Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Indian Penal Code, 1860

3,190 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 2,201–2,400.

P. NAGESH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2013 INSC 4549 July 2013Disposed off

The appellants, P. Nagesh and another, were convicted by a Fast Track Court for murder and related offences under Sections 302, 364, 379, 201 read with 34 of the IPC, based on circumstantial evidence. The Karnataka High Court upheld the conviction, relying on a presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act that the

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusSANGHARAJ DAMODAR RUPAWATE & ORS.

2010 INSC 3959 July 2010Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra issued a notification under s.95 CrPC ordering the forfeiture of every copy of the book "Shivaji – Hindu King in Islamic India" on the basis of an FIR alleging offences under s.153, s.153A and s.34 IPC. The High Court quashed the notification, holding it failed to state the grounds of the Gover

SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

2010 INSC 3979 July 2010Dismissed

The case involved eight persons accused of murdering Upendra Singh and attempting to murder his brother over a disputed land. The prosecution proved that a group of more than five armed men formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of eliminating the victims, and that Rajeshwar Singh fired the fatal shots. The

SATISH NIRANKARIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017 INSC 4799 June 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Satish Nirankari and his lover Pooja, whose inter‑caste marriage was opposed by her family, went to a vacant house, performed a makeshift marriage, and each consumed copper sulphate. Pooja ingested a larger dose, later hanged herself; Nirankari survived, raised alarm, and sought medical help. He was convicted under IPC

A SHANKARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2011 INSC 4129 June 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant A. Shankar was charged under IPC sections 302, 307 and 324 for the murder of Murthy Prasad and the attempted murder of Shankara, the victim's brother. The trial court acquitted him, finding that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to contradictions in the eye‑wit

RAJENDRA BHAGWANJI UMRANIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 4139 May 2024Disposed off

The Sessions Court convicted two accused under Section 325 IPC, sentencing them to five years' rigorous imprisonment and fines. The Gujarat High Court reduced the term to four years and, invoking Section 357 of the CrPC, ordered each accused to deposit Rs 2.5 lakh as compensation to the victim, on the condition that pa

BHOLA KUMHARversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2022 INSC 5359 May 2022Disposed off

Bhola Kumhar was convicted under IPC section 376 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The Chhattisgarh High Court reduced his term to 7 years rigorous imprisonment but the appellant remained in custody for over 10 years due to alleged default on the f

OMANAKUTTANversusTHE STATE OF KERALA

2019 INSC 6619 May 2019Dismissed

The appellant, OMANAKUTTAN, was convicted for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by pouring acid on his neighbour, Sunil Kumar, in 1997, resulting in extensive burns and permanent disfigurement. The trial court sentenced him to one year imprisonment and a fine, a conviction affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Sup

SHIO SHANKAR DUBEY & ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

2019 INSC 6589 May 2019Dismissed

On 16 May 1980, Raj Keshwar Singh was murdered by a group of five accused who were armed and fled the scene. The prosecution relied on the testimony of PW11 (the brother of the deceased and informant), PW13 (a relative of the deceased) and PW5 (an eyewitness who identified four of the accused but omitted one name). The

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITEDversusADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS LIMITED & OTHERS

2019 INSC 6639 May 2019Disposed off

Birla Corporation filed a criminal complaint alleging that respondents had stolen or misappropriated 54 confidential company documents and sought prosecution under IPC sections 379, 403, 411 read with 120B. The trial magistrate, relying on vague statements of the company representative and an employee, issued summons a

STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PRJNCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (POLICE XIX) DEPARTMENT AND OTHERSversusK. S. PALANICHAMY AND ORS.

2017 INSC 12919 May 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State, on receipt of complaints from depositors that Global Capital Trading Services had defaulted on returns and allegedly defrauded investors, issued a Government Order on 24‑12‑2012 attaching the immovable properties of the partners under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Fina

SUBRATA CHATTORAJversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 3929 May 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined petitions seeking to shift investigation of the multi‑state chit‑fund (Ponzi) scam, which defrauded lakhs of depositors of roughly Rs 10,000 crore, from the State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The scam involved companies operating across West Bengal, Tripura, Assam and

CHANDRA PRAKASHversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2014 INSC 3859 May 2014Dismissed

