Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Indian Penal Code, 1860

3,190 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 2,401–2,600.

GULAM SARBARversusSTATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

2013 INSC 6777 October 2013Dismissed

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

LAXMAN RAM MANEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2010 INSC 6807 October 2010Dismissed

Vasudha, married to Laxman Ram Mane, drowned in a river about one and a half years after her marriage. The prosecution alleged that the husband, aided by his sisters, harassed her and maintained an illicit relationship with a woman named Pragati, leading to her suicide. The trial court convicted the husband under Secti

CHAITU GOWALA AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM

2022 INSC 9377 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Chaitu Gowala and Ajay Ahari, were union office bearers accused along with 70 others of murdering the managing director of their company. The trial court, based on identification by three eye‑witnesses, convicted them under Sections 302, 392, 148, 323 and 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to life impris

SHIV KUMARversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 9337 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Shiv Kumar was convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly receiving stolen household articles looted from a truck, based on police seizure and the testimony of co‑accused. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution proved the essential element of knowledge that t

SHAKUNTALA SHUKLAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 4587 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

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

MAQBOOLversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2018 INSC 7997 September 2018Leave Granted & Dismissed

Maqbool was charged with an acid attack in which the victim sustained injuries that a medical report described as simple. He applied for discharge under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, arguing that the provision applies only to grievous hurt. The trial court and the Allahabad High Court rejected his application,

STATE OF U P THR. ITS SECRETARY & ORSversusMERAJ AHMAD

2017 INSC 8697 September 2017Disposed off

Meraj Ahmad was appointed temporarily as a Livestock Development Assistant in 1983 and was terminated in April 1984 after an FIR under Section 302 IPC was lodged against him. He was acquitted of the murder charge in October 1985 and, in February 1989, voluntarily sought a fresh appointment, expressly undertaking to for

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusAVINASH

2017 INSC 8717 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed

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

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2012 INSC 3857 September 2012Dismissed

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

SHYAM BABUversusSTATE OF U.P.

2012 INSC 3827 September 2012Dismissed

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

KUSHAL KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR.versusMALA GUPTA

2011 INSC 6597 September 2011Dismissed

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

MAIN PALversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 5777 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

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

SRI DATTATRAYAversusSHARANAPPA

2024 INSC 5867 August 2024Dismissed

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

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

2024 INSC 10557 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

KAMALversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2023 INSC 6787 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

DINGANGLUNG GANGMEIversusMUTUM CHURAMANI MEETEI & ORS

2023 INSC 6987 August 2023Directions issued

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

BHAGWANversusSTATE OF MAHARASAHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY HOME, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

2019 INSC 8717 August 2019Dismissed

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

MAHESH KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2019 INSC 8727 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Mahesh Kumar was convicted under Section 304-B IPC for the death of his wife, Omwati, alleged to be a dowry death. The prosecution's case relied mainly on statements of the deceased's father and brother, and on several letters written by the deceased, asserting continuous harassment and dowry demands. The Supreme Court

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

2019 INSC 8747 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

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

RAM NARAINversusSTATE OF U.P.

2015 INSC 5547 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

RAMAIAH @ RAMAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2014 INSC 5367 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

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

SHAILESHBHAI @ PAPPU BALUBHAI CHUNARA & ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJRAT

2014 INSC 5307 August 2014Dismissed

The appellants were convicted of murder, attempt to murder and criminal conspiracy under IPC sections 302, 34, 323 and 114 based solely on the dying declaration of the victim, Champaben, who identified the accused as having set her ablaze with kerosene. The defence argued that three separate dying declarations were inc

NASIRUDDINversusSTATE (NCT) DELHI AND ORS.

2013 INSC 5227 August 2013Appeal(s) allowed

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

RAI SANDEEP @ DEEPUversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2012 INSC 3227 August 2012Appeal(s) allowed

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

PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANRversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR

2023 INSC 6127 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

2017 INSC 5947 July 2017Dismissed

The petitioners Vikram Singh, Jasvir Singh and a third accused were convicted under Sections 302, 364A, 201 and 120B of the IPC and sentenced to death, with the death sentence of the female co‑accused later commuted to life imprisonment. They filed review petitions challenging the Supreme Court’s 2010 judgment on groun

SOBARAN SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF M.P.

