Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Evidence Act, 1872

130 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

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

2025 INSC 91831 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED)versus63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED & OTHERS

2025 INSC 42131 March 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the corporate insolvency resolution of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL), where Piramal Capital submitted a resolution plan (RP) that allocated recoveries from Section 66 applications to itself. The plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the National Company Law

KARAN SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 13331 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIAversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2024 INSC 7731 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

GOVERNMENT OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARYversusMARIA JULIETA D’SOUZA (D) & ORS.

2024 INSC 8831 January 2024Dismissed

The Government of Goa filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction against Maria Julieta D’Souza, which the trial court dismissed for lack of a clear title document and alleged limitation. The High Court reversed the decision, holding that the plaintiff's predecessor’s title was established through deeds and co

CHETANversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 79330 May 2025Dismissed

The appellant was convicted of murder (IPC s.302), misappropriation of property (IPC s.404), and unlawful possession and use of a firearm (Arms Act s.3, s.5) based largely on circumstantial evidence, including the last‑seen theory, forensic ballistics, and his subsequent abscondence. The Supreme Court examined whether

RAJU @ UMAKANTversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2025 INSC 61530 April 2025Case Partly allowed

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

LALITAversusVISHWANATH & ORS.

2025 INSC 17330 January 2025Dismissed

The mother of a deceased woman appealed against the High Court's order acquitting four accused of abetment of suicide under Sections 306, 498A and 34 of the IPC. The trial court had convicted them based on evidence of harassment, but the High Court set aside the conviction, finding no reliable proof of abetment. The Su

CHABI KARMAKAR & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2024 INSC 66529 August 2024Disposed off

The deceased, Sonali Karmakar, committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial home within seven years of marriage. The prosecution alleged that she was subjected to harassment and dowry demands by her husband and in‑laws, leading to her death. The trial court convicted the sister‑in‑law, husband, and mother‑in‑law und

VISA COKE LIMITEDversusM/S MESCO KALINGA STEEL LIMITED

2025 INSC 59729 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Visa Coke Ltd., an operational creditor, claimed that it had validly served a statutory demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by sending Form 3 to the Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) of Mesco Kalinga Steel Ltd. at its registered office. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and th

MAHABIR & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 12029 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were acquitted of murder by the Sessions Court in 2005, but a criminal revision filed by the victim's father in 2006 was allowed by the High Court, which reversed the acquittal and sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could convert an acquittal

AJITSINH CHEHUJI RATHODversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2024 INSC 6329 January 2024Dismissed

The appellant, Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque that was dishonoured for insufficient funds. He claimed that the signature on the cheque was forged and sought a handwriting expert's comparison during trial, which the trial court rejected and

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

PREM PRAKASHversusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 63728 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

GASTRADE INTERNATIONALversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

2025 INSC 41128 March 2025Disposed off

The appellants imported oil from the UAE and declared it as Base Oil SN 50, but the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence re‑classified it as High Speed Diesel (HSD) and seized it. The Adjudicating Authority, CESTAT and the High Court each held the oil to be HSD, relying on three laboratory reports that tested only a por

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

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

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

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

PUTAIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2025 INSC 104226 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the conviction of two accused, Putai and Dileep, for the rape and murder of a 12‑year‑old girl, based solely on circumstantial evidence and forensic material. The trial and High Courts had upheld the death penalty for Putai and life imprisonment for Dileep, relying on recovered items, a sniff

SHAILESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. (NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND)

2024 INSC 14326 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC based on a dying declaration, eyewitness testimony, and the recovery of a weapon, despite serious irregularities in the investigation. The Supreme Court examined the purpose of criminal investigation, the role of the investigating officer, and the interplay be

VIJAYA SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2024 INSC 90525 November 2024Dismissed

The appellants, Vijaya Singh and his mother Basanti Devi, were convicted for the murder of Devaki, the appellant's wife, based largely on circumstantial evidence and statements recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the FIR was delayed, the circumstantial evidence

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMJAN KHAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 82325 October 2024Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh charged Ramjan Khan, Musab Khan and Habib Khan with murder of Naseem Khan under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC. The trial court convicted them based largely on oral testimonies of the deceased’s mother (PW‑8) and his two minor brothers (PW‑5, PW‑9), treating an alleged oral dying declaration

MANIK & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2024 INSC 73425 September 2024

The case involved police officers accused of torturing a suspect, Shama @ Kalya, while in custody, leading to his death and alleged tampering with evidence. The prosecution relied on witness testimony, a fingerprint test linking an unidentified burnt body to the victim, and claims of a staged escape, while the defence

