Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2,851 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–400.

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

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusDHARMENDRA RATHORE

2019 INSC 10629 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of Gwalior issued an externment order under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, against Dharmendra Rathore for a period of one year. The respondent challenged the order, contending that only a District Magistrate (DM) could exercise the powers conferred by Section

DHARAM PALversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2016 INSC 11229 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's minor daughter was allegedly raped and, a few days later, his wife was murdered; the police investigation led to the acquittal of the accused in the rape case and a pending trial in the murder case. The appellant sought the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) citin

VISHAL AGRAWAL & ANR.versusCHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.

2014 INSC 6429 January 2014Dismissed

The appellants, consumers of electricity, were accused of theft of electricity and the State Electricity Board lodged a complaint that led to an FIR under Sections 135/126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Special Judge took cognizance of the offence, but the appellants challenged the jurisdiction, arguing that an Assi

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

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

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

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‑

DOONGAR SINGH & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017 INSC 115428 November 2017Directions issued

The case concerned the murder of Bhagwan Singh in Sikar, Rajasthan, where twenty accused were tried and nine were convicted. The Supreme Court noted that after the examination-in-chief of a key witness, the trial was adjourned for over four months, leading to several witnesses turning hostile. The Court held that under

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

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

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

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

SHYAM PALversusDAYAWATL BESOYA & ANR.

2016 INSC 100128 October 2016Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted in two separate complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing dishonoured cheques of Rs.5 lakh each, relating to two loans advanced by the same complainant on different dates but on identical terms. Both trials awarded ten months' simple imprisonment and a fine o

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

GURJANT SINGH @ JANTAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2013 INSC 72428 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Gurjant Singh (Janta) was seized with three gunny bags containing poppy husk while riding a tractor trolley. The police officer who stopped the vehicle offered the appellant the right to have the search conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate as required by Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and the appe

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

ANJU GARG & ANRversusDEEPAK KUMAR GARG

2022 INSC 103328 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The wife (appellant) and her son filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that the husband subjected her to cruelty, dowry harassment and forced her to leave the matrimonial home. The Family Court dismissed the wife’s application but granted maintenance to the son, a decis

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

MANUBHAI RATILAL PATEL TR. USHABENversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2012 INSC 43828 September 2012Dismissed

An FIR for offences under sections 467, 468, 471, 409 and 114 IPC was filed against the appellant. He sought quashing of the FIR and a stay of investigation under Section 482 CrPC, but was arrested before the stay order took effect. The magistrate remanded him to police custody and later to judicial custody. The High C

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

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

MANOJ TEJRAJ JAINversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2025 INSC 109028 August 2025Disposed off

The case arose from a raid on a godown in Ahmedabad where 55 boxes containing 1,364 kg of ephedrine, a controlled substance under the NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order 2013, were seized. Four appellants were convicted under Sections 25A and 29 of the NDPS Act based largely on the confessional statement o

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

K. NIRMALA & ORS.versusCANARA BANK & ANR.

2024 INSC 63428 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were appointed by Canara Bank and other central government undertakings in the Scheduled Caste category based on caste certificates issued under Karnataka state circulars that listed their community as a synonymous Scheduled Caste. After the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra v. Milind, the

ILAVARASANversusTHE SUPERITENDENT OF POLICE & ORS.

2023 INSC 81328 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Ilavarasan married Mathithra under Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act, with the assistance of advocates and social workers, and later filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that she was being detained by her parents and forced to marry her maternal uncle. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition, h

UNION OF INDIAversusASHOK KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 51728 August 2020Disposed off

The Union of India challenged a High Court order that quashed an FIR registered under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for the alleged sale of unlicensed drugs, holding that prosecution for offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 must be initiated only by persons named in Section 32 of the A

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

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

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

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

UNION OF INDIAversusNIYAZUDDIN SK & ANR.

2017 INSC 68628 July 2017Disposed off

The Union of India appealed against a Calcutta High Court order that released two accused, Niyazuddin SK and Asif Aslam, on bail in a narcotics case involving a commercial quantity of drugs. The public prosecutor had opposed the bail application, but the High Court granted bail without addressing the special conditions

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

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

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

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

ARIF MD. YEASIN JWADDERversusSTATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

2025 INSC 78528 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a lawyer, filed a public interest litigation alleging that up to 171 police encounters in Assam between 2021 and 2022 were fake and that the State had violated the procedural safeguards laid down in the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) guidelines. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the petition as

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

NATHU SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2021 INSC 30028 May 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Nathu Singh and other complainants, challenged orders of the Allahabad High Court that, after rejecting anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of the CrPC, granted the accused a 90‑day protection from coercive action and directed them to surrender for regular bail. The Supreme Court examined w

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

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

P. V. NIDHISH & ORS.versusKERALA STATE WAKF BOARD & ANR.

2023 INSC 45228 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, long‑time tenants of premises that later became part of a Wakf, were facing civil eviction when the Wakf Act, 1995 was amended in 2013 adding a penal provision (Section 52A) and a definition of "encroacher". The Wakf Board filed a criminal complaint under Section 52A alleging the appellants were encroac

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

M/S. NORTHERN MINERALS LTD. & ORS.versusRAJASTHAN GOVT. & ANR.

