the deadlock and, rather than adjudi

NATASHA SINGHversusCBI (STATE)

2013 INSC 3268 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Natasha Singh, was charged under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly inflating an insurance claim. After the prosecution examined 52 witnesses, the appellant examined only one defence witness and then sought to summon three additional witnesses under Section 311 of the CrPC. The tr

ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2012 INSC 2088 May 2012Dismissed

Alagupandi was convicted for murdering his step‑mother Tamilarasi. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the deceased's brother (PW‑1), corroborative statements of other witnesses, forensic evidence linking the accused's blood to the crime scene, and a confession that led to the recovery of the knife. The appellan

SAHADEVAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2012 INSC 2098 May 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the murder conviction of three accused, two of whom appealed while the third did not. The prosecution's case relied heavily on an extra‑judicial confession and the theory that the accused were last seen with the deceased, but the confession was found unreliable, contradictory, and uncorrobora

JITENDER KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2012 INSC 2108 May 2012Dismissed

The case concerned the murder of Indra, who was strangulated to death by her father‑in‑law, brother‑in‑law and others. Five accused were tried; four were convicted under s.120‑B, s.302 and s.34 IPC and one (Jitender Kumar) under s.120‑8 IPC. The appellants challenged the convictions on several grounds, including that J

KATHI BHARAT VAJSUR & ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2012 INSC 2158 May 2012Dismissed

The case involved an armed altercation in which three accused (A1, A2, A3) fired pistols and used an axe, resulting in the death of Mulu Dada and serious injury to Jagu Dada. The trial court acquitted all three, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but the Gujarat High Court reversed t

NAGESHversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2012 INSC 2168 May 2012Dismissed

The victim, a college student, was staying with accused No.1 in Belgaum when accused No.2 (the appellant) allegedly attempted to outrage her modesty, assaulted her and administered poison, leading to her death. Multiple eyewitnesses saw the deceased being taken in a car by the accused, with police present, and later ob

HEM RAJversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2026 INSC 3328 April 2026Disposed off

The appellant was convicted under the NDNDPS Act for possession of 4.1 kg of charas and was sentenced to 12 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,20,000 for offences under s.20(b)(ii)(C), s.25 and s.29, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently. He appealed, contending that s.25 and s.29 are merely ancil

M/S CELESTIUM FINANCIALversusA. GNANASEKARAN ETC

2025 INSC 8048 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Celestium Financial, a finance partnership, sued three borrowers for dishonouring cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial magistrate acquitted the borrowers, finding the complainant had not proved a legally enforceable debt. The appellant sought special leave to appeal under Section 3

SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICEversusADITYA SARDA

2025 INSC 4778 April 2025Disposed off

The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) investigated alleged fraud involving the Adarsh Group and filed a criminal complaint before a Special Court, which took cognizance of offences under the Companies Act, 2013 and the IPC and issued bailable and later non‑bailable warrants against 16 respondents. The responden

VIPIN SAHNI AND ANOTHERversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2024 INSC 2848 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who founded a society that obtained AICTE approvals for several business schools, were charged under Sections 420 and 120B IPC for allegedly cheating the AICTE by concealing that the leased land was mortgaged. After a Special Judicial Magistrate discharged them, the CBI approached the Allahabad High Cou

YASH TUTEJA & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 3018 April 2024

The petitioners challenged a complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), arguing that the offences alleged, except for IPC Section 120B, were not "scheduled offences" as required by clause (y) of Section 2(1) of the PMLA. The Supreme C

KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALAversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 2858 April 2024Dismissed

The appellant's vehicle was seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act after the driver was found carrying liquor well beyond the permissible limit. The appellant filed a Special Criminal Application under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution with the High Court seeking the vehicle's release, without first invoking Secti

RAJ REDDY KALLEMversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2024 INSC 3478 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing dishonoured cheques and also faced an FIR under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC for allegedly cheating a complainant after taking an advance for a laser cutting machine. Both parties initially agreed to settle the dispute

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusBANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 4108 April 2022Case Partly allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed a High Court order that reduced the three‑year rigorous imprisonment awarded to Banwari Lal, convicted under Section 307 IPC for causing grievous injury to the head of the victim, to merely the 44 days he had already spent in custody. Banwari Lal had not contested his conviction but soug

RAJANversusJOSEPH & ORS.