2014 INSC 4767 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed

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

DINESH TIWARIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2014 INSC 4717 July 2014Dismissed

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

PREM PRAKASH @ LILLU & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2011 INSC 4777 July 2011Dismissed

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

OM PRAKASHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2011 INSC 4737 July 2011Disposed off

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

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

2011 INSC 4747 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

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

NAND KISHOREversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2011 INSC 4767 July 2011Dismissed

The appellant Nand Kishore was convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 for the murder of Mahavir, who was killed during a quarrel over money. The prosecution proved that Mahesh Dhimar held the victim's arms, Dinesh Dhimar stabbed him with a knife, and Nand Kishore pelted stones at the victim even after he

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusGORAKSHA AMBAJI ADSUL

2011 INSC 4787 July 2011Dismissed

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

NUPUR TALWARversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

2012 INSC 2547 June 2012Dismissed

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

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

MALLAPPAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2021 INSC 2907 May 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Mallappa was charged with murdering his brother Earappa by assault with a club. The trial court acquitted Mallappa and his son, but the Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted Mallappa under Section 302 IPC. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the reliability of the key eyewitness, PW‑5, finding con

JAYAMMA & ANRversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2021 INSC 2877 May 2021Appeal(s) allowed

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

ACHHAR SINGHversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2021 INSC 2897 May 2021Dismissed

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

SANJAY KUMAR RAIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2021 INSC 2927 May 2021Directions issued

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

ASHOKSINH JAYENDRASINHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2019 INSC 6347 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh, was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34, and Section 25(c) of the Arms Act for allegedly firing shots that killed Somiben and injured two others during a dispute over a road. The incident occurred at 9:00 PM in a dark agricultural field, and the prosecuti

SASIKALA PUSHPA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2019 INSC 6367 May 2019Disposed off

The appellants, including a former Rajya Sabha MP, filed anticipatory bail applications in a sexual harassment case and submitted a vakalatnama that purportedly bore their signatures dated 17 August 2016 in Madurai, although they were abroad at that time. The Madurai High Court held the vakalatnama to be forged, deemed

KHAIRUDDIN & ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013 INSC 3227 May 2013Case Partly allowed

The case involved a violent land dispute in which twenty‑four accused, including the appellants, attacked a group working on disputed land, resulting in two deaths and several injuries. The trial court convicted twenty‑one accused under Sections 302, 149, 148 and 323 of the IPC, a decision affirmed by the High Court. O

SHIVASHARANAPPA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2013 INSC 3197 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The accused were tried for murder, conspiracy and related offences arising from a property dispute. The trial court acquitted them, finding the conduct of two key witnesses – the deceased's mother‑in‑law and the deceased’s eleven‑year‑old daughter – to be unnaturally silent and therefore unreliable. The High Court reve

NEEL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMARversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2012 INSC 2047 May 2012Disposed off

The appellant, Neel Kumar (also known as Anil Kumar), was convicted of raping and murdering his four‑year‑old daughter. The trial court and High Court relied on the victim’s custody, the appellant’s silence, blood‑stained clothing recovered from his disclosure statement, and the absence of any explanation for these inc

UTPAL DAS & ANR.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010 INSC 2947 May 2010Dismissed

The victim, a married woman with two children, was intercepted while traveling by rickshaw, taken to a house under construction and forcibly raped by the two appellants, Utpal Das and Haradhan Sutradar. She was later rescued, identified the accused, and lodged an FIR. The trial court acquitted the appellants, but the C

EKNATH GANPAT AHER AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 2987 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a land dispute over Gat No. 170 in Maharashtra, where a mob of 75‑100 persons clashed with the complainant party, resulting in two deaths and injuries to members of both sides. The trial court convicted 35 accused under various IPC provisions including murder (s.302) committed by an unlawful assembl

GAUTAM SATNAMIversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2026 INSC 3257 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Gautam Satnami, was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC based largely on a 'last‑seen' testimony, recovery of a blood‑stained axe and his driving licence, and alleged motive. The High Court affirmed the conviction, but the Supreme Court examined whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusNISAR RAMZAN SAYYED

2017 INSC 3217 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra prosecuted Nisar Ramzan Sayyed for the murder of his pregnant wife and their three‑year‑old son, alleging that he poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire after demanding Rs.50,000 as dowry. The trial court convicted him under Sections 302 and 498‑A of the IPC and sentenced him to death,

GOPAKUMAR B. NAIRversusC.B.I. & ANR.