2016 INSC 35328 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. and its directors were prosecuted under the Insecticides Act, 1968 after a seized sample of their product was declared mis‑branded by the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory. The appellants filed a show‑cause notice, indicated their intention to contest the analyst's report, and sought a re‑an

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

RAM SINGHversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS

2011 INSC 34228 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a hotel servant, was arrested after 2.1 kg of opium was recovered from a hotel room and he made two confessional statements to officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics (CBN). The trial court convicted him under Sections 8 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, relying on

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

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

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

KRISHANAKANT TAMRAKARversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2018 INSC 28828 March 2018Disposed off

Krishanakan​t Tamrakar, convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, had been in custody for over ten years while his appeal against the conviction was pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He applied for bail, arguing that the prolonged delay rendered the appeal meaningless. The Supreme Court, while

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

R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIRversusTHE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT VIGILANCE POLICE & ANR.

2011 INSC 22628 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

R. Ramachandran Nair, the first Vice‑Chancellor of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, was accused of obtaining a pecuniary advantage while overseeing earth‑filling of university land. An FIR was lodged in 1996 and a charge‑sheet filed after an 8½‑year delay, without obtaining the prior sanction of the Universit

RAJESH SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2011 INSC 22728 March 2011Dismissed

The appellants were charged with murdering an eleven‑year‑old boy who was beaten and later found hanged in a house belonging to one of them. The trial court acquitted them, dismissing the testimony of two eye‑witnesses and the medical evidence, and questioning the timing of the FIR and the credibility of the witnesses.

SUDERSHAN SINGH WAZIRversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

2025 INSC 28128 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

UNION OF INDIA THR. I.O. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAUversusMAN SINGH VERMA

2025 INSC 29228 February 2025Case Partly allowed

The Narcotics Control Bureau seized a large quantity of alleged heroin from Man Singh Verma, who was arrested and placed in judicial custody. After two laboratory tests returned negative results, the Special Judge ordered his release on 10 April 2023. Despite his release, the Allahabad High Court entertained a pending

PRADIP N. SHARMAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2025 INSC 29128 February 2025

The appellant, a former District Collector, was charged under Sections 409, 219 and 114 of the IPC for allegedly misusing his official position to restore government land to private allottees who were not cultivating it and were residing abroad. The High Court dismissed his application under Section 482 CrPC to quash t

ABDUL WAHID & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2025 INSC 29528 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for the murder of Ahsan Ali under Sections 302 and 149 of the IPC based on the testimony of a single eyewitness and alleged recovery of weapons. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the eyewitness, the absence of forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime, and the suspect

INDRAJIT DASversusTHE STATE OF TRIPURA

2023 INSC 17528 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Indrajit Das was convicted for murder under Sections 302, 34 and 201 of the IPC based largely on circumstantial evidence and extra‑judicial confessions. The prosecution alleged that the victim Kaushik Sarkar went missing after riding with the appellant and a juvenile, and that the accused assaulted and di

ROYDEN HAROLD BUTHELLO & ANR.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

2023 INSC 18028 February 2023Dismissed

The appellants, Royden Harold Buthello and his father, alleged that the appellant was illegally abducted in Odisha on 20 October 2020 and subsequently framed in a narcotics case in Raipur on 21 October 2020. They sought a direction from the High Court to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation

AMRITLALversusSHANTILAL SONI & ORS.

2022 INSC 24328 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a written complaint on 10 July 2012 alleging that the respondents had failed to return silver entrusted to them, with the alleged offence dated 4 October 2009. An FIR was registered and a charge‑sheet filed, after which the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 4 December 2012. The respondents cont

GANDI DODDABASAPPA @ GANDHI BASAVARAJversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2017 INSC 126828 February 2017Dismissed

The appellant, Gandi Doddabasappa, was convicted by the Karnataka High Court for killing his daughter Shilpa, allegedly because she married a man of a lower caste. The trial court had acquitted him, dismissing the sole eyewitness testimony of PW‑18, but the High Court relied on that testimony, corroborated by forensic

CBI, ACB, MUMBAIversusNARENDRA LAL JAIN & ORS.

2014 INSC 15228 February 2014Dismissed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleged that Narendra Lal Jain and others conspired with officials of the Bank of Maharashtra to inflate the creditworthiness of companies and obtain loans beyond entitlement, invoking Sections 120‑B and 420 of the IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Acts. While

OM KR. DHANKARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2012 INSC 11428 February 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a transport operator, complained that a Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (respondent No.2) demanded payment of passenger tax at his residence, received Rs. 2 lakh, and released the appellant's impounded buses, allegedly cheating him and embezzling public money. The Judicial Magistrate issued a sum

BRAJENDRASINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2012 INSC 11628 February 2012Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Brajendrasingh, was convicted of murdering his wife and their three young children after alleging an illicit affair between his wife and a neighbour. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, forensic findings, and the appellant's own statements under Section 313 CrPC, while the defence claimed