CHOWDAMMA (D) BY LR AND ANOTHERversusVENKATAPPA (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 103825 August 2025Dismissed

The suit concerned the partition of ancestral lands belonging to the deceased Dasabovi, who had two wives – the plaintiffs' mother (first wife) and Chowdamma (second wife). The plaintiffs claimed that their mother was lawfully married to Dasabovi and therefore entitled to a share of the property, while the defendants d

RAHIL & ANR.versusSTATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)

2025 INSC 85825 June 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Rahil and Noor Ahmed, were convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC after the Delhi High Court reversed their trial‑court acquittal. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence that the deceased had called the co‑accused Suraiya and allegedly went to her residence, where he was later fo

SURESH CHANDRA TIWARI & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2024 INSC 90724 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence that they had last seen the deceased alive, were seen walking near the crime scene, purchased meat, and allegedly pointed out the spot where a blood‑stained stone was recovered. The Supreme Court examined whether each circumstance was proved beyon

DASHRATHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 65424 April 2025Case Partly allowed

Dashrath was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe. He challenged the conviction on four grounds: the sanction to prosecute was mechanically granted, the investigation was conducted by an Inspector of Police contrary to Sect

MD. BANI ALAM MAZID @ DHANversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2025 INSC 26024 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was accused, along with a co‑accused, of kidnapping and murdering a 16‑year‑old girl in Assam. The prosecution relied on three circumstantial links: the victim was last seen with the appellant, the appellant’s extra‑judicial confessions to several villagers, and the recovery of the dead body after those c

HIRALAL BABULAL SONIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 26624 February 2025Disposed off

The case involved a fraud scheme where fake telegraphic transfers were used to withdraw Rs. 6.7 crore from a bank, the proceeds of which were allegedly used to purchase 205 gold bars that were later seized from accused Nandkumar Babulal Soni. The trial court convicted Soni under Sections 120B and 411 of the IPC, direct

PARVEEN KUMARversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2024 INSC 71723 September 2024Dismissed

Parveen Kumar was married to Raksha Devi, who filed multiple complaints alleging cruelty, including an FIR under Section 498-A and a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC. Within two years of marriage, she died by ingesting aluminum phosphide tablets, and her brother lodged an FIR accusing the husband of cruelty

AGNIRAJ & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE THROUGH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CB-CID

2025 INSC 77423 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a violent incident on 14 November 2012 in which members of a political rival family were attacked, resulting in three deaths. The prosecution relied on three key witnesses – PW‑1, PW‑2 and a 10‑year‑old child PW‑9 – as well as fingerprint and weapon‑recovery evidence to secure convictions of accused

MAHARANA PRATAP SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

2025 INSC 55423 April 2025Disposed off

Maharana Pratap Singh, a constable in the CID dog squad, was dismissed from service in 1996 following departmental proceedings that found him guilty of four charges, while he was later acquitted of the related criminal charges. The appellant challenged the dismissal, alleging denial of due process, vague charges, and t

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusBALVEER SINGH

2025 INSC 26123 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted Balveer Singh for the murder, concealment and conspiracy to murder his wife, relying heavily on the testimony of the 7‑year‑old daughter, Rani, as the sole eye‑witness. The High Court acquitted the accused, holding that the child’s delayed statement and residence with an inimical

RANDEEP SINGH @ RANA & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2024 INSC 88722 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under Sections 364, 302, 120-B and 201 of the IPC for the abduction and murder of Gurpal Singh, based largely on the testimony of an alleged eyewitness, CCTV footage, and confessional statements made to police. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the eyewitness, noting material o

UMA & ANR.versusTHE STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

2024 INSC 80922 October 2024Dismissed

The trial court acquitted Ms. Uma and co‑accused of murder, holding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly discounting medical evidence in the absence of an eyewitness. The State appealed, and the Madras High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting the appellants on charges

NAGAMMA @ NAGARATHNA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 113522 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka alleged that a police constable (A1) borrowed money from a fellow police officer who later demanded repayment, leading A1's wife (A2) to invite the victim to their home and murder him with two choppers. The trial court convicted A2, A3 and A4 under Section 302 read with Section 34, while acquitti

IQBAL AHMED (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR.versusABDUL SHUKOOR

2025 INSC 102722 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The trial court decreed specific performance of a sale agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant appealed and, during the pendency of the appeal, filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the CPC to lead additional documentary evidence. The High Court admitted this evidence without firs