2014 INSC 2557 April 2014Dismissed

The appellant, GOPAKUMAR B. Nair, sought to have criminal proceedings quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC, arguing that a private settlement with the bank had extinguished the dispute. The High Court of Kerala declined to quash the case, where the appellant was charged with criminal conspiracy under the Prevention of

JAVED AHMAD HAJAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2024 INSC 1877 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a college professor, was charged under Section 153-A of the IPC for WhatsApp status messages protesting the abrogation of Article 370 and wishing Pakistan a happy Independence Day. He sought a writ petition to quash the FIR, which the Bombay High Court dismissed. The Supreme Court examined whether the me

DR SONIA VERMA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2024 INSC 2277 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, doctors running a hospital, purchased land and filed a civil suit to confirm their ownership, while the respondent filed an FIR alleging forgery and fraud. The High Court refused to quash the FIR, holding that the alleged offences were made out. The appellants contended that the dispute was essentially

YERUVA SAYIREDDYversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

2022 INSC 12977 March 2022Disposed off

The appellant, convicted of murder under IPC s.302, appealed his conviction and sentence. While the appeal was pending, he died in prison after about twelve years. Section 394 of the Cr.P.C. provides that an appeal abates on the death of the appellant unless a near relative applies within thirty days for continuance. N

M. NAGESWARA REDDYversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 2667 March 2022Disposed off

On 18 January 2007, eleven accused formed an unlawful assembly and attacked a vehicle, resulting in the death of Rajasekhar Reddy and injuries to several others. The trial court convicted accused Nos. 1‑3 under Sections 148 and 302 of the IPC and acquitted accused Nos. 4‑11. The High Court reversed the conviction of No

SUKUMARANversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2019 INSC 3277 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sukumar, a Forest Range Officer, chased a lorry he suspected of sandalwood smuggling. The lorry occupants attacked his jeep with stones and shouted “fire them”. Sukumar fired his DBL‑gun, killing the driver. He later loaded sandalwood and a gun from the lorry and claimed he acted in private defence. He w

HIMANSHU MOHAN RAJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

2017 INSC 2087 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The case involves the murder of Lalit Mohan Rai, who was shot by the accused Imran Afreen after an altercation at Hotel Shalimar. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC, but the High Court acquitted him, questioning the reliability of the eyewitnesses and the timing of the FIR. On appeal, the Supre

ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUGversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2011 INSC 1877 March 2011Dismissed

The petition sought permission to discontinue life‑supporting treatment for Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug, a 60‑year‑old woman in a persistent vegetative state for 37 years following a violent assault. The Court examined medical evidence, concluding that she was not brain‑dead and retained minimal brain‑stem activity, but

GURWINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER

2024 INSC 927 February 2024Dismissed

The appellant, Gurwinder Singh, was arrested along with co‑accused for alleged involvement in a terrorist module of the banned organization ‘Sikhs for Justice’, including raising funds, conspiracy and attempts to procure weapons. The investigation, taken over by the NIA, resulted in charges under the UAPA, IPC and Arms

RANA AYYUBversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

2023 INSC 1017 February 2023Dismissed

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner conducted three crowdfunding campaigns on the Ketto platform. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) opened investigations under FEMA and later filed a complaint under the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act (PMLA), attaching the petitioner’s bank account in Navi Mumbai. The Specia

SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICEversusRAHUL MODI & ORS.

2022 INSC 1587 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) appealed against the Delhi High Court's order granting statutory bail to Rahul Modi and others, who had been arrested in connection with alleged offences under the Companies Act and the Indian Penal Code. The charge‑sheet was filed within the 60‑day period prescribed by Sec

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusDINESH

2018 INSC 1097 February 2018Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra charged two accused with murder and destruction of evidence, alleging that the second accused cut the victim's corpse into pieces. The trial court convicted both, but the High Court acquitted them, prompting the State to file three criminal appeals. The Supreme Court dismissed two appeals for n

IQBAL & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2017 INSC 1157 February 2017Dismissed

The case involved six accused, including Iqbal and Virendra, who entered the complainant's house armed with rifles and fired upon the family, resulting in the death of Bhoop Singh and injuries to others. All were convicted under IPC Sections 148, 149, 302 and 307 for forming an unlawful assembly with the common object

LINGARAM KODOPIversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2014 INSC 837 February 2014Disposed off

Lingaram Kodopi and Soni Sori, a nephew‑aunt duo, were arrested in Chhattisgarh on allegations of acting as conduits for financing Naxalite activities, charged under IPC sections 121, 124(1), 120B, the Chhattisgarh Jansuraksha Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Their bail applications were rejected by th