On 26 January 1996 a bomb exploded at the SMS Stadium in Jaipur, leading to the arrest of six accused, including Chandra Prakash, Abdul Mateen and others. The prosecution relied on the testimony of an approver (PW‑1) who implicated the accused, on material recovered from the accused’s premises (ammonium nitrate, dynami

SWAPNIL AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2014 INSC 3939 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The husband, Swapnil, filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights, but his wife left the matrimonial home in April 2011 and later lodged two police complaints alleging dowry demands and threats to kill. A First Class Judicial Magistrate framed charges under IPC sections 498A and 506 Part II and under Sectio

DHAN RAJ @ DHANDversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2014 INSC 3869 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the convictions of Ohan Raj and Badal for murder and robbery, which were based primarily on circumstantial evidence, the extra‑judicial confession of a co‑accused, and the recovery of a briefcase and wrist‑watch. The Court held that the co‑accused’s confessions were inconsistent—naming differ

MOSIRUDDIN MUNSHIversusMD. SIRAJ AND ANOTHER

2014 INSC 3879 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, Mosiruddin Munshi, paid Rs.5,00,001 to the accused for a plot of land but the seller failed to deliver title documents, prompting a criminal complaint under IPC sections 420 and 1208. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate treated the complaint as an FIR and ordered investigation under CrPC secti

NIMMAGADDA PRASADversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2013 INSC 3299 May 2013Dismissed

The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a case against MP Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and 73 others, including Nimmagadda Prasad, under IPC sections 420, 409, 477‑A and the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged land allocation, illegal gratification, hawala transactions and other economic offences. After the charge‑she

Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDYversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2013 INSC 3319 May 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered the bail application of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, accused in a massive economic offence case involving alleged corruption, land allotments, and money laundering under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI had filed multiple charge sheets and reported that investigations into s

KUMARversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2013 INSC 3289 May 2013Dismissed

The appellant, Kumar, was convicted for raping his sister‑in‑law and then murdering her and her 13‑month‑old daughter by setting them on fire. The prosecution’s case rested on an extra‑judicial confession made by the accused to a neighbour (PW‑2), corroborated by the neighbour’s testimony, statements of other witnesses

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusV. VIJAY SAI REDDY

2013 INSC 3339 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed an appeal seeking cancellation of bail granted to V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A‑2) in a case involving alleged conspiracy, fraud and corruption under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Court had granted bail, and the High Court affirmed it, but the Supreme

BHAGWAN DASSversusSTATE(NCT) OF DELHI

2011 INSC 3689 May 2011Dismissed

Bhagwan Dass was convicted for the murder of his daughter, who had left her husband and was living in an incestuous relationship with his cousin. The prosecution proved the case on circumstantial evidence, establishing motive, opportunity, the victim's post‑mortem findings of strangulation, the appellant’s failure to r

ROMA AHUJAversusTHE STATE AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 3369 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Roma Ahuja filed an FIR (No. 121 of 2011) alleging offences of voluntarily causing hurt and assault under Sections 323 and 341 IPC, read with Section 34. The High Court of Delhi quashed the FIR on the ground that the charge‑sheet was filed after the one‑year limitation period prescribed under Section 468

SHUVENDU SAHAversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

2026 INSC 3679 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Shuvendu Saha, was involved in a tenancy dispute with the respondent‑2 complainant, which was settled in a civil suit that was subsequently dismissed. Despite the settlement, the complainant filed a criminal complaint leading to an FIR for offences under Sections 409, 417, 418, 419, 420 and 506(2) IPC an

SAMPAT BABSO KALE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2019 INSC 4819 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The accused husband and his sister were charged with murder and dowry death after the victim, Sharada, died from 98% burn injuries. The prosecution relied on two dying declarations in which the victim identified her husband and sister as the perpetrators. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the possibil

PEER SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 4829 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the murder of Babusingh in September 1992, for which fifteen persons were tried. The trial court convicted seven, including Gajrajsingh, Bhagwansingh and Peer Singh, based on a "Dehati Nalishi" and statements of witnesses PW‑1 and PW‑5. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the three appellan

RUPALI DEVIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2019 INSC 4869 April 2019Disposed off

Rupali Devi left her matrimonial home after enduring cruelty by her husband and his relatives and sought refuge at her parental home. She filed a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code alleging cruelty. The central issue was whether the courts at the location of the parental home have jurisdiction to ent

ANURAG SONIversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2019 INSC 5039 April 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Anurag Soni, had a romantic relationship with the prosecutrix and promised to marry her, while already being engaged to another woman. He lured the prosecutrix to his residence, engaged in sexual intercourse after she initially resisted, and later reneged on the marriage promise, marrying the other woman

MUNSHIRAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. ETC.