AEJAZ AHMAD SHEIKHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 52922 April 2025Dismissed

The case concerned the alleged murder of Amina and her three daughters by setting them on fire, for which the accused, Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh's brother, was initially convicted and sentenced to death. The High Court later acquitted him, prompting appeals by the State and the complainant. The Supreme Court examined the reli

NARESH KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2024 INSC 14922 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Naresh Kumar was convicted under Section 306 of the IPC for allegedly abetting his wife Rani's suicide in 1993, based largely on the fact that she died within seven years of marriage and that he repeatedly demanded money for a business. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the deceased's brother and

THAKORE UMEDSING NATHUSINGversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 19822 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The accused were tried for murder, dacoity and robbery after the victim's jeep was allegedly hijacked; the trial court acquitted them of murder and dacoity but convicted them of robbery. The State appealed, and the Gujarat High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting the accused of murder and related offences. The Sup

THAMMARAYA AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 10822 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Thammaraya and Basappa were convicted for murder and concealment of dead body under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC based largely on circumstantial evidence and alleged disclosure statements that led to the recovery of certain articles. The prosecution's case hinged on the recovery of a gold chain, d

SYED BASHEER AHMEDversusM/S TINNI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

2025 INSC 103021 August 2025Rejected

Syed Basheer Ahmed filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning two parcels of land. The trial court found the plaintiff ready to pay the balance consideration and decreed specific performance. The High Court reversed this decision, holding that the agreement showed a material alteration—differe

M. VIJAYAKUMARversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2024 INSC 17721 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M. Vijayakumar, was convicted under IPC sections 306, 342 and 365 for allegedly kidnapping and wrongfully confining the deceased, leading to the latter's suicide. The prosecution argued that the appellant’s abduction and confinement forced the victim to commit suicide, thereby satisfying the elements of

SHOOR SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2024 INSC 71320 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, Neelam, died from extensive burn injuries within seven years of her marriage to the son of the appellants, who were her father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded a motorcycle and Rs 50,000 as dowry and threatened her, invoking the presumption of dowry death under S

ASHOK VERMAversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 74319 December 2024Dismissed

The appellant, Ashok Verma, was convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of the IPC for the death of his wife, Pushpa, which occurred in their matrimonial home. He claimed the death was a suicide, pleaded an alibi that he was in a nearby garden, and argued that the non‑rupture of the hyoid bone indicated strangulatio

THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.versusAMIN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.

2024 INSC 87519 November 2024Dismissed

The plaintiffs, heirs of Amin Lal, sued the State of Haryana and the Public Works Department for possession of land on the basis of revenue records, sale deeds and mutation entries. The trial court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the State had not proved adverse possession. The State appealed and the fi

SANTOSH @ RAJESH @ GOPALversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2024 INSC 72319 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, was convicted for the murder of Narayan Singh based on the recovery of a pistol from his possession and a ballistic report linking the weapon to the fatal bullet. The prosecution’s case relied on a disclosure statement made by a co-accused, which led to the discovery of the pist

K. PRABHAKAR HEGDEversusBANK OF BARODA

2025 INSC 99719 August 2025Disposed off

K. Prabhakar Hegde, a former officer of Vijaya Bank (later merged with Bank of Baroda), was dismissed after disciplinary proceedings for alleged irregularities in approving temporary overdrafts. He challenged the denial of the preliminary inquiry report, the failure of the Inquiry Officer to generally question him as r

SD. SHABUDDINversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA

2025 INSC 99919 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sd. Shabuddin, was convicted under Section 411 of the IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property after being found in possession of cash amounts of Rs.25,000 and Rs.2,60,000, which he could not account for. Both he and co-accused Moulana were acquitted of theft (Section 379 IPC) by the Trial Court and

KAUSHIK PREMKUMAR MISHRA & ANR.versusKANJI RAVARIA @ KANJI & ANR.

2024 INSC 54019 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased half of a 3.40‑hectare land from respondent No.2 in 1985, and a sale deed was executed on 02‑12‑1985 but remained unregistered due to stamp‑duty deficiency until 14‑06‑2011. Respondent No.2 later executed a second conveyance in 2010 in favour of respondent No.1 for the same land, leading the ap

BABU SAHEBAGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2024 INSC 32019 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The trial court acquitted six accused, including A‑1, A‑2 and A‑3, for the alleged murder of Malagounda under sections 302 r/w s.34 IPC, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable and the complainant's testimony contradictory. The State appealed under s.378 CrPC, and the Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal, co

STATE (CBI)versusMOHD. SALIM ZARGAR @ FAYAZ & ORS.