GURVAIL SINGH @ GALA & ANOTHERversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2013 INSC 797 February 2013Case Partly allowed

The appellants Gurvail Singh and Jaj Singh were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of four members of a family during a property dispute. The trial court and the High Court sentenced them to death, holding the case to be "rarest of rare". On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whe

ABSAR ALAM @ AFSAR ALAMversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2012 INSC 807 February 2012Case Partly allowed

Absar Alam was convicted of murdering his mother by beheading her after accusing her of causing his wife to leave home. The trial court and the Patna High Court sentenced him to death under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, raising only the question of whether t

MD IMRAN @ D.C. GUDDUversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026 INSC 367 January 2026

The case arose from a murder investigation where the FIR named nine persons, but the police filed a charge sheet against only three, filing a closure report for the remaining six. Based on oral eyewitness testimony, the first informant applied under Section 319 CrPC to have the six dropped co-accused added as accused;

JASDEEP SINGH @ JASSUversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2022 INSC 237 January 2022Disposed off

The case involved the murder of a man at a dhaba in Jalandhar, where four accused (A1‑A4) were convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC. The father of the deceased (PW6) initially did not allege that A3 and A4 instigated the shooting, but later, in a supplementary statement under Section 161 CrPC, claimed they did. The t

RAJESH PRASADversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC.

2022 INSC 197 January 2022Case Partly allowed

The case concerned an appeal by Rajesh Prasad, the informant, against a High Court order that set aside the conviction and death sentences of three accused who had been found guilty under IPC s.302/34, 120B and the Explosive Substances Act s.3/4 for throwing bombs that killed his father and another victim. The High Cou

PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA & ANR.versusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)

2020 INSC 57 January 2020Dismissed

The victim Sher Singh was set on fire after being doused with kerosene by the accused Purshottam Chopra and Suresh (telwala). While in critical condition with 100% burns, he gave two statements – one to Dr. Sushma (recorded in an MLC) and another to SI Rajesh Kumar – which were treated as dying declarations. The trial

M.E. SHIVALINGAMURTHYversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BENGALURU

2020 INSC 67 January 2020Dismissed

The case involved a partnership firm (AMC) whose reconstitution in 2009 led the Director of Mines and Geology of Karnataka (the appellant) to issue Mineral Dispatch Permits (MDPs) to the new partners. The Central Bureau of Investigation alleged that the appellant acted without the prior State Government sanction requir

MAHADEVAPPAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2019 INSC 157 January 2019Dismissed

Mahadevappa, a police constable, was married to Rukmini Bai who died within 17 months of marriage from severe burn injuries. The prosecution alleged that Mahadevappa, an alcoholic, repeatedly demanded dowry money, ill‑treated his wife and, on 2 October 1995, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, constituting a do

MONUversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2019 INSC 247 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Monu appealed to the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court Single Judge dismissed his Section 482 application seeking quashal of a charge‑sheet filed under IPC sections 420, 498A, 323, 376, 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4. The High Court dismissed the petition with a terse order stating there was

SUDIP KR. SEN @ BILTUversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

2016 INSC 277 January 2016Dismissed

The appellants were convicted for the murder of Saikat Saha under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, based primarily on the testimony of a single eyewitness, PW‑6, who described how the accused acted in concert to kill the victim. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the sole witness's evide

STATE OF GUJARATversusKISHANBHAI ETC.

2014 INSC 147 January 2014Dismissed

The State of Gujarat charged Kishanbhai with kidnapping, rape, murder and theft of a six‑year‑old girl, Gomi, alleging that he abducted her, amputated her legs to steal her anklets and killed her. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to death, but the Gujarat High Court acquitted him, citing numerous gaps in

PARBIN ALI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2013 INSC 107 January 2013Dismissed

The appellants Parbin Ali and another were convicted under IPC sections 302 and 34 for the murder of Sakat Ali, based primarily on an oral dying declaration made by the deceased to his wife, father‑in‑law and relatives. The trial court and the Gauhati High Court upheld the conviction, finding the declaration credible d

RAJ PALversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2013 INSC 117 January 2013Dismissed

The appellant Raj Pal was convicted of murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34 for the killing of his rival's brother. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony of the deceased's brother and sister, medical reports indicating fatal injuries that could not be self‑inflicted, and the recovery of weapons. The appellant

HEMAversusSTATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MADRAS

2013 INSC 97 January 2013Disposed off

The appellant, a clerk in a travel agency, was convicted under sections 120B, 420, 511, 465 and 471 of the IPC for conspiring to obtain 42 passports using forged applications and documents. The prosecution alleged that the travel agency, run by a co‑accused, submitted ante‑dated applications with duplicate file numbers

DAYA NANDversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2011 INSC 207 January 2011Disposed off

The appellant Daya Nano was convicted under Sections 376 r.w. and 511 of the IPC for rape and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. He was 16 years, 5 months and 19 days old at the time of the offence, but the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 came into force after the incident. The

SAJJAN SHARMAversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2011 INSC 247 January 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sajjan Sharma, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Narain Kunwar in an alleged unlawful assembly that fired weapons. The FIR and the original Fard‑e‑beyan named five accused, including the appellant's father and brother, but did not name the appellant himself. He was later added in the

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

LAKHAN SINGHversusAMARJEET SINGH & ANR

2022 INSC 13276 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Lakhan Singh, convicted of murder under IPC s.302 and sentenced to life, appealed the conviction and also sought to adduce additional evidence to support an insanity defence under IPC s.84. The Delhi High Court, invoking CrPC ss.311 and 391, allowed the application and directed the trial court to record the extra evide

DARSHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2019 INSC 13276 December 2019Dismissed

The deceased, Surjit Kaur, was found dead in a jute bag with her face disfigured by acid; she had inherited land and was not receiving lease money from her son, providing a motive for the accused. The prosecution relied on extra‑judicial confessions recorded by a witness, medical evidence of a fractured hyoid bone and

LAJPAT & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2018 INSC 11636 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Lajpat and others were charged under Sections 420, 406 and 504 of the IPC. They filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the charge sheet. The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the application, relying solely on Supreme Court pronouncements about the scope of Se

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusPRADEEP SHARMA

2013 INSC 8106 December 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh charged Pradeep Sharma and co‑accused with murder and conspiracy (IPC ss.302, 120B, 34) for allegedly poisoning the deceased. Both accused were declared absconders and proclaimed offenders under CrPC s.82, and the High Court granted them anticipatory bail under s.438. The Supreme Court exami

SRI BHAGWANversusSTATE OF U.P.

2012 INSC 5686 December 2012Dismissed

The appellant, Sri Bhagwan, was convicted for murdering Yogender Nath Bhargava by pouring acid on him, an offence initially registered under Section 326 IPC and later altered to Section 302 IPC. The prosecution relied on the testimony of two eyewitnesses (PW‑1 and PW‑3) who claimed to have seen the assault, and on the

AKIL@ JAVEDversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2012 INSC 5676 December 2012Dismissed

The appellant Akil @ Javed was convicted for murder (IPC s.302) and robbery (IPC s.392) along with a co‑accused. The prosecution relied on the testimony of several eye‑witnesses, especially PW‑20 who identified the appellant, and on the recovery of a Rado watch and gold chain from the appellant that were identified by

MUSKANversusISHAAN KHAN (SATANIYA) AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 12876 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Muskan, married Ishaan Khan in 2020 and later alleged dowry harassment by her husband and his family, filing complaints in early 2023 and an FIR in January 2024 under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondents filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking quash

MIHIR RAJESH SHAHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 12886 November 2025Directions issued

The appellant, Mihir Rajesh Shah, was arrested for a fatal hit‑and‑run involving his BMW, but the police failed to provide him with a written copy of the grounds of arrest as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The High Court upheld the arrest de

STATE OF CHHATTISGARHversusAMIT AISHWARYA JOGI

2025 INSC 12856 November 2025Dismissed

The trial court acquitted Amit Aishwarya Jogi in a 2007 murder case involving the killing of a Congress leader, after a CBI‑investigated chargesheet superseded the original police investigation. The State of Chhattisgarh, the CBI and the victim’s son (de‑facto complainant) sought leave to appeal the acquittal, but the

DEVENDRA KUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2024 INSC 8416 November 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellants assaulted the deceased, Bahal, with lathis and an axe after threatening to kill him, during a land dispute that created prior enmity between the families. Bahal later died from head injuries, and the trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302 IPC and Section 307 read with Section 34, sentenci