2018 INSC 3159 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The father of a deceased man filed an FIR under Section 306 IPC alleging that his son’s wife and her family had harassed the son, leading to his suicide. The High Court quashed the FIR, holding that the alleged abetment was not made out. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that the qua

RAVINDER KAURversusANIL KUMAR

2015 INSC 3019 April 2015Disposed off

The appellant and respondent were married in 1991. The respondent obtained an ex‑parte decree of divorce in January 1994, which was later set aside in February 1996, thereby restoring the marriage. The appellant filed a criminal complaint under IPC s.376, which was dismissed without trial, and subsequently filed anothe

MURALIDHAR @ GIDDA & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2014 INSC 2619 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were charged with murder and related offences based primarily on a dying declaration (Ex.P‑22) recorded by a police constable who wrote the victim's words as dictated by a police inspector, with later overwriting and insertion of names in different ink. The trial court found the declaration unreliable, n

SUNIL KUNDU AND ANR.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2013 INSC 2299 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Sunil Kundu and others were convicted of murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34 based mainly on three eye‑witnesses who were relatives of the deceased. The Supreme Court found serious inconsistencies between the eye‑witness accounts and the post‑mortem report, which showed no firearm injuries despite the

HIRABHAI JHAVERBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & OHS.

2010 INSC 2039 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC for an offence committed on 23 July 1986 and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The Gujarat High Court upheld the conviction and rejected the appellant's application to compound the offence. After the conviction, the victims filed an affidavit expressing their willi

DR. SUSHIL KUMAR PURBEY & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2026 INSC 2129 March 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, married to Dr. Rishi Raj, filed an FIR in March 2022 alleging torture, dowry demands and an attempt to strangle her, implicating her husband, his parents (the appellants) and his sister‑in‑law. The parents‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC; the

STATE OF M.P.versusRAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANR.

2022 INSC 2859 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted four accused for the murder of Munshilal, alleging they acted with a common intention to kill. The trial court convicted all under IPC s.302 read with s.34, but the High Court acquitted two accused (Ramjilal Sharma and Brijesh Sharma) on the ground that ocular evidence of them wie

SWAATI NIRKHI & ORS.versusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

2021 INSC 1719 March 2021Dismissed

The petitioners sought transfer of a criminal case (FIR No. 39/2016) from the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Delhi to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Prayagraj under Section 406 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court had earlier allowed the transfer ex parte, but the complainant (respondent No.4) applied for recall, whi

COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY)versusUNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

2018 INSC 2239 March 2018Disposed off

The petitioner, Common Cause, a registered society, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a declaration that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and for directions to recognize 'living wills' or advance directives. The case was referred to a Constitution B

HUSSAIN AND ANR.versusUNION OF LNDIA

2017 INSC 2279 March 2017Disposed off

The appellants, who were in custody for several years—one under trial for an offence under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and another convicted under Section 302 of the IPC—challenged the denial of bail, invoking their fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Supreme Court examined whether bail must be

HARICHARAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS,

2011 INSC 1949 March 2011Dismissed

The case concerned the custodial death of Mathura, who was taken into police custody, subjected to electric shock torture, and died shortly after release. The trial court acquitted the police officers, but the High Court convicted them under IPC sections 304 Part II and 330, relying on medical evidence of scrotal burns

NILESH DINKAR PARADKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2011 INSC 1959 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar, was convicted under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) and the IPC based largely on voice identification of a recorded telephone conversation. The High Court upheld his conviction while acquitting the other accused, relying on the officer's identification of th

STATE OF M.P.versusSUGHAR SINGH & ORS.

2010 INSC 1329 March 2010Disposed off

Eight persons were tried by a Sessions Court in Madhya Pradesh for murder and related offences under the Indian Penal Code. The High Court set aside their convictions, and the State appealed, but only four of the accused were impleaded as respondents in the appeal. The Supreme Court, in a 2008 judgment, reversed the ac

DHARAMVEER AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 1349 March 2010Dismissed

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

SANGAPPA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2010 INSC 1369 March 2010Appeal(s) allowed

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

KHILAN & ANRversusSTATE OF M.P.