2015 INSC 2918 April 2015Disposed off

The appellant, husband of a domestic worker who died from electric shock while operating a washing machine in the respondents' house, filed a private complaint under Section 304A of the IPC alleging negligent conduct by the employers. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that the washing machine was

MOHINDERversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2013 INSC 2238 April 2013Dismissed

The appellant was seized on 23 August 1991 while carrying a tin from which police recovered 3.5 kg of opium. He was charged under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and convicted, receiving ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh. The appellant challenged the convict

LAL BAHADUR & ORS.versusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2013 INSC 2258 April 2013Dismissed

The case arose from the 1984 anti‑Sikh riots that followed the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, where a mob led by the appellants attacked two houses, burnt alive the husband and father‑in‑law of the complainant and looted property. The trial court acquitted the appellants, but the Delhi High Court convic

AMITBHAI ANILCHANDRA SHAHversusTHE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

2013 INSC 2248 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, including Amit Shah, challenged the registration of a second FIR (dated 29‑04‑2011) and a fresh charge‑sheet (dated 04‑09‑2012) filed by the CBI in connection with the alleged fake encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati, arguing that it violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20 and 21 and contra

NARMADA BAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS

2011 INSC 2858 April 2011Case Allowed

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

DESH DEEPAK KUMAR VIHANGAM@ DEEPAK KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2022 INSC 2788 March 2022Dismissed

The case concerned the kidnapping for ransom of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha and his driver in February 2006. Six persons were convicted under IPC sections 364A (kidnapping for ransom) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had proved the existenc

GIRRAJversusKIRANPAL AND ANR ETC

2021 INSC 1618 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

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

KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2021 INSC 1608 March 2021Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellants, Krishna Lal Chawla and others, challenged a private complaint filed in 2018 by their neighbour (Respondent No.2) under Section 200 CrPC, which alleged offences arising from a 2012 altercation. The complaint was filed six years after the incident, despite a charge‑sheet already being filed against the co

NAGABHUSHANversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2021 INSC 1598 March 2021Dismissed

The appellant, Nagabhushan, was convicted by the Karnataka High Court for dowry death and murder after the trial court had acquitted him. The conviction rested on a later dying declaration (Exhibit P5) in which the deceased alleged that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze, contrary to an earlier dyi

PAWAN @ RAJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2017 INSC 2168 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

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

STATE OF U.P.versusNARESH AND ORS.

2011 INSC 1898 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh prosecuted four accused for the murder of Sri Ram and the serious gunshot injuries to Balak Ram arising from a dispute on 16 October 1979. The trial court convicted them under sections 302, 307 and 379 of the IPC, but the Allahabad High Court acquitted them, relying on alleged minor contradic

KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM & ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2022 INSC 1638 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The wife, Tarannum Akhtar, alleged dowry harassment and threatened termination of her pregnancy, filing an FIR on 1 April 2019 against her husband Md. Ikram and his in‑laws under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 IPC. The in‑laws contended that the allegations against them were vague, general and o

TARUN TYAGIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2017 INSC 12618 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Tarun Tyagi was charged with stealing the source code of the 'Quick Recovery' software and selling it through his own company. The CBI seized three hard disks (Q‑2, Q‑9, Q‑20) containing the alleged source code. Tyagi sought copies of these disks under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prepare his defenc

GOPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013 INSC 858 February 2013Disposed off

Gopal Singh was convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for firing a country‑made pistol ("katta") and causing a firearm injury to his nephew, Narain Singh. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the weapon was not seized and the injury was not grievous, and also contended that the thre

PARIMALversusVEENA @ BHARTI

2011 INSC 1108 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Parimal filed a divorce suit against his wife Veena. The wife repeatedly refused to accept the court's notice, after which the trial court proceeded ex‑parte and granted a decree of divorce. Four years later she applied under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, alleging improper service, fraud and lack of suf

HARSHENDRA KUMAR D.versusREBATILATA KOLEY ETC.