RAMNARESH & ORS.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2012 INSC 11728 February 2012Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the conviction of four accused for the rape and murder of Rajkumari, based primarily on the testimony of a 16‑year‑old servant, PW6, who was the sole eye‑witness. The Court found that PW6's statement was reliable, corroborated by medical evidence and the testimony of the victim's mother, and

IVAN RATHINAMversusMILAN JOSEPH

2025 INSC 11528 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ivan Rathinam, was alleged by the respondent and his mother to be the biological father of the respondent, who was born during the respondent's mother's marriage to Mr. Raju Kurian. The parties litigated in a Munsiff Court, a Sub‑Judge Court and a Family Court over a declaration of paternity, a DNA test,

CHANDRABHAN SUDAM SANAPversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 11628 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap, was convicted of rape and murder of a 23‑year‑old woman and sentenced to death, based largely on circumstantial evidence, CCTV footage, witness testimonies, an alleged extra‑judicial confession and recovered items. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution's evidence sat

GAMBHIR SINGHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2025 INSC 16428 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Gambhir Singh, was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his brother, sister‑in‑law and their four children. The prosecution relied on three alleged incriminating circumstances – motive, last‑seen testimony and recoveries of weapons – to link the appellant to the crime. The Supreme Court hel

CENTRUM FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

2022 INSC 11528 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Centrum Financial Services Ltd., a non‑banking financial company, filed a criminal appeal against the Delhi High Court’s order granting bail to Jayant Kumar Jain (Respondent No.2) in a case involving alleged siphoning of Rs 25 crore through shell companies and offences under IPC sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120

DEEPAK S/O LAXMAN DONGREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2022 INSC 11028 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Deepak Dongre, was ordered to leave District Jalna for two years under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, based on five offences (three dated 2013‑2018 and two from 2020) and confidential witness statements. He challenged the externment order through a statutory appeal and a writ pe

RAJENDRA KHAREversusSWAATI NIRKHI AND ORS.

2021 INSC 4528 January 2021

Rajendra Khare, who lodged FIR No.39/2016, was not made a party to a transfer petition filed by the accused seeking to move the trial of Criminal Case No.3483 of 2017 from Delhi to Allahabad. The Supreme Court transferred the case on 18 May 2018 without issuing notice under Order XXXIX Rule 2, and the petitioner’s subs

CHANDESHWAR SAWversusBRIJ BHUSHAN PRASAD & ORS.

2020 INSC 9528 January 2020Disposed off

In a Bihar Panchayat election for the post of Mukhia, the petitioner alleged that his valid votes were being rejected while invalid votes for the returned candidate were accepted. The Election Tribunal, after hearing evidence, ordered a recount and later declared the election of the returned candidate void, directing a

SATYA RAJ SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 9728 January 2019Dismissed

The appellant Satya Raj Singh was convicted for murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, based on eyewitness testimony that he stabbed the deceased on the neck with a knife. He challenged the conviction on the grounds that the trial courts erred in accepting the eye‑witnesses' statements and that the

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusRAM KAILASH ALIAS RAM VILAS

2016 INSC 10028 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

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

UNION OF INDIAversusMOHANLAL & ANR.

2015 INSC 80828 January 2016

The Supreme Court examined the procedure for seizure, sampling, storage and disposal of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act, 1985, in response to a criminal appeal by the Union of India. It held that Section 52A mandates that samples be drawn and certified in the presence of a magistrate, rend

JAGE RAM & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 7028 January 2015Disposed off

The case involved an altercation in 1994 where the complainant Jagdish and his sons were cutting reeds on land also claimed by the accused Jage Ram and his sons. During the fight, the second accused Rajbir (Raju) delivered a pharsi blow to the head of the son Sukhbir, causing grievous injuries that required emergency s

A.C. NARAYANANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2015 INSC 6928 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered two criminal appeals: A.C. Narayanan, who challenged the taking of cognizance of a complaint filed by a power‑of‑attorney (POA) holder on behalf of six complainants under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and G. Kamalakar, who contested a conviction for a dishonoured c

SANJAY KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2014 INSC 6028 January 2014Dismissed

The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, alleged that he was appointed as a senior lecturer in a purportedly fake dental college, received post‑dated cheques for salary which later bounced, and consequently filed a criminal complaint under various IPC sections and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court quas

MOHINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2013 INSC 6128 January 2013Disposed off

Mohinder Singh was convicted of murdering his wife and daughter with an axe after a history of rape, intimidation and prior convictions. The trial court sentenced him to death, which the High Court confirmed under Section 366 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the "rarest of rare" doctrine justified the de

STATE THROUGH C.B.I.versusMAHENDER SINGH DAHIYA

2011 INSC 8028 January 2011Dismissed

The State alleged that Dr. Mahender Singh Dahiya strangulated his wife Namita during their honeymoon in Brussels, dismembered her body and disposed of the parts, while the prosecution failed to produce a weapon, reliable forensic identification of the body parts, or a clear motive. The trial court convicted Dahiya unde

POONAM CHAND JAIN AND ANR.versusFAZRU

2010 INSC 6328 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent filed a criminal complaint alleging fraud in a land transaction, which was dismissed by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 203 of the CrPC. After the dismissal became final, the respondent filed a second complaint on almost identical facts, suppressing the existence of the first complaint. The appellant

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

2010 INSC 6428 January 2010Disposed off

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

RAM SINGH @ CHHAJUversusSTATE OF H.P.