2010 INSC 1379 March 2010Dismissed

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

JAVED MASOOD AND ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2010 INSC 1389 March 2010Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

HANSRAJversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 1789 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Hansraj was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Ramlal, based solely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged a motive of wage dispute, that Hansraj left for his native place, returned with a punctured cycle, and was seen fleeing with a farsi, the alleged murder weapon. The Supreme Court examin

B.V. RAM KUMARversusSTATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 1949 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

OMKAR SINGHversusJAIPRAKASH NARAIN SINGH & ANR.

2022 INSC 1669 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case involves the murder of Parasnath Singh, who was shot by his son Udaibhan Singh (A‑1) after being urged to do so by his father Jaiprakash Narain Singh (A‑2). Three eye‑witnesses (PW‑1, PW‑2, PW‑4) testified that both accused were present at the pumping set, that A‑2 exhorted his son, and that A‑1 fired the weap

PAPPUversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2022 INSC 1649 February 2022Case Partly allowed

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

ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDYversusSUSHIL ANSAL AND ANOTHER

2017 INSC 1239 February 2017Disposed off

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

P. EKNATHversusY. AMARANATHA REDDY @ BABU & ANR.

2017 INSC 12629 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The case involves the double murder of a 12‑year‑old girl and her 50‑year‑old father, and attempted murders of two other family members, allegedly committed by Y. Amaranatha Reddy using a sickle. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, relying on eyewitness testim

YERRAM VIJAY KUMARversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

2026 INSC 429 January 2026Case Partly allowed

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

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusANURUDH & ANR

2026 INSC 479 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

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

MAMTA KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2025 INSC 499 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

GOVERDHAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 479 January 2025Case Partly allowed

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

SHILPA MITTALversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

2020 INSC 259 January 2020Disposed off

A juvenile aged between 16 and 18 was alleged to have committed homicide under IPC section 304, an offence with a maximum punishment of life imprisonment but no prescribed minimum sentence. The Juvenile Justice Board classified the offence as "heinous" and ordered the juvenile to be tried as an adult, a decision later

SHER SINGH @ PARTAPAversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 219 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

AHMED SHAH & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2015 INSC 169 January 2015Disposed off

The case arose from a land dispute in which the complainant party attempted to forcibly take possession of a field owned by Ahmed Shah. A sudden scuffle ensued, during which Ahmed Shah and Gurmukh Singh inflicted fatal injuries on Sabbir Shah, while other accused injured Rakhu Shah and Rakhia. The trial court convicted

A. SRIMANNARAYANAversusDASARI SANTAKUMARI & ANR.

2013 INSC 239 January 2013Dismissed

The wife of a deceased patient filed a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence against two doctors who had performed an operation. The doctors contended that, per the Supreme Court’s decision in Martin F. D'Souza, a complaint could not be entertained without an expert opinion, and they sought to stay the proceed

UDAI SHANKAR AWASTHIversusSTATE OF U.P. ANR.

2013 INSC 279 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

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

GOVIND MANDAVIversusSTATE OF CHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 13998 December 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

T.P. GOPALAKRISHNANversusSTATE OF KERALA

2022 INSC 12628 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

K.S. RANGANATHAversusVITTAL SHETTY

2021 INSC 8378 December 2021Dismissed

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

ASHARFIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2017 INSC 12058 December 2017Case Partly allowed

Asharfi was convicted by the trial court and the Allahabad High Court for rape (IPC s.376(2)(g)) and for an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the latter attracting a life sentence. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence of the prosecutrix, a witness and medical repor

IRAPPA SIDDAPPA MURGANNAVARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2021 INSC 7078 November 2021Disposed off

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

BIJENDER @ MANDARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2021 INSC 7068 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

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

AWADHESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2019 INSC 12298 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant's mother complained to the accused Ravinder about his nephew's misconduct, leading to a quarrel in which Ravinder, armed with a country‑made pistol, fired at her from close range, causing her death. The trial court convicted Ravinder under Section 302 IPC for murder, while the High Court reduced the con

NATHIYAversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BAGAYAM POLICE STATION, VELLORE

2016 INSC 10088 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The trial court convicted Nathiya and Suresh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of Gurunathan, relying on circumstantial evidence and alleged confessional statements. The High Court upheld the conviction, but on appeal the Supreme Court examined the evidence and found no eye‑witness, an in