2011 INSC 1118 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The complainants placed orders with Rifa Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd. and issued demand drafts, but the company failed to deliver the goods and later issued 18 cheques that were dishonoured. The complainants filed complaints under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, implicating the company and one o

SANTOSHversusJAGAT RAM & ANR.

2010 INSC 838 February 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a widowed woman, filed a suit in 1990 seeking declaration of ownership of land inherited from her deceased husband and alleging that a consent decree dated 26‑03‑1985, which transferred the property to the respondents, was procured by fraud. The trial court, after evaluating testimonies of four witnesses

MULLA & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 898 February 2010Disposed off

The appellants Mulla and Guddu were convicted for abducting and murdering five villagers for ransom, based on the testimony of injured eye‑witnesses and a test identification parade (TIP) conducted after a delay. The Supreme Court held that the TIP was properly conducted and its evidence admissible, and that the eye‑wi

C.S. PRASADversusC. SATYAKUMAR AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 398 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned three settlement deeds executed by the deceased parents in favour of their elder son, which the appellant, Dr. C.S. Prasad, claimed were obtained fraudulently by the respondents exploiting the parents' age and medical vulnerability. He filed a criminal complaint in 2020, leading to FIR No. 229 of

SUMIT BANSALversusM/S MGI DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 408 January 2026

The complainant, Sumit Bansal, entered into a sale agreement with MGI Developers and its proprietor Manoj Goyal, paying the full consideration. When the sale deeds were not executed, the parties issued several cheques—both from the firm and personally by the proprietor—which were subsequently dishonoured and statutory

RAM PYAREYversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2025 INSC 718 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the brother‑in‑law of the deceased woman, was convicted under Sections 306 and 498‑A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for abetment of suicide, while being acquitted of the dowry‑death charge under Section 304B. The deceased had set herself on fire after alleged harassment and dowry d

INSPECTOR, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, KOTTAYAMversusMATHEW K CHERIAN & ANR.

2025 INSC 518 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Inspector of the Railway Protection Force alleged that Mathew K. Cherian created numerous fraudulent IRCTC user IDs to procure and sell railway e‑tickets for profit, while Ramesh, an authorised railway ticketing agent, was accused of using multiple IDs to supply tickets. The central question was whether such conduc

SADASHIV DHONDIRAM PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 938 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil, was charged with murdering his wife Lata. The prosecution relied on an alleged extra‑judicial confession made to the village Police Patil, the discovery of an iron rod, motive, and the fact that the crime occurred inside the house. The trial court acquitted him, holding the conf

BILKIS YAKUB RASOOLversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2024 INSC 248 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court quashed the remission orders granted by the State of Gujarat to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, who were convicted for gangrape, murder, and rioting during the 2002 Gujarat riots. The Court held that the State of Gujarat was not the 'appropriate government' under Section 432(7) of the CrPC to gra

SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL. S. S. DESWAL & ORS.versusVIRENDER GANDHI & ANR.

2020 INSC 218 January 2020Dismissed

The appellants, partners of a firm, issued numerous cheques to a retiring partner which were dishonoured, leading to 28 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They were convicted and sentenced, but the appellate court suspended the sentence on condition that they deposit 25% of the compensation

DEVI LALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2019 INSC 298 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the murder of Dharam Chand, for which four persons were charged. Babu Lal and Devi Lal were convicted by the trial court and the High Court on the basis of three eyewitness testimonies and an extra‑judicial confession by Babu Lal, while the other two accused were acquitted. On appeal, the Supreme Cou

CHANDER BHAN SINGHversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 388 January 2019Disposed off

Chander Bhan Singh filed a writ petition in 2002 alleging his son was killed by police and sought registration of a criminal case. The CBI investigated and filed a closure report, which the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejected, taking cognizance against 13 police officers. After a series of petitions, the High Court

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusRAJ KUMAR

2018 INSC 98 January 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Meena Devi lived with her two children and her brother‑in‑law Raj Kumar in a joint family house. On the night of 23 August 2007, Raj Kumar, in a drunken state, assaulted Meena Devi, took her to another accused’s house, and she was later found dead, hanging from a tree. The trial court convicted Raj Kumar u

USMANGANJADAMBHAIVAHORAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2016 INSC 308 January 2016

The accused filed an application under Section 408 of the CrPC seeking transfer of a criminal trial from one Additional Sessions Judge to another after the trial had already commenced. The Principal Sessions Judge rejected the petition, holding that he lacked jurisdiction to transfer a case once trial began. The High C

VINOD KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 158 January 2015Dismissed

Vinod Kumar, a domestic servant, was accused of kidnapping his employer's 3‑year‑old son for ransom. The trial court acquitted him and co‑accused Joginder, but the High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting Vinod Kumar under IPC sections 363, 364A and 109. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was entitl

SUBHASH CHANDversusSTATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

2013 INSC 158 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a food manufacturer, was charged under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act after a complaint by the Local Health Authority and was acquitted by a Metropolitan Magistrate. The State sought to appeal the acquittal in the Sessions Court under Section 378(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wh

VENKATESHAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2013 INSC 198 January 2013Dismissed

The appellant Venkatesha (A‑2) and co‑accused G. Venkatesh Murthy (A‑1) were convicted under IPC sections 302, 307, 427 read with s.34 and under the Explosive Substances Act, s.3 read with s.34 for planting a bomb in a hair‑salon to kill Muniraju (PW‑14). The bomb, placed by approver Hanif (A‑3) on their instructions,

THE STATE OF RAJASTHANversusGURBACHAN SINGH & OTHERS

2022 INSC 12607 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed the conviction of Gurbachan Singh for murder arising out of a land‑dispute in which Teja Singh was killed. The High Court had acquitted Singh of the murder charge, holding that he only struck the victim's feet with a lathi and therefore lacked common intention to cause death. The Supreme

MOHD ZAHIDversusSTATE THROUGH NCB

2021 INSC 8347 December 2021Dismissed

Mohd Zahid was convicted in two separate NDPS cases: for possession of 4 kg of heroin in Amritsar (12 years' rigorous imprisonment) and for 750 g of heroin in Delhi (15 years' rigorous imprisonment, enhanced under s.31(ii)). The Delhi trial court did not expressly order the two sentences to run concurrently, and the Hi

PARVEEN @ SONUversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2021 INSC 8357 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Parveen @ Sonu, was convicted along with other accused for offences including criminal conspiracy (s.120‑B IPC) and murder (s.302 IPC) arising from an alleged attempt to rescue four prisoners being escorted by police on a train. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on the eye‑witness constable’s depositi

AMISH DEVGANversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 6827 December 2020Disposed off

The petitioner, journalist Amish Devgan, hosted a televised debate on the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act and described the Sufi saint Pir Hazrat Moinuddin Chishti as an invader, terrorist and robber, leading to seven FIRs in different states under Sections 295A, 153A and 505(2) of the IPC. He sought quashin

PRABHU DUTT TIWARIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2017 INSC 12007 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a private complaint alleging offences under IPC sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 120B against five respondents concerning a disputed land transaction. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after reviewing the complaint, oral evidence under sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC and documentary material

PARIVARTAN KENDRAversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 8937 December 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ under Article 32 on behalf of two Dalit sisters who were victims of a brutal acid attack in Bihar. The petitioners argued that the compensation of Rs 3 lakhs per victim prescribed in the earlier Laxmi judgment was grossly inadequate given the extensive physical, psyc

RITESH SINHAversusTHE STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ANR.

2012 INSC 5717 December 2012Matter referred to larger bench

The appellant was summoned by a Chief Judicial Magistrate to give a voice sample to aid the investigation of an alleged recruitment scam. He challenged the summons on the ground that it violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution and that no statutory provision empowered a magistrate to order a voice sample. The Supreme

STATE OF PUNJABversusDAVINDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR & ORS. ETC

2011 INSC 8397 December 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Punjab and Haryana High Court could entertain applications under Section 482 of the CrPC and direct a CBI investigation after a criminal appeal had been finally disposed of. It held that once a judgment is signed, the court becomes functus officio and, under Section 362 CrPC, cann

BALASAHEB @ RAMESH LAXMAN DESHMUKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2010 INSC 8547 December 2010Dismissed