2025 INSC 37619 March 2025Dismissed

The case arose from a 1990 kidnapping and murder of the Vice Chancellor of Kashmir University and his personal secretary, allegedly carried out by members of the JKSLF. The CBI charged several accused, including Mohd. Salim Zargar, under the Ranbir Penal Code and the now‑repealed TADA Act. The Special Court acquitted a

ABHINAV MOHAN DELKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 99018 August 2025Dismissed

Seven‑time MP Abhinav Mohan Delkar died by suicide on 22 February 2021, leaving a note that accused several officials of defamation, harassment and extortion. An FIR was filed under Section 306 IPC (now Section 108 BNS) read with Section 107 (now Section 45 BNS) alleging abetment of suicide, and the accused sought quas

NAVAS @ MULANAVASversusSTATE OF KERALA

2024 INSC 21518 March 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted of murdering four members of a family, house‑trespass and attempted suicide, and was originally sentenced to death for the murder under s.302 IPC. The High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment with a direction that the appellant could not be released for 30 years, invoking

SOMNATHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2024 INSC 23218 March 2024Disposed off

The appellant was arrested for theft and granted bail, but a police officer (respondent No.2) allegedly paraded him half‑naked, verbally abused him on the basis of caste and physically assaulted him, illegally detaining him for four hours despite bail. An inquiry by the Sub‑Divisional Police Officer found the officer r

SAMBHUBHAI RAISANGBHAI PADHIYARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 107217 December 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted of kidnapping, brutal sexual assault and murder of a four‑year‑old boy and sentenced to death by the trial court, a sentence confirmed by the Gujarat High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the circumstantial evidence satisfied the golden principles and whether the presumption under S

RAJ KUMAR @ BHEEMAversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2025 INSC 132217 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Raj Kumar was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC based primarily on the identification by the injured eye‑witness, PW‑18, whose testimony was recorded via video‑link eight and a half years after the incident. The High Court upheld the conviction, relying on the witness's identification, the appella

GURDIAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRversusJAGIR KAUR (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC.

2025 INSC 86617 July 2025Dismissed

Maya Singh died leaving a registered Will dated 16 May 1991 that bequeathed his 67-kanal land to his nephew, Gurdial Singh, while omitting any reference to his wife, Jagir Kaur, and providing no reason for her disinheritance. The nephew sued to enforce the Will, and the wife filed a separate suit claiming she was the l

DASTAGIRSABversusSHARANAPPA @ SHIVASHARANAPPA POLICE PATIL (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2025 INSC 112016 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, a coparcener of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), challenged the sale of a suit land by the Karta (father) to the fifth defendant, alleging the sale was not for legal necessity but to meet the Karta's personal habits. The central issue was whether the sale was made to meet the legal necessity of the Karta'

BALJINDER KUMAR @ KALAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2025 INSC 85616 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Baljinder Kumar, accused of murdering his wife, two children and sister‑in‑law, was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to death under Sections 302, 308 and 325 IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction, relying mainly on the testimonies of three witnesses despite contradictions and lack of forensic linkage. On

P KRISHNA MOHAN REDDYversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2025 INSC 72516 May 2025Disposed off

The petitioners, former public servants, were charged in a large‑scale corruption case involving alleged manipulation of liquor allocations and kickbacks. They applied for anticipatory bail, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court denied relief, relying on confessional statements recorded from co‑accused under Section 161 of

VIJAY @ VIJAYAKUMARversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2025 INSC 9016 January 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant Vijayakumar, together with friends, was returning from a movie late at night when they encountered the deceased, who was allegedly drunk and slapped the appellant. In a sudden altercation, the appellant picked up a cement brick and struck the deceased on the head, causing death, and later set the body on

KAILAS S/O BAJIRAO PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 111715 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Kailas and co-accused were convicted under the NDNDPS Act for possession of 39 kg of ganja seized during a police raid, with the trial court relying on a video recording of the raid and a chemical examiner's report. The High Court set aside the convictions and ordered a re‑trial, holding that the video wa

KATTAVELLAI @ DEVAKARversusSTATE OF TAMILNADU

2025 INSC 84515 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for murder, rape and robbery based on circumstantial evidence, a last‑seen theory, confessions, recovered items and DNA evidence. The Supreme Court examined whether these evidentiary pillars were proved beyond reasonable doubt and whether the investigation complied wit