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusPARMESHWAR RAMLAL JOSHI AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 12058 October 2025Disposed off

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

DASHWANTHversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2025 INSC 12038 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

PRASHANT SINGH RAJPUTversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

2021 INSC 6458 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

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

M/S GIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITEDversusMANOJ GOEL

2021 INSC 6378 October 2021Case Partly allowed

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

MANOJ MISHRA @ CHHOTKAUversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2021 INSC 6408 October 2021Case Partly allowed

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

MISS ‘AversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

2020 INSC 5808 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

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

ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 5818 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2013 INSC 6928 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

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

KUNWAR PALversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013 INSC 6938 October 2013Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Kunwar Pal, was convicted under Section 304(Part I) IPC for the death of Ramayan Prasad at a marriage ceremony where several double‑barrel guns were fired. The prosecution alleged that Pal, along with three others, fired negligently, causing a cartridge to strike the deceased. The trial and High Courts h

ATMARAMversusSTATE OF U.P.

2013 INSC 6978 October 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined appeals against bail orders granted by the Allahabad High Court to four accused in an assault case where a victim's son died. The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the principal accused, Kunwar Singh (Respondent No.2), had a long criminal record and was threatening witnesses, making the High

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

2013 INSC 6908 October 2013Disposed off

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

SUNIL DUTT SHARMAversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

2013 INSC 6918 October 2013Case Partly allowed

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

MANOJ MAHAVIR PRASAD KHAITANversusRAM GOPAL PODDAR AND ANR.

2010 INSC 6908 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2010 INSC 6938 October 2010Case Partly allowed

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

ASOKE BASAKversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6958 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

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

THE STATE OF HARYANAversusANAND KINDO & ANR. ETC.

2022 INSC 9398 September 2022Case Partly allowed

The State of Haryana appealed the conviction of Anand Kindo and others for the pre‑planned murder of an elderly couple, Major General K.C. Dhingra and his wife, whom they were employed to look after. The accused brutally beat the sleeping victims with a hammer and a tava, disfiguring their faces, and later attempted to

P. DHARAMARAJversusSHANMUGAM & ORS.

2022 INSC 9408 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

BALJINDER PAL KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 10168 September 2015Dismissed

Baljinder Pal Kaur, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Punjab Police, was dismissed after a departmental enquiry found her guilty of taking a bribe to illegally send persons to the USA. A criminal trial under IPC sections 406, 420, 1208 and the Prevention of Corruption Act resulted in her acquittal by a Special Court, with

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

2014 INSC 6118 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2010 INSC 5828 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

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

MANJAPPA & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2010 INSC 5838 September 2010Dismissed

The appellants were charged with kidnapping a 13‑year‑old girl, taking her to Bombay, and selling her for prostitution, violating IPC sections 366A, 372, 373 read with section 34. The trial court convicted two of the accused and acquitted the third; the State appealed, leading the Karnataka High Court to set aside the

ALLARAKHA HABIB MEMON ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 5908 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2023 INSC 6838 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2023 INSC 6878 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

KRISHAN KUMAR AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2023 INSC 6798 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under Sections 201, 300 and 302 IPC read with Section 34 for the murder of Devinder based largely on circumstantial evidence, including a disputed 'last seen' theory, an alleged extra‑judicial confession, a claimed motive, and the recovery of a chunni as the murder weapon. The Supreme Cour

A. SREENIVASA REDDYversusRAKESH SHARMA AND ANR.

2023 INSC 6828 August 2023Dismissed

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

MALLIKARJUN AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2019 INSC 8808 August 2019Disposed off

The case involved the murder of Bhimraya, alleged to have been committed by accused Mallikarjun, Ravi, Balappa and an absconding co‑accused. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the victim's mother (PW‑5) and his brother (PW‑7) as eye‑witnesses, medical evidence of the injuries, and the recovery of a dagger (MO‑1

MAHENDRA SUBHASHBHAI VANKHEDEversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT ETC.

2017 INSC 7168 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2017 INSC 7138 August 2017Disposed off

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

KAMLESH VERMAversusMAYAWATI AND ORS.