SONU CHOUDARYversusSTATE OF NCT DELHI

2024 INSC 8646 November 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Sonu Choudary, was convicted under Sections 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting the owner of a restaurant with a blade after being denied water for alcohol. While the prosecution proved that the appellant voluntarily caused hurt, the question arose whether the restaurant qualified as a "h

ADITI ALIAS MITHIversusJITESH SHARMA

2023 INSC 9816 November 2023Disposed off

The minor daughter of Jitesh Sharma challenged the High Court's order that reduced the maintenance awarded by the Family Court from Rs 20,000 to Rs 7,500 per month. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had not required the parties to file the uniform affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities prescrib

MANJUNATH & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2023 INSC 9786 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the conviction of six appellants for offences under various sections of the IPC, based primarily on a dying declaration, ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence. The trial court had acquitted all accused, but the Karnataka High Court overturned the acquittals of five appellants, sentencing them

JAVED ABDUL RAJJAQ SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2019 INSC 12106 November 2019Dismissed

The appellant, Javed Abdul Rajjaq Shaikh, was accused of murdering his wife by throttling her after demanding half tola gold, money and a dress. The trial court convicted him and three co‑accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and also under Section 498A. The High Court acquitted the co‑accused and c

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusTRIBHUWAN & ORS.

2017 INSC 10786 November 2017Case Partly allowed

In 1980 a violent altercation in Azamgarh resulted in the death of Ram Lagan and injuries to Baij Nath. Six persons, including Tribhuwan, were tried; Tribhuwan was convicted under Section 325 IPC read with Section 149 and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment by the Sessions Court. The Allahabad High Court uphe

VIPUL SHITAL PRASAD AGARWALversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2012 INSC 5086 November 2012Dismissed

Dr. Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal, a Superintendent of Police, was arrested in connection with FIR No.115 of 2006 concerning a alleged fake encounter. The Supreme Court had directed the CBI to take over the investigation and the CBI registered a fresh FIR, but the original charge‑sheet filed under the first FIR was submi

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

BALVIR SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2023 INSC 8796 October 2023Dismissed

The appellant Balvir Singh was convicted of murder under s.302 IPC and dowry harassment under s.498A IPC, while his mother‑in‑law Maheshwari Devi was convicted of s.498A IPC read with s.34 IPC. The prosecution proved that the victim died from aluminium phosphide poisoning, a fumigant not explainable by her heart medica

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusMETHU MEDA

2021 INSC 6236 October 2021Leave Granted & Allowed

Methu Meda, who had been provisionally selected as a Constable in the CISF, was denied training after a screening committee found him ineligible because his acquittal in a kidnapping case was not "honourable" but based on benefit of doubt and hostile witnesses. The appellant Union of India challenged the High Court ord

BIRBAL CHOUDHARY@ MUKHIYA JEEversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2017 INSC 10126 October 2017Dismissed

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of eleven accused in a kidnapping‑for‑ransom case in Bihar, finding that the prosecution proved the elements of Section 364A IPC, including abduction, confinement and demand for ransom. The Court held that Section 368 IPC is a deemed offence under Section 364A, so the accused ch

RANDHIR @ RANDHIR PAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2016 INSC 9566 October 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The victim Laxman was shot and killed inside his shop on 26 November 2002, with six accused alleged to have entered the shop armed and assaulted him. Five other accused (A2, A4, A7, A8, A11) were alleged to have been standing outside the shop, preventing people from entering or moving along the street. The prosecution

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE THR. CBI

2010 INSC 6796 October 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Santosh Kumar Singh, was accused of raping and murdering Priyadarshini Mattoo. The trial court acquitted him, rejecting the DNA evidence and deeming the circumstantial evidence insufficient. The High Court reversed the acquittal, finding the chain of circumstantial facts – continuous harassment, presence

RATHINAM @ RATHINANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

2009 INSC 11666 October 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved the rape and murder of a mill worker, Chitra, for which Rathinam, the son of the mill owner, was charged under Sections 376, 302 and 201 of the IPC. The trial court acquitted all accused, but the High Court reversed this acquittal based largely on the later statements of two witnesses, PW‑4 and PW‑5,

BACCAROSE PERFUMES AND BEAUTY PRODUCTS PVT. LTDversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

2024 INSC 6626 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Baccarose Perfumes and Beauty Products Pvt. Ltd (the appellant) challenged the Special Judge's order taking cognizance of alleged offences relating to the payment of Countervailing Duty (CVD) on invoice value instead of Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The company claimed that it had been granted immunity from prosecution u