The appellant was recorded as a witness under Section 161 of the CrPC in a police case concerning an assault, and later named as an accused in a separate complaint case arising from the same incident. He sought to invoke Article 20(3) of the Constitution to refuse to give testimony in the police case, claiming a blanke

RAMJI LAL BAIRWA & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 8467 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from an FIR lodged under the IPC, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act against a school teacher for allegedly rubbing the breast of a 16‑year‑old girl, a sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. The teacher and the victim's father later entered into a compromise, and the teacher sought quashment of the FIR un

HARIPRASAD @ KISHAN SAHUversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2023 INSC 9867 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Hariprasad, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly poisoning Bisahu Singh by mixing a herb in liquor, based largely on the deceased's dying declaration and a forensic report that arrived a year later. The Supreme Court examined whether the more than one‑year delay in filing the FIR was fatal t

P. PONNUSAMYversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2022 INSC 11777 November 2022Dismissed

The appellant P. Ponnusamy and eight co‑accused were convicted by a Sessions Court for offences under s.120B, 109, 341, 302 read with s.34 IPC, with some sentenced to death and others to life imprisonment. The Sessions Court referred the death‑penalty confirmations to the Madras High Court, which repeatedly adjourned t

RAHULversusSTATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR.

2022 INSC 11767 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Rahul and two co‑accused were convicted for kidnapping, rape and murder of a girl, and sentenced to death and other terms. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had established the identity of the accused and proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It found that no identification parade was con

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.versusM/S. R.M. SERVICE CENTRE & ANR.

2019 INSC 12227 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The dealer, M/s R.M. Service Centre, held a retail licence for petrol, diesel, oil and grease. A joint inspection revealed a positive stock variation of High Speed Diesel beyond permissible limits and lack of reference density. Samples drawn were sent for testing; the first was dispatched five days after collection, ex

HARDEV SINGHversusHARPREET KAUR & ORS.

2019 INSC 12197 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Hardev Singh married Harpreet Kaur on 17 April 2010 without parental consent. The appellant was 17 years old at the time, while the wife was an adult. The Punjab & Haryana High Court initially granted police protection but later recalled its order and directed registration of an FIR under Section 9 of the Prohibition o

KALU ALIAS LAXMINARAYANversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 12187 November 2019Dismissed

The appellant, Kalu alias Laxminarayan, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the death of his wife, who was found strangulated inside their home. The trial and High Courts held the death homicidal, though the High Court initially described it as hanging. The Supreme Court examined the forensic findings, the presence

STATE OF UTTARAKHANDversusDARSHAN SINGH

2019 INSC 12217 November 2019Dismissed

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

ZORAWAR SINGH AND ANR.versusGURBAX SINGH BAINS AND ORS.

2016 INSC 12077 November 2016Proceedings closed/dropped

The Supreme Court, recalling its earlier directions in Zorawar Singh v. Gurbax Singh Bains (2015) 2 SCC 572, noted that the State had filed a report under Section 173 of the CrPC after conducting a thorough investigation as directed, and that the Chief Secretary’s inquiry report showed compliance with the Court’s manda

NILESH BABURAO GITTEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 11917 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Nilesh Baburao Gitte, was convicted of murdering his mother, Sunanda Gitte, under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including alleged recovery of a nylon rope, post‑mortem findings of strangulation marks, and a purported motive of property gain. The Supreme Court

ZAINULversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2025 INSC 11927 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a violent clash in Katihar district where a mob of 400‑500 armed persons assaulted several villagers, resulting in the deaths of two men and injuries to five others. The trial court convicted 21 accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC; the High Court affirmed the convictions of 12

AMIT SAHNIversusCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

2020 INSC 5797 October 2020Disposed off

The petitioners challenged the occupation of the Kalindi Kunj‑Shaheen Bagh stretch, including the Okhla underpass, by protesters opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act, arguing that it violated their right to protest under Articles 19(1)(a) and (b). The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ without specific directions, p

GULAM SARBARversusSTATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

2013 INSC 6777 October 2013Dismissed

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

SURYA BAKSH SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2013 INSC 6817 October 2013Hearing Adjourned

Surya Baksh Singh, a convicted offender, appealed his conviction before the High Court, which affirmed the conviction ex parte without his presence or counsel and rejected his request for remand. The Supreme Court examined the growing misuse of the appellate process whereby convicts obtain bail or exemption from surren

SOMNATH SARKARversusUTPAL BASU MALLICK & ANR.