2013 INSC 5268 August 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court reviewed a petition filed by Kamlesh Verma seeking a review of its July 6, 2012 order that quashed FIR No. RC 0062003A0019 against Mayawati, finding that the order was correctly based on the earlier judgment that the 18 September 2003 direction did not authorize a separate FIR on disproportionate asse

MRITUNJOY BISWASversusPRANAB @ KUTI BISWAS AND ANOTHER

2013 INSC 5258 August 2013Appeal(s) allowed

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

BHASKAR MISHRAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2011 INSC 5508 August 2011Dismissed

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

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

2024 INSC 4728 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

NARESH KUMARversusSTATE OF DELHI

2024 INSC 4648 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

DHARMENDRA KUMAR @ DHAMMAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2024 INSC 4808 July 2024Dismissed

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

LAL MOHAMMAD MANJUR ANSARIversusTHE STATE OF GUJRAT

2024 INSC 4758 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

VISHWANATHAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT

2024 INSC 4828 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Vishwanatha was convicted by the Karnataka High Court for murder and robbery based on the testimony of two eyewitnesses, PW‑1 and PW‑2, who claimed to have seen him and a co‑accused strangling the victim. The trial court had acquitted them, citing contradictions between the eyewitness accounts and the pos

SHIV PRATAP SINGH RANAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2024 INSC 4818 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

P. SASIKUMARversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2024 INSC 4748 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusRAJENDRA & ORS.

2014 INSC 4778 July 2014Case Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra appealed the acquittal of six accused under Sections 498‑A, 304‑B and 306 of the IPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had established the essential ingredients of a dowry death and the presumption under Section 113‑B of the Evidence Act. It held that the prosecution proved, b

KHIM SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014 INSC 4788 July 2014Dismissed

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

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

2010 INSC 3758 July 2010Dismissed

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

SANATAN NASKAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010 INSC 3768 July 2010Dismissed

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

UDAY CHAKRABORTY & ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010 INSC 3778 July 2010Dismissed

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

ASHOK KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 3798 July 2010Case Partly allowed

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

VIJETA GAJRAversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2010 INSC 3808 July 2010Disposed off

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

DHARNIDHARversusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 3828 July 2010Dismissed

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

PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2010 INSC 3838 July 2010Dismissed

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

RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC.versusU.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

2010 INSC 3848 July 2010Dismissed

The appellants Rakesh Kumar Goel and others purchased two government plots in Ghaziabad through an auction purportedly held under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. The High Court set aside the auction on the ground that the appellants failed to deposit the required 25% of the bid immed

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.versusRANJAN KUMAR & ORS.

2026 INSC 4668 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant State of Jharkhand sought to uphold the dismissal of Constable Ranjan Kumar, who was found to have obtained dual appointments in Jharkhand and Bihar police forces using forged documents and assumed a false identity. The respondent contested the dismissal, alleging lack of evidence, procedural irregulariti

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

2025 INSC 6538 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

WARISversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2025 INSC 7128 May 2025

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

RENUKA PRASADversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

2025 INSC 6578 May 2025

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

SELVAMANIversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2024 INSC 3938 May 2024Dismissed

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

PRIYANKA MISHRA & ORSversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2023 INSC 7298 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2018 INSC 4578 May 2018Case Partly allowed

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

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

2017 INSC 4528 May 2017Appeal(s) allowed

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

PURUSHOTIAM DASHRATH BORATE &ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2015 INSC 3928 May 2015Dismissed

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

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

2015 INSC 3958 May 2015Dismissed

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

PALWINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2013 INSC 3238 May 2013Dismissed

The appellant Palwinder Singh and three others were charged with murder and robbery of Dr. Jasbir Singh. The prosecution’s case rested on two eye‑witnesses (PW‑3 and PW‑4), a post‑mortem report establishing homicidal injuries, confessional statements of the accused and the recovery of weapons and stolen articles. The t

MANOJ GIRIversusSTATE OF CHHATISGARH

2013 INSC 3258 May 2013Dismissed

The appellant Manoj Giri was convicted of dacoity with murder and gang rape after a night-time assault on a married woman (PW1), her husband and father‑in‑law, during which the father‑in‑law died. The trial court acquitted the four co‑accused due to insufficient identification evidence, but upheld Giri's conviction bas

NATASHA SINGHversusCBI (STATE)

2013 INSC 3268 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

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

ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2012 INSC 2088 May 2012Dismissed

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

SAHADEVAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2012 INSC 2098 May 2012Appeal(s) allowed

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

JITENDER KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2012 INSC 2108 May 2012Dismissed

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

KATHI BHARAT VAJSUR & ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2012 INSC 2158 May 2012Dismissed