2010 INSC 6528 January 2010Dismissed

The appellant Ram Singh was accused of raping a 40-year-old midwife, Chanchala Devi, on the night of 12-13 August 1989, after being persuaded to accompany a co-accused to a village. The victim testified that she was gagged, assaulted, and forced into sexual intercourse, a narrative corroborated by her son, a village he

XversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

2024 INSC 90927 November 2024

The petitioner filed an FIR alleging rape (Sec. 376D) and kidnapping (Sec. 342) against the accused and a co-accused. The victim's statement was recorded under Sec. 164 CrPC, but neither the victim nor her mother (an eye‑witness) had been examined when the accused applied for bail. The trial court denied bail, but the

ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2020 INSC 66527 November 2020Disposed off

The appellant, a news‑channel editor, was arrested in November 2020 in connection with an FIR under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC alleging his role in the suicide of a contractor who claimed unpaid dues. He filed a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the

VINOD KUMAR GARGversusSTATE (GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI)

2019 INSC 128727 November 2019Dismissed

Inspector Vinod Kumar Garg was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.500 from Nand Lal in exchange for facilitating an electricity connection to a shed, with the money recovered from his pant pocket during a police trap. The appellant appealed, alleging material contradictions in the testimonies of the co

M/S. LAXMI DYECHEMversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2012 INSC 54627 November 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a chemical supplier, filed forty complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the respondent company’s post‑dated cheques were dishonoured because the signatures did not match the specimen signatures on file. The High Court quashed the complaints, holding that a signature

B. KUMAR@ JAYAKUMAR@ LEFT. KR.@ S. KUMARversusINSP. OF POLICE TH. C.B.C.L.D.

2014 INSC 101927 October 2014Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a mason, entered the house of the prosecutrix on 4 October 2002 armed with an aruval, intending to satisfy his lust. He tied up the brother (Manikandan) and a relative (Sangeetha), raped the prosecutrix, murdered Manikandan when he attempted to call for help, subsequently slit Sangeetha's throat, and sto

RANJIT SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2010 INSC 74727 October 2010Dismissed

The case involved an alleged unlawful assembly that rioted and assaulted victims, resulting in two deaths and three grievous injuries. The trial court convicted ten accused under sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 365 and 342 IPC, but the High Court acquitted two and upheld convictions of eight; five appealed before the Supr

PHULEL SINGHversusSTATE OF HARAYANA

2023 INSC 86327 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the death of Kiran Kaur, who suffered severe burns and later died, with the prosecution alleging that her husband Phulel Singh set her ablaze over dowry demands. The trial court convicted Singh under Section 304‑B IPC based primarily on the victim's dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistra

RAVINDRANATHA BAJPEversusMANGALORE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD. & OTHERS ETC.

2021 INSC 55527 September 2021Dismissed

The appellant, Ravindranatha Bajpe, filed a private complaint alleging that two companies and their senior officers conspired to lay a water pipeline beneath his property, demolish a stone wall and cut down about 100 trees, causing loss of over Rs.27 lakh. The Judicial Magistrate issued summons against all thirteen acc

SHRI MAHADEV MEENAversusPRAVEEN RATHORE AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 54827 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mahadev Meena, filed a complaint after his son, an IB officer, was found dead under suspicious circumstances. The FIR alleged that the first respondent, Praveen Rathore, an anti‑corruption bureau constable, had a close relationship with the deceased's wife and was involved in a conspiracy to murder, with

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSAHI RAM

2019 INSC 109627 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan charged Sahi Ram under Sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act for possession of 223 kg of poppy husk seized from his vehicle. The trial court convicted him, but the High Court acquitted on the ground that the entire bulk of contraband was not produced before the court, deeming the prosecution's eviden

JOSEPH SHINEversusUNION OF INDIA

2018 INSC 89827 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalized adultery, and Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which restricted the right to prosecute for adultery to the husband. A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that

RANJIT SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 65627 September 2013Disposed off

The appellant was charged with murder and related offences and first sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, which was rejected. The High Court later ordered him to surrender and apply for regular bail, but the Sessions Judge, misreading that order, granted bail under Section 439 without applying the st

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusJAMIL KHAN

2013 INSC 65727 September 2013Disposed off

The State of Rajasthan appealed against the High Court's commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment for Jamil Khan, who was convicted of raping and murdering a girl under five years old and also convicted under IPC sections 376 and 201. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not examined the aggravati

POONGODI & ANR.versusTHANGAVEL

2013 INSC 65927 September 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The wife and son of Thangavel filed successive applications under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance, claiming arrears from February 1993. The High Court limited their claim to arrears of only one year preceding the 2002 application, invoking the first proviso to Section 125(3). The Supreme Court held that the pro