VIRENDER PAL @ VIPINversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 71015 May 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Virender Pal, was convicted under Section 304‑B of the IPC for the dowry death of his wife, Punita, who allegedly died after being harassed for dowry demands. The prosecution presented testimony that the husband and his relatives repeatedly demanded money, subjected the victim to physical and mental crue

RAJENDRA S/O RAMDAS KOLHEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2024 INSC 42215 May 2024Dismissed

The appellant, Rajendra Kolhe, was convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly setting his wife Rekha on fire with the aid of his brother‑in‑law. The conviction was based primarily on Rekha's dying declaration (Ex. 59) recorded in the hospital, which implicated the appellant and

RAJENDHIRANversusMUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.**

2025 INSC 50815 April 2025

The Supreme Court entertained a miscellaneous application seeking recall of its own judgment dated 03.01.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024 on the ground that the respondents had not been served and therefore did not appear. The Court held that non‑service justified recalling the judgment and ordered the appeal to be

GOVINDversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 131814 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Govind was convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC and for illegal possession of a firearm under Section 25 of the Arms Act based primarily on the recovery of a country‑made pistol and two live cartridges from an iron box in his house and a forensic report linking the cartridges to the bullets recovere

VIBHOR GARGversusNEHA

2025 INSC 82914 July 2025Case Allowed

The husband filed a divorce petition and sought to introduce secretly recorded telephone conversations with his wife as evidence, submitting memory cards, a CD and transcripts. The Family Court allowed the evidence, but the High Court set aside that order on the ground that the recordings violated the wife's right to p

KUM. SHUBHA @ SHUBHASHANKARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

2025 INSC 83014 July 2025Dismissed

The appellant A-4, a young woman engaged to B.V. Girish, was unwilling to marry him and confided her grievance to friend A-1, who enlisted cousin A-3 and A-2 to murder the fiancé. The deceased was fatally injured with a steel rod on 3 December 2003; eyewitnesses were later discredited and the case hinged on circumstant

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUSTversusSMT. VIDHYA DEVI AND ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 99313 December 2024Dismissed

The Urban Improvement Trust (the appellant) sought to acquire land in Nangli Kota and Moongaska villages under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. The respondents challenged the acquisition, alleging procedural defects: failure to serve individual notices under s.52(2), premature possession before compensation w

OM PRAKASH YADAVversusNIRANJAN KUMAR UPADHYAY & ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 77713 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant lodged an FIR alleging that his brother was murdered in Firozabad and that a separate FIR was falsely registered in Gwalior to provide an alibi for the main accused. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against several police officials, holding that sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was re

RAMESH A. NAIKAversusTHE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ETC.

2025 INSC 30313 February 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a bank manager, was convicted of murdering his two minor children, his sister‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law in June 2010, motivated by his disapproval of his sister‑in‑law’s relationship. The trial court sentenced him to death, a judgment affirmed by the Karnataka High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court exam

VINOD @ NASMULLAversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 22013 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Vinod @ Nasmulla was convicted under IPC sections 395 and 397 and Arms Act section 25 for a dacoity involving a bus robbery on 28 September 1993. The prosecution's case rested on a dock identification by a police constable (PW‑9) and the alleged recovery of a country‑made pistol at the time of his arrest,

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusMAHADEO KRISHNA NAIK

2025 INSC 21813 February 2025Disposed off

Mahadeo Krishna Naik, a bus driver for Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), was dismissed after a fatal accident in 1996. The Labour Court upheld his dismissal, but the corporation later obtained a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award that placed sole blame on the lorry driver, a fact it failed

SURENDRA KOLIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 130811 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Surendra Koli, a former domestic help at the Nithari residence, was convicted for the murder, rape and related offences of a minor based on a Section 164 confession and alleged discoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court had earlier affirmed his conviction and death sentence in 2011, and a revie

MOHAMMAD AFZAL MOHAMMAD SHARIFversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 110011 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a 17‑year‑old who was assaulted during communal riots in Akola on 13 May 2023, claimed that the police failed to register a First Information Report (FIR) despite his written complaint and hospital statement. He alleged that the assailants also murdered a man mistakenly identified as a Muslim, and that h

R. RAJENDRANversusKAMAR NISHA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 130410 November 2025Case Allowed

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

RAGHUVEER SHARANversusDISTRICT SAHAKARI KRISHI GRAMIN VIKAS BANK & ANR.

2024 INSC 68110 September 2024

The appellant, a bank cashier, was examined as a witness in 2016 and admitted altering the tenure of a fixed deposit, a statement recorded at the pre‑summoning stage. During the trial, another witness (PW‑1) testified in 2022 that the appellant had made the interpolations, leading the bank to move an application under

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDARSHAN LAL BOHRA & ORS.