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

NAGESHversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2012 INSC 2168 May 2012Dismissed

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

HEM RAJversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2026 INSC 3328 April 2026Disposed off

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

SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICEversusADITYA SARDA

2025 INSC 4778 April 2025Disposed off

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

VIPIN SAHNI AND ANOTHERversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2024 INSC 2848 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

YASH TUTEJA & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 3018 April 2024

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

KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALAversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 2858 April 2024Dismissed

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

RAJ REDDY KALLEMversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2024 INSC 3478 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusBANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 4108 April 2022Case Partly allowed

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

THE SECRETARY, LUCY SEQUEIRA TRUST AND ANR.versusKAILASH RAMESH TANDEL AND ORS.

2019 INSC 4778 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a trust managing a private school, terminated the services of Assistant Teacher Respondent No.1 after an inquiry found him guilty of sexual harassment of adolescent girl students, based on two FIRs, charge‑sheets and witness testimony. The Inquiry Committee, comprising a Convenor, a nominee of the appell

RAJANversusJOSEPH & ORS.

2015 INSC 2918 April 2015Disposed off

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

JODHANversusSTATE OF M.P.

2015 INSC 9878 April 2015Dismissed

On 7 January 1984 a group of accused, including Jodhan, entered the house of the deceased and attacked the victims with lathis, farsa and handmade bombs, causing the death of the deceased. The trial court acquitted all accused, holding that the incident was a "free fight" and finding the prosecution evidence unreliable

MAJOR SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2015 INSC 9868 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Karamjit Kaur died of phosphorus poisoning within two and a half years of her marriage, and the prosecution alleged that her husband and in‑laws harassed her over a dowry demand for a scooter. The trial court convicted the husband, father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law under Section 304B (referred to as 3048) IP

LAL BAHADUR & ORS.versusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2013 INSC 2258 April 2013Dismissed

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

NARMADA BAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS

2011 INSC 2858 April 2011Case Allowed

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

DESH DEEPAK KUMAR VIHANGAM@ DEEPAK KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2022 INSC 2788 March 2022Dismissed

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

GIRRAJversusKIRANPAL AND ANR ETC

2021 INSC 1618 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2021 INSC 1608 March 2021Leave Granted & Allowed

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

NAGABHUSHANversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2021 INSC 1598 March 2021Dismissed

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

PAWAN @ RAJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2017 INSC 2168 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

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

STATE OF U.P.versusNARESH AND ORS.

2011 INSC 1898 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

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

NAWABUDDINversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2022 INSC 1628 February 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Nawabuddin, a neighbour, abducted a four‑year‑old girl, removed both their clothes, fondled her private parts and inserted his finger into her vagina; he was caught red‑handed and the victim later reported pain, irritation and swelling, corroborated by a medical examination. He was convicted by the trial

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

2022 INSC 1638 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

TARUN TYAGIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2017 INSC 12618 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

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

ATMARAM S/O RAYSINGH RATHODversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2013 INSC 878 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Atmaram, was convicted under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC for the alleged suicide of his second wife, Purnabai, based on the presumption of abetment under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. The trial court and High Court held that the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty, relying on a writt

GOPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013 INSC 858 February 2013Disposed off

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

BACHNI DEVI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT

2011 INSC 1088 February 2011Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Bachni Devi and her son, convicted under Section 304B of the IPC for the dowry death of the son’s wife, Kanta, who died by hanging within three months of marriage. The prosecution proved that Kanta’s death was unnatural, occurred within seven years of marriage, and that she was s

MULLA & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 898 February 2010Disposed off

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

C.S. PRASADversusC. SATYAKUMAR AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 398 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

SADASHIV DHONDIRAM PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 938 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

BILKIS YAKUB RASOOLversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2024 INSC 248 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

DEVI LALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2019 INSC 298 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

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

CHANDER BHAN SINGHversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 388 January 2019Disposed off

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

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusRAJ KUMAR

2018 INSC 98 January 2018Appeal(s) allowed

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

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.versusPRADEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER

2018 INSC 108 January 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Union Territory of Chandigarh Administration sought to appoint candidates as constables, but two respondents were denied employment after a Screening Committee found them unsuitable despite their acquittal in criminal cases under IPC sections 323 and 506. The respondents challenged the cancellation, arguing that an

VINOD KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 158 January 2015Dismissed