V.K. SASIKALAversusSTATE REP. BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

2012 INSC 42927 September 2012Disposed off

The appellant, V.K. Sasikala, was on trial for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. While her examination under Section 313 CrPC was in progress, she applied for certified copies and, alternatively, inspection of certain unmarked and unexhibited documents that had been forwarded to the court under Section 1

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusAMITBHAI ANIL CHANDRA SHAH AND ANOTHER

2012 INSC 43427 September 2012Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered CBI's appeal against the Gujarat High Court's grant of bail to former Home Minister Amitbhai Shah in the Sohrabuddin encounter case and a petition to transfer the trial out of Gujarat. The Court noted that Shah, as a minister, could potentially influence witnesses and tamper with evidence,

AJAY KUMAR PARMARversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2012 INSC 43527 September 2012Dismissed

The appellant Ajay Kumar Parmar was accused of raping the complainant, who later approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) to record a statement under Section 164 CrPC claiming the FIR was false. The CJM directed a Judicial Magistrate to record the statement, but the complainant was not produced before the magistr

M/S THERMAX LTD. & ORS.versusK.M. JOHNY & ORS.

2011 INSC 71627 September 2011

Thermax Ltd. entered into purchase orders with K.M. Johny’s firms for storage tanks and consumables. The contracts fell apart and Johny alleged non‑payment of large sums, filing three earlier complaints that were closed as civil matters. In 2002 he lodged another complaint before a magistrate alleging offences under Se

PARAMJEET SINGH @ PAMMAversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2010 INSC 64727 September 2010Dismissed

Paramjeet Singh (Pamma) was convicted for murdering his brother and two nephews and injuring three other family members in a property dispute. The trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court upheld the conviction based on the FIR, statements under Section 161 CrPC, medical reports, forensic evidence and the testimony of

GANPATversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2010 INSC 64927 September 2010Dismissed

Ganpat, the complainant, appealed against the High Court's order acquitting eleven accused persons charged under IPC sections 148, 149, 302, 323, 324, 325. The trial court had convicted the accused, but the High Court set them free, holding that the complainant was the aggressor and that the prosecution failed to prove

SMT. PEBAM NINGOL MIKO DEVIversusSTATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

2010 INSC 65027 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The husband of the appellant, an editor of a Manipuri daily, was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on allegations of extorting money for the UNLF and causing a terror wave. The appellant challenged the detention, arguing that the grounds were vague, unsupported by material, and that there w

KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 63227 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Kalvakuntla Kavitha, a former Member of Parliament and Legislative Council, was charged under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in CBI and Enforcement Directorate investigations relating to a Delhi excise policy conspiracy. She applied for bail, invoking the special treatment granted to women under the provi

KHUMAN SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 96527 August 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Khuman Singh, entered the deceased Veer Singh's field with his buffaloes, leading to a dispute over grazing rights. In a sudden quarrel, Singh struck Veer Singh on the head with an axe, causing six injuries that resulted in death. The trial court convicted Singh under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)

DENY BORAversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2014 INSC 57127 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

A doctor was shot dead in his clinic and the accused, Deny Bora, was charged under Sections 302, 34 and 314 of the IPC and under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). The Designated Court acquitted him of the TADA offences but convicted him for murder based solely on the testimony of PW‑14, w

MANOJ NARULAversusUNION OF INDIA

2014 INSC 56827 August 2014Disposed off

The petition challenged the appointment of several Union Ministers on the ground that they had criminal antecedents or were facing charges for serious offences, seeking a declaration that such appointments were unconstitutional and requesting the Court to frame guidelines for ministerial appointments. The Court examine

CHENDA @ CHANDA RAMversusSTATE OF CHHATISGARH

2013 INSC 57227 August 2013Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Chenoa (also known as Chanda Ram), was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the death of Ramgulal during a village quarrel and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the killing qualified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 I

JYOTI MISHRAversusDHANANJAYA MISHRA

2010 INSC 54327 August 2010Dismissed

Jyoti Mishra, the estranged wife of Dhananjaya Mishra, filed an FIR under Section 498-A of the IPC against her husband and five others in Hyderabad. The case was pending before the 5th Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. After moving to Indore, she filed transfer petitions (Criminal Nos. 94‑95 of 2010) seeking to shift

SHAIKH SATTARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2010 INSC 54627 August 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Shaikh Sattar, was convicted under Sections 302 and 498A IPC for murdering his wife, who was found dead with head injuries and a heavy stone nearby. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the husband's demand for money, prior abuse, the location of the body and stone, and medical te

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusARUN GULAB GAWALI & ORS.