SOMPRABHA RANA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2024 INSC 6646 September 2024Case Partly allowed

The case concerned a two‑year‑seven‑month‑old girl whose mother died in an unnatural death. The child had been in the care of her maternal aunts and grandparents since she was 11 months old. The father, who had been arrested and later released on bail, filed a habeas‑corpus petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court

N. RAMKUMARversusTHE STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2023 INSC 8126 September 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellant, N. Ramkumar, assaulted his former lover Sangeetha by grabbing her hair and slamming her head against a wall, causing fatal head injuries. He was convicted by the Sessions Court and the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. Th

R. SREENIVASAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2023 INSC 8036 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a co-accused in a murder case, was acquitted by the trial court on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was last seen in his company. The High Court reversed this acquittal and convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, relying on a disputed 'last seen' th

SMT. ROOPA SONIversusKAMALNARAYAN SONI

2023 INSC 8146 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The marriage between Roopa Soni and Kamalnarayan Soni, solemnised in 2002, broke down after the birth of their child, leading to a separation that has lasted for over fifteen years. Both parties filed serious allegations against each other, including a complaint under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, and

NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

2018 INSC 7906 September 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court of India considered the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalized 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature' with any man, woman, or animal. The petitioners challenged the provision insofar as it criminalized consensual sexual acts between adults o

L. NARAYANA SWAMYversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2016 INSC 8566 September 2016Dismissed

The petitioners alleged that certain public officials abused their positions to facilitate a land transaction and sought quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court had dismissed the petition, holding that the order directing investigation under Section 156(3) C

UMESH KUMARversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR

2013 INSC 5906 September 2013Disposed off

The case arose from a complaint alleging that a senior police officer, V. Dinesh Reddy, had amassed disproportionate assets, which was later claimed to be forged and signed by a fictitious MP. An investigation led to a charge sheet against Umesh Kumar under IPC sections 468, 471, 120‑B and 201, and the appellant sought

ROHILKHAND MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL, BAREILLYversusMEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANOTHER

2013 INSC 5956 September 2013Dismissed

Rohilkhand Medical College, established in 2005, sought renewal of its MBBS intake for the 2008‑09 batch, but the Medical Council of India (MCI) repeatedly recommended non‑renewal due to deficiencies. Despite this, the Central Government granted permission after a central inspection team, which was later found by the C

AJAY KUMAR DASversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

2011 INSC 6556 September 2011Dismissed

The appellant, Ajay Kumar Das, was charged under IPC 304B (dowry death) read with s.34 for the death of his wife, who was allegedly pushed into a well by her parents‑in‑law after a telephone conversation with the appellant. The FIR implicated the parents‑in‑law and the appellant, and a charge‑sheet was filed. The appel

AASIF @ PASHAversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2025 INSC 9446 August 2025Disposed off

The appellant was convicted under several provisions of the IPC, the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Atrocities Act and sentenced to a maximum of four years’ rigorous imprisonment, to run concurrently. While his appeal against conviction was pending before the Allahabad High Court, he filed an application under Section 389 of

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

JAMNALALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 9356 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The father of a minor rape victim appealed against the Rajasthan High Court's order that suspended the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 389 of the CrPC and released him on bail. The accused had been convicted under Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act and Section 376(3) of the IPC, receiving a 20‑year r

BALWAN SINGHversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR.

2019 INSC 8626 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for murder and related offences based on the testimony of alleged eye‑witnesses PW‑9 and PW‑16 and on the recovery of blood‑stained sticks and a tabbal. The Supreme Court examined whether the eight‑day delay in recording the eye‑witness statements and the inability to establish that the st

ANAND RAMACHANDRA CHOUGULEversusSIDARAI LAXMAN CHOUGALA AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 8636 August 2019Dismissed

The case arose from a land dispute between related parties that escalated into a verbal duel and scuffle on 7 June 2002, resulting in the death of a person. The trial court convicted all four accused under Section 302 IPC with a common intention charge, but the Karnataka High Court altered the conviction of two accused

JAGDISH AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2019 INSC 8646 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Thirteen persons were alleged to have assaulted the deceased in a night-time mob attack, resulting in his death. The trial court convicted three accused, including the two appellants, under Sections 302, 149 and 148 of the IPC, while the High Court acquitted one and upheld the conviction of the two appellants. On appea

DEV KARAN @ LAMBUversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2019 INSC 8656 August 2019Dismissed