2024 INSC 50810 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) sought to acquire 83.761 hectares of land for industrial development, issuing a Section 4 notification in 2013. Several landowners filed objections under Section 5A, claiming their lands were "abadi" and should be exempt, but the Collector dismissed the objections

RAVISHANKAR TANDONversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2024 INSC 29910 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2025 INSC 22110 February 2025Case Partly allowed

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

ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR.versusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 6689 September 2024Dismissed

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

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

2024 INSC 4909 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

RATNU YADAVversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2024 INSC 4879 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

AMLESH KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2025 INSC 8109 June 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Amlesh Kumar, was charged with multiple offences including dowry harassment and murder after his wife went missing. While seeking regular bail, the High Court of Patna accepted the Sub‑Divisional Police Officer's proposal to conduct narco‑analysis tests on all accused and witnesses. The Supreme Court hel

KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS.versusTHIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND ORS

2024 INSC 2879 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a suit for partition of a property claimed by a son born of a widow’s second marriage, who sought his share through his mother, the widow. The widow had remarried after the death of her first husband, and the plaintiff relied on a series of lease and assignment deeds executed in 1910 and 1925 to esta

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAMIULLAHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 12927 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 amendments that introduced sub‑rules (xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19, which made the production of jamabandi or holding‑allotment proof a condition precedent for registering sale or gift documents. The High Court of Patna dismissed the writ petitions, holding t

DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERSversusSYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN

2025 INSC 11877 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Syeda Arifa Parveen, claimed ownership of 24 acres of agricultural land on the basis of being the sole daughter of Khadijabee and of an oral gift (hiba) of 10 acres made by her mother. The trial court rejected the oral gift but granted her a 3/4 share of the remaining land, while the Karnataka High Court

RAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL ETC.

2025 INSC 11937 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a father, son and son‑in‑law, were accused of murdering Pushpendra Singh and were acquitted by the trial court but later convicted by the High Court on the basis of alleged ocular testimony and the recovery of swords and a kanta. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellants could be positively iden

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

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

KUNHIMUHAMMED@KUNHEETHUversusTHE STATE OF KERALA

2024 INSC 9376 December 2024Dismissed

The appellant, a sympathiser of a political party, participated in a violent clash on 11 April 2006 during which he stabbed the deceased Subrahmannian multiple times with a knife, causing fatal injuries to vital organs. The trial court convicted him under Sections 302, 324 and 326/34 of the IPC and sentenced him to lif

P. ANJANAPPA (D) BY LRSversusA.P. NANJUNDAPPA & ORS.

2025 INSC 12866 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a joint family property dispute among descendants of Pillappa, concerning the validity of two registered release deeds (1956 and 1967) and an unregistered palupatti (partition) deed of 1972. The plaintiffs argued that the releases were ineffective and that the palupatti could not be relied upon, while

NAZIM & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 11846 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerns the murder of a ten‑year‑old boy, Muntiyaz Ali, whose body was found on 6 June 2007. The appellants Nazim, Aftab and Arman were convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 120‑B IPC based largely on the testimony of three prosecution witnesses and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court examined whether

SHANTI DEVIversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 9876 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Shanti Devi, her son Rajbir and another accused Veena were convicted by the trial court and upheld by the High Court for the murder of Balwant, the informant's son, under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. The prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including a motive of illegal occupa

A. RAJAversusD. KUMAR

2025 INSC 6296 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, A. Raja, contested and won the Devikulam Assembly seat, a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes, by filing a nomination stating he belonged to the Hindu Parayan caste, supported by a caste certificate. The respondent challenged the election, alleging that the appellant's paternal grandparents migrat

RAMKIRAT MUNILAL GOUDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

2025 INSC 7026 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a 3‑year‑9‑month‑old child based on three strands of circumstantial evidence: a disputed 'last seen together' testimony, an alleged extra‑judicial confession, and a forensic soil match. The Supreme Court examined whether the investigation was

RAJIV GHOSHversusSATYA NARYAN JAISWAL

2025 INSC 4676 April 2025Dismissed

The plaintiff, the owner of a premises, sued the defendant, the son of the original tenant, for recovery of possession. In his written statement the defendant unequivocally admitted that his father was the sole tenant and that the plaintiff was the owner, and that rent had been paid till May 2021. Relying on these admi

RAJA KHANversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 1676 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Raja Khan was convicted for murder and concealment of evidence based on circumstantial evidence, including a weapon and gold chains recovered after his alleged disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution relied on the recovery of a stone, a gandasa, and gold chains, as well as testimo

SANJAYversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2025 INSC 3176 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Sanjay was convicted of murder and rape of a four‑year‑old girl, X, and sentenced to death by the trial court, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The prosecution's case relied on the victim’s last‑seen testimony, an extra‑judicial confession by the accused that led to the recovery of the body and clot

BHARAT AAMBALEversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 786 January 2025Dismissed

The appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act for possession of ganja and appealed on the ground that the trial was vitiated by non‑compliance with Section 52A, which governs inventory, sampling and magistrate certification of seized narcotics. The Supreme Court examined the legislative purpose

BASUDEV DUTTAversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

2024 INSC 9405 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Basudev Dutta, an Ophthalmic Assistant employed by the West Bengal Government since 1985, was terminated in 2011 after a police verification report, filed 25 years later, labeled him ‘unsuitable’ for the post. He challenged the termination, asserting Indian citizenship based on his father’s migration certificate and ar

DEEP MUKERJEEversusSREYASHI BANERJEE

2024 INSC 2745 April 2024Case Partly allowed

The husband and wife were married in 2013, lived together in the United Kingdom for over seven years and later separated in 2021. The wife filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging non‑consummation due to the husband’s alleged impotency. The husband filed an application under

SITA RAM & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2025 INSC 3595 March 2025Disposed off

The case involved a dispute in which the deceased Prem Lal was assaulted by his brother Pyare Singh and two friends, Sita Ram and Onkar, who struck him on the head with a sickle (darat) and beat him. The victim later lodged an FIR himself, was hospitalized, developed gastroenteritis and died nine days later; the post‑m

SUMAN L. SHAHversusTHE CUSTODIAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 1705 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Suman L. Shah and Laxmichand Shah, had borrowed money in 1996-1997 from companies later alleged to be benami entities of Pallav Sheth, a notified debtor under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. The Custodian sought recovery of Rs.50 lakh and Rs.25 lak

NEERAJ KUMAR @ NEERAJ YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2025 INSC 13864 December 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed an FIR alleging his sister was shot by her husband, based on a nine‑year‑old niece’s information. The deceased gave two statements to police under Section 161 CrPC, first naming the husband and later implicating the husband’s mother, brother and brother‑in‑law as instigators; she later died. The pro

NARAYAN YADAVversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 9274 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Narayan Yadav, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) in which he confessed to killing Ram Babu Sharma during a drunken quarrel. The trial court convicted him of murder under Section 302 IPC, a conviction later altered by the High Court to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part

VAIBHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 8004 June 2025Disposed off

The appellant Vaibhav was convicted for murdering his friend Mangesh under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and for illegal possession of a firearm under the Arms Act, based solely on circumstantial evidence. He contended that Mangesh accidentally shot himself with his father's service pistol, citing the bullet trajectory, lac

SHUBHKARAN SINGHversusABHAYRAJ SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 6284 May 2025Dismissed

The petitioner challenged the High Court of Madhya Pradesh's rejection of his application to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC. The Supreme Court examined the scope of that rule, noting that it confers a power exclusively on the court trying the suit to recall and re‑examine a witness, and that parties

KARANDEEP SHARMA @ RAZIA @ RAJUversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 4444 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted of kidnapping, rape, and murder of a minor based entirely on circumstantial evidence, a confession narrated by a police officer, and DNA/FSL reports. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the 'last seen' testimony, the admissibility of the confession under Sections 24, 25 and 26 of t

DARSHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2024 INSC 194 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Darshan Singh, was convicted of murdering his wife, Amrik Kaur, under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC, based on the prosecution's claim that he and his paramour Rani Kaur administered aluminium phosphide poison. The trial and High Courts relied primarily on circumstantial evidence, especially the testimon

C.P. FRANCISversusC.P. JOSEPH AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 10713 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned the succession to the suit‑schedule property of the deceased parents, C.R. Pius and Philomina Pius, who had executed a joint will bequeathing the property to the appellant C.P. Francis. The respondents, other children of the deceased, challenged the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capa

SURENDER SINGHversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2024 INSC 4623 July 2024Dismissed

The appellant, a police guard, was convicted of murder and attempted murder for shooting a man inside a Delhi police station, motivated by the victim's alleged affair with the appellant's wife. The prosecution presented multiple eye‑witnesses, forensic evidence of close‑range gunshots, and a post‑mortem report showing

ANEESversusTHE STATE GOVT. OF NCT

2024 INSC 3683 May 2024Dismissed

The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife inside their home, where their five‑year‑old daughter also lived. The prosecution relied on forensic evidence, the appellant's blood‑stained clothes, and his conduct in leading police to the weapon, while the defence claimed unknown intruders were responsible. The key l

CHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGHversusMUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS.