2013 INSC 6867 October 2013Case Partly allowed

The appellant issued a cheque of Rs.69,500 that was dishonoured and was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, receiving a sentence of six months imprisonment and a compensation order of Rs.80,000 under Section 357(3) of the CrPC. The Calcutta High Court, on revision, set aside the imprisonment

CHANMUNIYAversusVIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH KUSHWAHA & ANR.

2010 INSC 6817 October 2010Matter referred to larger bench

The appellant, Chanmuniya, claimed that after the death of her first husband she was married to her brother‑in‑law according to Kushwaha customs, with Katha and Sindur, and lived with him as husband and wife. The husband later deserted and stopped maintenance, prompting her to file a petition under Section 125 of the C

SAMJUBEN GORDHANBHAI KOLIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2010 INSC 6837 October 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Samjuben Gordhanbhai Koli, was convicted by a trial court and the conviction was upheld by the Gujarat High Court. She appealed to the Supreme Court seeking remission of the remaining portion of her sentence. The Supreme Court held that remission or commutation of a sentence is a power vested exclusively

SHAKUNTALA SHUKLAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 4587 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The widowed appellant challenged the Allahabad High Court's order that released four accused murderers on bail pending appeal against their life‑sentence convictions under IPC sections 302, 149, 201 r/w 120B. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's order lacked clarity on submissions, findings and reasoning, f

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusAVINASH

2017 INSC 8717 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra filed a criminal appeal against Avinash, who had been arrested in connection with a fraud involving Rs 2.74 crore. While on bail, Avinash’s bank accounts were attached under Section 102 of the CrPC. He first sought to quash the FIR and have his accounts de‑frozen before a Division Bench, but wi

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2012 INSC 3857 September 2012Dismissed

The appellant, founder and managing trustee of a technical education society, was accused by a charity trust of forging lease deeds and submitting false information to obtain permission for running a school. The trust alleged that the appellant altered documents, forged a lease for 87 years, and misrepresented facts to

SHYAM BABUversusSTATE OF U.P.

2012 INSC 3827 September 2012Dismissed

The case concerns a 1978 incident in which seven accused, including Shyam Babu, were alleged to have fired on a group of villagers, resulting in five deaths and one injury. The trial court acquitted all seven, but the High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted three of the accused; four had died during the penden

KUSHAL KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR.versusMALA GUPTA

2011 INSC 6597 September 2011Dismissed

Mala Gupta filed a criminal complaint under Sections 406 and 498A IPC against her parents‑in‑law before the Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. The magistrate issued process, prompting the petitioners to seek a revision and later a quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the Patiala court lacked juri

MAIN PALversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 5777 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was charged with trespassing into Prakashi Devi's house and assaulting her with intent to outrage her modesty under IPC sections 452 and 354. Evidence showed that the assault was actually on Prakashi Devi's daughter‑in‑law, Sheela Devi, and not on Prakashi Devi. The trial court convicted the appellant on

SRI DATTATRAYAversusSHARANAPPA

2024 INSC 5867 August 2024Dismissed

The appellant alleged that the respondent borrowed Rs. 2 lakh and issued a cheque as security, which later bounced for insufficient funds, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding contradictions in the appellant's testimony, lack of ev

BASAMSETTI RAMA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF A.P. & ORS.

2024 INSC 10557 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two criminal appeals challenging High Court orders that quashed criminal complaints and set aside committal orders against police officers accused of custodial deaths. The appellants alleged that the deceased were killed in police custody and that the High Court relied solely on CID and CBI r

TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAHversusKAMAL DAYANI & ORS.