2010 INSC 55127 August 2010Dismissed

Mohd. Qureshi filed a complaint alleging extortion by Arun Gawali and his gang, which was registered as FIR No. 241/2005. He later claimed that the police forced him to lodge the complaint and applied before the Metropolitan Magistrate to withdraw it; the application was rejected. The complainant and his wife approache

NO.15138812Y L/NK GURSEWAK SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2023 INSC 64827 July 2023Case Partly allowed

Lance Naik Gursewak Singh and Lance Naik Kala Singh, both serving in the Indian Army, consumed liquor and got into a heated argument over seniority. Singh seized Kala's rifle and fired a single bullet, killing him. A court‑martial convicted Singh under IPC s.302 read with Army Act s.69, sentencing him to life imprisonm

M/S R. D. JAIN AND CO.versusCAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.

2022 INSC 75427 July 2022Dismissed

The borrower, M/s R.D. Jain & Co., challenged the Bombay High Court’s interpretation that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) and District Magistrate (DM) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are not persona designata and that the terms include their additional counterparts. The secured creditor, Capital First Ltd.

VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2022 INSC 75727 July 2022Reference answered

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of most provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), including the definition of money-laundering, attachment of property, search and seizure, arrest, bail conditions, and burden of proof. The Court interpreted Section 3 to have a wider reach, c

RAJESH SHARMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2017 INSC 68327 July 2017Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined a criminal appeal challenging the summoning of the husband’s relatives under Section 498A of the IPC in a dowry‑harassment case. It observed that a large number of 498A cases are filed in the heat of the moment, often without bona‑fide evidence, leading to uncalled‑for arrests and hardship to

LOUIS PETER SURINversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2010 INSC 43427 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

An FIR was lodged in April 1984 under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code alleging that the appellant, then Managing Director of a district agency, conspired with a Deputy Commissioner to award a contract to a private firm. The State Government denied sanction for prosecution on two occasions (19

SHABNAMversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2015 INSC 43527 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners Shabnam and Salim, convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to death, challenged the issuance of death warrants by the Sessions Judge merely six days after the Supreme Court dismissed their appeals. The Court held that the warrants were issued in haste without allowing the convicts to exhaust their s

PATAN JAMAL VALIversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2021 INSC 27227 April 2021Disposed off

The appellant, a known acquaintance of the victim's family, entered the home of a blind Scheduled Caste woman and raped her, after which he was apprehended at the scene. The trial courts convicted him under Section 376(1) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocit

RE : VIJAY KURLE & ORS.versusRE:

2020 INSC 37327 April 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court entertained a suo motu contempt petition filed against Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan and Nilesh Ojha for circulating letters containing scandalous and scurrilous allegations against two Supreme Court judges. The Court examined whether it could initiate contempt proceedings without the consent of the

STATE OF GUJARATversusMANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH

2020 INSC 36627 April 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat appealed the discharge of Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, a trustee of Sumandeep Charitable Trust which runs a deemed university, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge sheet alleged that Shah demanded Rs 20 lakhs to allow a student to appear for examinations, constituting a corrupt p

BRIJENDRA SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017 INSC 40927 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were named in FIR No. 53 of 2000 for offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act but were not arraigned as accused. After the trial commenced, the complainant applied under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the appellants as additional accused. The trial court, relying solely on the co

HARIJAN BHALA TEJAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2016 INSC 34627 April 2016Dismissed

Harijan Bhalateja, the husband of pregnant Jivibai, was accused of murdering her by strangulation on 20 February 1985 and then hastily burying the body without informing her relatives. The body was exhumed and a post‑mortem revealed a half‑round neck injury, fracture of the hyoid bone and a protruding tongue, all indic

BALRAM YADAV .versusFULMANIYA YADAV

2016 INSC 34827 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Balram Yadav filed a suit in the Family Court of Ambikapur seeking a declaration that Fulmania Yadav was not his legally married wife. The Family Court decreed in his favour, declaring the marriage invalid. Fulmania Yadav appealed to the Chhattisgarh High Court, which set aside the decree, holding that the Family Court

D. T. VIRUPAKSHAPPAversusC. SUBASH

2015 INSC 35927 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a police officer, was summoned in a private complaint alleging assault, kidnapping and other offences while investigating a death. He moved the High Court under CrPC s.482 to quash the proceedings, contending that the magistrate could not take cognizance without prior sanction from the State Government u

K. ANBAZHAGANversusSTATE OF KARNATAKAAND OTHERS

2015 INSC 32327 April 2015Disposed off

The case arose from the transfer of a corruption trial involving J. Jayalalithaa from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka. Karnataka appointed Bhavani Singh as Special Public Prosecutor for the trial, but Tamil Nadu later attempted to authorize him to appear before the Karnataka High Court for the appeal. The Supreme Court held th

R. SHASHIREKHAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 40227 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, R. Shashirekha, filed a complaint alleging that her husband had been cheated, blackmailed and forced to commit suicide by his business partners (respondents 2 and 3) and a manager (respondent 4). The FIR was registered under Sections 306, 420, 506 and 34 of the IPC, but the respondents obtained a quash o

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIAversusKAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC

2023 INSC 72327 March 2023Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether the day on which a magistrate orders remand under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be counted in the 60/90‑day period prescribed for filing a charge‑sheet, the expiry of which gives an accused an indefeasible right to default bail. Relying on the earlier d

NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARYversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2023 INSC 29827 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, convicted and sentenced to death for the 1994 murder of five women and two children, claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence, asserting an age of 12 years based on school birth certificates and other documents. After earlier petitions were dismissed, the Supreme Court referred the matter to

SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICEversusRAHUL MODI AND ANR. ETC.