2024 INSC 3773 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant entered into an agreement to sell 16 kanals of land with respondent No.3, paid earnest money and later obtained a temporary injunction against alienation of the property on 28 July 2003. On the same day respondent No.3 executed a release deed in favour of his son (respondent No.4), who subsequently sold t

ALAUDDIN & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.

2024 INSC 3763 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC for the murder of Sahabuddin Choudhury. They challenged the convictions on the ground that the prosecution witnesses' statements contained material omissions and contradictions, and that the "last seen together" theory and motive were not

STATE OF WEST BENGALversusBAISHAKHI BHATTACHARYYA (CHATTERJEE) AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 4373 April 2025Disposed off

The West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) conducted a 2016 recruitment for assistant teachers and non‑teaching staff that was later found to involve massive irregularities, including rank‑jumping, out‑of‑panel appointments, manipulation of OMR scores, destruction of original answer sheets and illegal subcontrac

C. KAMALAKKANNANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE C.B.C.I.D., CHENNAI

2025 INSC 3093 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 of the IPC for allegedly preparing a postal cover that transmitted a forged marksheet. The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of a handwriting expert who claimed the cover bore the appellant’s handwriting, but the original postal cover was never produ

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusPRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE

2025 INSC 1493 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, an Assistant Engineer of the Airports Authority of India, was arrested and convicted for demanding illegal gratification, leading to his dismissal from service. After being acquitted on benefit of doubt in a criminal appeal, he sought reinstatement, but the Authority initiated fresh disciplinary proceed

RAMU APPA MAHAPATARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 1473 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ramu Appa Mahapatar, was convicted for the murder of his live-in partner Manda based primarily on an extra‑judicial confession he allegedly made to the landlord (PW‑1) and the deceased's brother (PW‑3), which was later endorsed by PW‑4 and PW‑6. The Supreme Court examined whether such a confession, coupl

NEERAJ SHARMAversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2024 INSC 63 January 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellants, Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav, abducted an 18‑year‑old student, attempted to murder him by strangulation and burning, and stole his money and phone. The trial court and High Court convicted them under Sections 307/120B, 364‑A, and 392/397 of the IPC, imposing life imprisonment for the 364‑A char

PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMALversusSTATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2024 INSC 133 January 2024Dismissed

The appellant, Perumal Raja, was detained during an investigation into a separate murder and gave a disclosure statement that led police to recover the body parts of his cousin, Rajini, and other stolen items. The key issue was whether the appellant was "in custody" for the purposes of Section 27 of the Evidence Act de

RAJENDHIRANversusMUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.

2024 INSC 123 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration that a 2011 sale deed was void, claiming ownership of a parcel of land based on an alleged oral partition among four brothers and a will executed by one brother. The trial court and the subordinate appellate court dismissed the suit, finding that the oral partition was

RAJANversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 10812 September 2025Dismissed

The appellant Rajan was convicted for murder under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act based primarily on the ocular testimony of two eyewitnesses, despite the alleged firearm not being recovered. He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s delay of two years and five m

BALLU @ BALRAM @ BALMUKUND AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2024 INSC 2582 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were charged with murder and related offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC for the death of Mahesh Sahu, allegedly due to a love‑relation dispute. The trial court acquitted them, finding that the prosecution's circumstantial evidence was unreliable, witnesses were inconsistent, and the chain

TARUN SHARMAversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 11391 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the conviction of Tarun Sharma under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Munish Kumar, based primarily on a dying declaration recorded by a police Sub‑Inspector. The Supreme Court examined whether the dying declaration was reliable, given that the victim had been unconscious for most of the period, the

RAMESH CHAND (D) THR. LRS.versusSURESH CHAND AND ANR.

2025 INSC 10591 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff claimed title to a Delhi property on the basis of an agreement to sell, a general power of attorney, a receipt of consideration, an affidavit and a registered will executed by his father, Kundan Lal. The trial court and High Court had upheld his claim, but the Supreme Court examined whether these document

MOHAMMED KHALID AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA

2024 INSC 1581 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were charged under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act for allegedly transporting about 80 kg of ganja seized from a vehicle. The prosecution relied on a seizure panchnama, samples sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and confessions recorded by police officers, but failed to

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