2024 INSC 5887 August 2024

The Supreme Court granted the petitioner absolute interim anticipatory bail on 8 December 2023, ordering his release on bail if arrested. Despite this, the police remanded him to custody on 13 December 2023, and the magistrate failed to release him after the remand period, resulting in an illegal detention of about 48

KAMALversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2023 INSC 6787 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Hoshiyar Singh was found dead at his home, and the prosecution alleged that his son Prem Singh, who had a property dispute with him, fled the scene and later implicated Kamal Kishore and Manoj as accomplices. The trial court and the Delhi High Court convicted the three accused under Section 302 read with S

DINGANGLUNG GANGMEIversusMUTUM CHURAMANI MEETEI & ORS

2023 INSC 6987 August 2023Directions issued

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

V. SENTHIL BALAJIversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND ORS.

2023 INSC 6777 August 2023Dismissed

The appellant, a cabinet minister, was arrested under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on 14 June 2023 and produced before a magistrate, after which a judicial remand was ordered. His wife filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging the arrest, while the respondents sought police custody

BHAGWANversusSTATE OF MAHARASAHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY HOME, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

2019 INSC 8717 August 2019Dismissed

The appellant Bhagwan was convicted for murdering his wife by setting her ablaze after pouring kerosene, while his two sons also suffered burns. The prosecution's case hinged on the victim's dying declaration, recorded by a Naib Tehsildar, and a medical officer's certificate that she was conscious throughout. The defen

AMIR HAMZA SHAIKH & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2019 INSC 8747 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant sought permission under Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to conduct the prosecution for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The magistrate declined the request without giving reasons, but the Bombay High Court granted the permission merely on the basis t

RAM NARAINversusSTATE OF U.P.

2015 INSC 5547 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Ram Narain was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1978. After serving more than ten years, he applied before the Juvenile Justice Board, presenting a school transfer certificate that showed he was 15 years, 11 months old at the time of the 1976 murder. The Board declared him a juvenil

RAMAIAH @ RAMAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2014 INSC 5367 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ramaiah, was charged with dowry‑related offences (IPC 498‑A, 304‑B, 201, 176) and violations of the Dowry Prohibition Act (ss.3,4) after his wife Laxmi died an unnatural death within six months of marriage. The trial court acquitted him, finding no evidence of dowry demand, harassment, or that the presum

NASIRUDDINversusSTATE (NCT) DELHI AND ORS.

2013 INSC 5227 August 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, Nasiruddin, alleged that he was shot in the legs by respondents 2‑4 during a family dispute, leading to a FIR under Section 326 IPC. The respondents sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, and the Additional Sessions Judge granted it, stating that the injury was simple and the elements

RAI SANDEEP @ DEEPUversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2012 INSC 3227 August 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted of gang rape under s.376(2)(g) IPC based solely on the prosecutrix's testimony. The Supreme Court examined contradictions between the FIR, the prosecutrix's statements, and the accounts of her niece and nephew, who denied any intrusion. Forensic evidence showed no semen on the alleged clea

PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANRversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR

2023 INSC 6127 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, senior citizens who owned a 15 Kanal 2 Marla plot in Gurugram, alleged that the accused (Respondent No.2) forged a 1996 power of attorney and a 2022 sale deed to illegally transfer the land. An FIR was filed under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B IPC. The accused sought anticipatory bail; the

CHANDRA BABU @ MOSESversusSTATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ORS.

2015 INSC 4887 July 2015Disposed off

The appellant filed an FIR alleging assault and the police investigation concluded with a final report exonerating the accused. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, after a protest petition, directed "reinvestigation" of the case by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBCID). The Madras High Court set aside that order, hold

SOBARAN SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF M.P.

2014 INSC 4767 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the death of Narendra Singh. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of five ocular witnesses, two of whom were declared hostile and the remaining three were relatives of the deceased whose statements were recorded only

ANIL GUPTAversusSTAR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR

2014 INSC 4707 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, Anil Gupta, the Managing Director of Star India Pvt Ltd, appealed against a Delhi High Court order that quashed the summons issued to the company but allowed proceedings against him under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint alleged dishonour of cheques issued by t

DINESH TIWARIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2014 INSC 4717 July 2014Dismissed

The appellant Dinesh Tiwari was charged under IPC sections 323, 504 and 506, but the charge-sheet did not include section 302. The Sessions Court, after committal, framed an additional charge under section 302 and the appellant sought quashing of this order under CrPC section 482. The High Court dismissed the petition