2019 INSC 40827 March 2019Disposed off

The Central Government assigned the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to investigate a group of companies under an order dated 20‑06‑2018, directing a report within three months. The SFIO arrested Rahul Modi and others on 10‑12‑2018, after the three‑month period had expired, leading the petitioners to file habe

MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1 OF 2019 IN RE: MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARAversus.

2019 INSC 40927 March 2019

The Supreme Court, hearing a suo motu contempt petition (CrL.) No.1 of 2019, affirmed that advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara had committed contempt of court for statements made in the face of the Court. He tendered an affidavit of apology and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, suspended on condition of future goo

GANAPATHI & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2018 INSC 27127 March 2018Dismissed

The case involved the murder of Murugan and his sister Poomari following marital discord between Murugan and his wife Muthulakshmi. Four accused—Ponnu, Ganapathi, Chitravelu, and Muthulakshmi—were charged under IPC s.302 and s.302/34. The trial court convicted all four; the Madras High Court upheld the convictions of G

MANJU SURANAversusSUNIL ARORA & ORS.

2018 INSC 27827 March 2018Matter referred to larger bench

The appellant filed a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging corruption in a drinking‑water project and sought investigation and FIR registration against several public servants, including the first respondent who was incorrectly described as Principal Secretary, PHED. The Special Judge dismiss

SATPAL SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2018 INSC 27727 March 2018Disposed off

Satpal Singh was charged under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act and applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, claiming parity with his brothers who had been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court rejected his application, noting that the

SHAKTI VAHINIversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 26627 March 2018Disposed off

The petition sought directions to the Union and State governments to prevent honour crimes, including honour killings, by mandating a national and state plan of action, special cells, and prosecution of offenders. The Court held that any torture or interference with an adult's choice of marriage, even if sanctioned by

NARINDER SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2014 INSC 21727 March 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashment of an FIR registered under Sections 307, 324, 323 and 34 IPC after the accused and complainant settled their dispute through a village Panchayat. The High Court had refused to accept the compromise, relying solely on the seriousness

VIJAY DHANUKA ETC.versusNAJIMA MAMTAJ ETC.

2014 INSC 21627 March 2014Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a complaint alleging offences under Sections 323, 380 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, where the accused resided outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate who had examined the complainant and two witnesses under Section 200 CrPC before issuing summons. The appellants co

P.C. MISHRAversusSTATE (C.B.I.) & ANR.

2014 INSC 21527 March 2014Dismissed

The case concerned an application by the CBI for a pardon under s.306 CrPC in a corruption investigation where the offence was triable by a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Metropolitan Magistrate granted the pardon to the co‑accused during the investigation, a decision later challenged b

HOMI RAJVANSHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2014 INSC 21127 March 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Homi Rajvansh, an executive director of NAFED, was charged along with the managing director, Alok Ranjan, for alleged misappropriation of funds in non‑agricultural tie‑ups. The CBI filed a charge‑sheet under IPC sections 120B, 409, 411, 420, 467, 468 and 471. Alok Ranjan filed a writ petition under Section 482 of the C

SUNDEEP KUMAR BAFNAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2014 INSC 21827 March 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Sundeep Kumar Bafna, convicted of offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, applied to the Bombay High Court for surrender and regular bail under s.439 CrPC after his anticipatory bail was denied. The High Court dismissed the bail plea, holding that only a magistrate could entertain it and directing the appe

SUNIL KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2012 INSC 15027 March 2012Dismissed

Sunil Kumar was convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for possessing and selling large quantities of blue kerosene and was sentenced to one year imprisonment and a fine. His appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the High Court, and a subsequent application seeking modification of the

RADHIKA AGARWALversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 27227 February 2025

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the amendments to the Customs Act, 1962 and the arrest provisions in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, arguing that offences under these statutes remain non‑cognizable and that authorized officers must obtain a magistrate's warrant, relying on the Om

KANISHK SINHA & ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 27827 February 2025Dismissed

The appellants, a husband and wife, were charged in two FIRs (2010 and 2011) for offences under the IPC and the IT Act. They contended that the second FIR was based on a complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC that was not accompanied by an affidavit, thereby violating the Supreme Court’s direction in Priyanka Sriva

MANOJ RAMESHLAL CHHABRIYAversusMAHESH PRAKASH AHUJA & ANR.

2025 INSC 28227 February 2025Disposed off

The appellant, brother of the deceased, challenged the Bombay High Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal an acquittal of Mahesh Prakash Ahuja for murder. The trial court had acquitted the accused due to lack of reliable circumstantial evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The High Court denied leave w

THE STATE OF CHATTISGARHversusASHOK BHOI ETC.