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

DARGA RAM @ GUNGAversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2015 INSC 148 January 2015Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Darga Ram @ Gunga, was convicted by the trial court and the Rajasthan High Court for the rape and murder of a seven‑year‑old girl, Kamala, based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the crime scene, blood‑group matches, and injuries on his body. The Supreme Court examined whether the circumstantial

VENKATESHAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2013 INSC 198 January 2013Dismissed

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

RISHIPALversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013 INSC 218 January 2013Dismissed

Rishipal was convicted by the trial court of murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and several offences under Sections 171, 201, 364, 420 IPC based largely on circumstantial evidence, with the victim's body never recovered. The High Court acquitted him of the murder charge while upholding the other convictions and altered the 364 conv

THE STATE OF RAJASTHANversusGURBACHAN SINGH & OTHERS

2022 INSC 12607 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

PARVEEN @ SONUversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2021 INSC 8357 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

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

AMISH DEVGANversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 6827 December 2020Disposed off

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

PRABHU DUTT TIWARIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2017 INSC 12007 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

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

MAYA DEVI & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 8927 December 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the appeal of Maya Devi and others convicted under Sections 3048 and 498A of the IPC for the death of their daughter-in‑law, Kavita. The Court reiterated that to establish a dowry death, the prosecution must prove (i) death within seven years of marriage, (ii) death caused by burns, bodily in

STATE OF PUNJABversusDAVINDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR & ORS. ETC

2011 INSC 8397 December 2011Appeal(s) allowed

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

SAROJ & ORS.versusHET LAL & ORS.

2010 INSC 8557 December 2010Remitted to Lower Court

The legal representatives of the deceased Joginder Singh filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the driver, the vehicle owner and the insurer, alleging that a Tata 207 vehicle owned by the respondent and driven rashly caused Singh's death. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed

RAVI PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 12917 November 2025

The petitioners, original allottees of a group housing project in Greater Noida, challenged the Allahabad High Court's dismissal of their writ petition seeking restoration of a cancelled lease, identification of genuine allottees, and completion of construction. The Supreme Court observed that the dispute involved comp

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

2024 INSC 8467 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

HARIPRASAD @ KISHAN SAHUversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2023 INSC 9867 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

P. PONNUSAMYversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2022 INSC 11777 November 2022Dismissed

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

STATE OF JHARKHANDversusSHIV SHANKAR SHARMA AND ORS.

2022 INSC 11847 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Jharkhand challenged two writ petitions filed by Shiv Shankar Sharma as public‑interest litigations (PILs) that sought a mandamus directing investigative agencies to probe alleged money‑laundering through shell companies and to prosecute the Chief Minister for a mining lease. The Supreme Court examined whe

RAHULversusSTATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR.

2022 INSC 11767 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

KALU ALIAS LAXMINARAYANversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 12187 November 2019Dismissed

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

STATE OF UTTARAKHANDversusDARSHAN SINGH

2019 INSC 12217 November 2019Dismissed

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

ZORAWAR SINGH AND ANR.versusGURBAX SINGH BAINS AND ORS.

2016 INSC 12077 November 2016Proceedings closed/dropped

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

S. RAJASEEKARANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2025 INSC 11897 October 2025Directions issued

Dr. S. Rajaseekaran filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking comprehensive road‑safety measures, especially for pedestrians, helmet use, lane discipline and vehicle lighting. The Court examined the statutory framework under the Motor Vehicles Act, Road Regulations and related rules, and considered extensive data

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

ZAINULversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2025 INSC 11927 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRAversusPERRY KANSAGRA

2021 INSC 6327 October 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a dispute over the custody of a minor child, Aditya, between his mother Smriti and father Perry, who had obtained custody in India based on a judgment dated 28 Oct 2020 and a subsequent order on 8 Dec 2020. The Court found that Perry had concealed material facts, failed to disclose the dismis

SATYA DEO @ BHOOREYversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2020 INSC 5777 October 2020Directions issued

The appellant Satya Deo was convicted of murder under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence (aged 16 years 7 months) and sought relief under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Supreme Court examined the applicabi

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusGIRDHARI LAL

2013 INSC 6807 October 2013Dismissed

The daughter of the complainant was married to Girdhari Lal and died of severe burn injuries within seven years of marriage. The prosecution alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in‑laws in connection with dowry demands, leading to her death. The trial court convicted the husband u

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