PREM PRAKASH @ LILLU & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2011 INSC 4777 July 2011Dismissed

The case involved three accused—Dharambir (D), Prem Prakash (P) and Herchand (H)—charged under IPC sections 366 and 376(2)(g) for kidnapping and gang‑rape of Kumari Sudesh. The trial court convicted all three, a decision affirmed by the High Court. On appeal before the Supreme Court, D's appeal was dismissed in limine

OM PRAKASHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2011 INSC 4737 July 2011Disposed off

Om Prakash was convicted along with co‑accused Jai Prakash for kidnapping and raping a 14‑year‑old girl. The prosecution alleged that after kidnapping the girl, Jai Prakash took her to Om Prakash's house, where the girl was raped while Om Prakash allegedly failed to help her. The Supreme Court examined whether the elem

STATE OF RAJASTHAN TH. SECY.HOME DEPT.versusABDUL MANNAN & ANR.

2011 INSC 4747 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed the acquittal of Abdul Mannan, Afzal and Abdul Zabbar for the murder of two persons during a communal riot, where a mob of 50‑60 entered a house and 8‑10 armed assailants inflicted fatal injuries. The trial court convicted them under IPC sections 302/149, 148, 324/149 and 449, but the Hi

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusGORAKSHA AMBAJI ADSUL

2011 INSC 4787 July 2011Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra prosecuted Goraksha Ambaji Adsul for the murder of his father, step‑mother and step‑sister, alleging that he poisoned the family with sedative‑laden sweets and later strangulated them, disposing of the bodies in railway trunks. The trial court convicted him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and se

NORTHERN MINERAL LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2010 INSC 3657 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Northern Mineral Ltd., a manufacturer of insecticides, was served with a report from the Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory stating that a sample of its product did not meet specifications. The company notified the Insecticide Inspector, within 28 days, of its intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the re

NUPUR TALWARversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

2012 INSC 2547 June 2012Dismissed

The case arose from the double murder of Aarushi Talwar and her domestic servant Hemraj in Noida in May 2008, for which a First Information Report was filed by the victim's father, Dr. Rajesh Talwar. The investigation was taken over by the CBI, which later submitted a closure report citing insufficient evidence. Dr. Ra

CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHERversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

2024 INSC 3877 May 2024Disposed off

The appeal was filed by a child in conflict with law (CCL) challenging a High Court order that set aside a Juvenile Justice Board's order directing his trial as an adult in a Children’s Court. The key issues were whether the three‑month period for completing a preliminary assessment under s.14(3) of the Juvenile Justic

AMANATULLAH KHANversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ORS.

2024 INSC 3837 May 2024

The appellant, Amanatullah Khan, challenged the inclusion of his minor children and wife in a police "History Sheet" that alleged his bad character, arguing that there was no adverse material against them. The Delhi High Court dismissed his writ petition under Article 226 and Section 482 of the CrPC, prompting an appea

SUKHPAL SINGHversusNCT OF DELHI

2024 INSC 3857 May 2024Dismissed

The appellant Sukhpal Singh was convicted of murdering his wife Usha under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution relied heavily on the sworn statement of the complainant, Ashok Kumar Pathak, recorded under Section 299 of the CrPC, as well as a confession note and handwriting expert report. The appellant challenged the admis

JAYAMMA & ANRversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2021 INSC 2877 May 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the death of Jayamma, who suffered extensive burns and allegedly named four accused in a dying declaration. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution failed to prove the homicide beyond reasonable doubt, especially given doubts about the victim’s fitness to make a statement and t

ACHHAR SINGHversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2021 INSC 2897 May 2021Dismissed

The appellants, Achhar Singh and Budhi Singh, were acquitted by the trial court of charges including murder, grievous hurt and rioting, but the Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted them based on eye‑witness testimony and medical evidence. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court co

SANJAY KUMAR RAIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2021 INSC 2927 May 2021Directions issued

The appellant, Sanjay Kumar Rai, was charged under Sections 504 and 506 IPC for allegedly threatening a journalist and sought discharge under Section 239 CrPC, claiming the investigation was biased and the complainant’s testimony unreliable. The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the discharge application, and the High

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