2025 INSC 25627 February 2025Dismissed

The State of Chhattisgarh appealed against the High Court’s order that acquitted accused Ashok Bhoi and upheld the acquittal of co‑accused Vikash Khubwani in a murder‑related case. The prosecution’s case was based solely on circumstantial evidence, notably the testimony of a witness who saw the deceased with Ashok Bhoi

SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 28427 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Shilpa alleged that her sister‑in‑law Chanchal/Babita set her on fire and, in a dying declaration, named only her sister‑in‑law. The FIR initially listed nine persons, including the appellants, for offences under Sections 302 IPC, 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, but the charge‑sheet named only Chan

RAVADA SASIKALAversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

2017 INSC 18127 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a young man, trespassed into the victim's house and poured acid on her head after his marriage proposal was rejected, causing grievous hurt. He was convicted under Sections 326 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced by the trial court to one year of rigorous imprisonment with fines. The High Cour

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusRAM PAL

2015 INSC 17627 February 2015Disposed off

The appellant, State of Himachal Pradesh, appealed against the High Court's order that substituted the imprisonment of the accused, Ram Pal, with a fine of Rs 40,000 for causing the death of a 20‑year‑old girl by rash and negligent driving. The Supreme Court examined whether the fine was adequate and whether compensati

BASAPPAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2014 INSC 14727 February 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Basappa was charged under IPC sections 279 and 304A and the Motor Vehicles Act for a tractor accident that killed a two‑year‑old child. The trial magistrate acquitted him, finding no cogent evidence that he was the driver at the time of the accident. The State appealed under Cr.P.C. s.378; the High Court

MAHESH DHANAJI SHINDEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2014 INSC 14627 February 2014Disposed off

The appellants were convicted for the murders of nine persons in a scheme that promised to "multiply" cash money, known as the "money shower" scam. The prosecution proved the deaths were homicidal and identified the victims through forensic, DNA, super‑imposition and material evidence, establishing the accused’s partic

DALJIT SINGH GUJRAL & ORS.versusJAGJIT SINGH ARORA & ORS.

2014 INSC 14927 February 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, managers of INSCOL Multispecialty Hospital, were charged with medical negligence, cheating, forgery and other offences after the complainant alleged that his wife died due to wrong treatment at the hospital. The Punjab & Haryana High Court single judge framed the issue on the premise that the patient di

LALITA KUMARIversusGOVERNMENT OF U.P. & OTHERS

2012 INSC 10827 February 2012Matter referred to larger bench

The petition arose from the kidnapping of a six‑year‑old girl, Lalita Kumari, whose father reported the incident to the police but the FIR was registered only after a month and no investigative action was taken. The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the police had a statutory duty under Section

CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 11427 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

HARI RAMversusJYOTI PRASAD & ANR.

2011 INSC 7427 January 2011Dismissed

Hariram appealed against judgments that upheld a permanent injunction ordering the removal of his alleged encroachment on a 10‑foot public street. He argued that the suit was barred by limitation, violated Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, and lacked proof that the land was a public street. The Supreme Court held that encroac

P. VIJAYANversusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.

2010 INSC 6127 January 2010Dismissed

P. Vijayan, a retired IPS officer aged about 85, was charge‑sheeted under IPC sections 302 and 34 for the alleged killing of a Naxalite in a 1970 encounter that was later claimed to be fake. The CBI investigation relied on an extra‑judicial confession by a constable and several statements. Vijayan filed a discharge pet

GURMEET KAURversusDEVENDER GUPTA & ANOTHER

2024 INSC 96726 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a District Town Planner (Enforcement), ordered the demolition of unauthorized construction at Anupama College after a show‑cause notice and a restoration order under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. The college’s chairman filed a private cr

HARI & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2021 INSC 79226 November 2021Disposed off

The case involved the brutal honour killing of a Jat girl, a Jatav boy and another Jatav youth who were tortured for twelve hours and murdered by a large group of villagers after the couple attempted an inter‑caste marriage. The trial court convicted 35 persons under IPC sections 147, 149, 302, 323, 324, 201 and s.3(3)

SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

2020 INSC 66126 November 2020Dismissed

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Ltd sought to quash an FIR registered under Sections 34, 471, 468, 467, 420, 419 and 406 IPC for alleged installation of defeat devices in its vehicles. The High Court refused to quash the FIR, granting only protection against arrest. The petitioner argued that the police could not i

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROLversusB. HEERA NAIK & ORS. ETC.

2019 INSC 128326 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) filed complaints against the City Municipal Council (CMC) of Krishnarajapuram and its former commissioners for discharging untreated sewage in violation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The High Court quashed the proceedings under Section

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERSversusABHIJIT SINGH PAWAR

2018 INSC 110126 November 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The respondent, Abhijit Singh Pawar, applied for police posts in Madhya Pradesh and disclosed in an affidavit that a criminal case (Sections 323, 325, 506, 34) was pending against him. Within four days the parties compromised and the offences were compounded under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., resulting in his acquittal.

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.versusAJAY KUMAR SHARMA & ANR

2015 INSC 86826 November 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court that had set aside its termination of several District Government Counsels and ordered a reconsideration of their renewal. The core issue was whether the State, under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Uttar Prade

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