The case involved seven accused who entered the under‑construction house of the deceased, armed with deadly weapons, and assaulted him, resulting in his death and injuries to two witnesses. The trial court convicted six of the accused under Sections 148, 302, 307, 325 read with Section 149 and Section 449 of the Indian

HAKKIMversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

2014 INSC 5276 August 2014Disposed off

The accused A‑1 to A‑4 entered the residence of PW‑1 armed with knives and assaulted PW‑1, his family and a friend, resulting in the death of PW‑1’s wife Sayeeda. The trial court convicted them under Sections 302, 307, 149, 109, 324 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonmen

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSANTOSH SAVITA

2013 INSC 5196 August 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan prosecuted Santosh Savita under Section 302 IPC for allegedly burning his sister-in-law by pouring kerosene and igniting her saree. The deceased gave two dying declarations naming the accused, which were recorded by a police officer and a doctor without a magistrate’s presence. The High Court acq

BAKHSHISH SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2013 INSC 5186 August 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Bakhshish Singh, his nephew Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh for the murder of Gurcharan Singh, who was stabbed while taking a morning walk in a park. The prosecution proved that Satbir and Rachhpal, identified by the victim's wife Kulwinder Kaur, carried out the stabbing, whil

RAKESH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 3216 July 2021Dismissed

The appellants Rakesh and another were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Bhishampal Singh, based primarily on the eye‑witness testimony of PW1 and PW2 and medical evidence. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the ballistic report showed a mism

S. SUBBULAXMIversusKUMARASAMY & ORS.

2017 INSC 5926 July 2017Dismissed

The case arose from a land dispute between closely related parties in which Subramani was killed during a violent altercation on 15 September 1994. The trial court convicted Kumarasamy and two others under Sections 34, 302 and 506(11) of the Indian Penal Code, but the Madras High Court set aside the conviction and acqu

SIRAJUL & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF U.P. &ANR.

2015 INSC 4816 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Sirajul and others, were summoned in a criminal complaint under Section 307 IPC filed by respondent No.2, a co‑accused who had been convicted in a cross‑case relating to the same 1992 incident. The complaint was lodged in 2008, sixteen years after the alleged offence and more than a decade after the cro

STATE OF M.P.versusMANISH & ORS.

2015 INSC 4846 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed a High Court order that quashed an FIR for offences under IPC sections 307, 294, 34 and Arms Act sections 25, 27 on the ground that the victim and accused had settled the dispute out of court. The issue was whether the High Court could invoke its inherent power under Section 482 of

JALPAT RAI & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2011 INSC 4646 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a triple murder and injury incident in Jind, Haryana, where six accused were tried. The trial court convicted only A‑2 under IPC s.302 and the Arms Act, acquitting the other five appellants. The High Court reversed the acquittals, convicting the five under s.148 and s.302 r.w. s.149 IPC. On appeal,

SUBA SINGH & ANR.versusDAVINDER KAUR & ANR.

2011 INSC 4696 July 2011Dismissed

Suba Singh and his son Shingara Singh were convicted of murder and related offences for the killing of Surinder Singh. The widow of the deceased and her minor daughter filed a civil suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 seeking Rs. 3 lakh as compensation. The trial court awarded the amount with 12% interest, which w

SHIVJEE SINGHversusNAGENDRA TIWARY AND ORS.

2010 INSC 3556 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Shivjee Singh filed a protest petition that was converted into a complaint alleging that four persons killed his son. The Judicial Magistrate, after examining the appellant and only two of the four witnesses he named, took cognizance of offences under Sections 302, 1208 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act and iss

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusM/S. ASIAN GLOBAL LTD. & ORS.

2010 INSC 3566 July 2010Dismissed

The Central Bank of India sued Asian Global Ltd., its sister concern, and several directors for offences under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that a cheque issued as a corporate guarantee was dishonoured. The trial court held the bank to be a holder in due course and rejected the direc

SINGAPAGU ANJAIAHversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2010 INSC 3576 July 2010Dismissed

Eight persons, including the appellant Singapagu Anjaiah, were tried for rioting, attempt to commit murder, murder and causing hurt. The appellant allegedly struck the deceased, S. Ramalingam, on the head with a crow bar, causing multiple skull fractures and death, as corroborated by five eyewitnesses and an autopsy re

DHANYA MversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2025 INSC 8096 June 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant’s husband, Rajesh, who runs a lending firm, was declared a ‘notorious goonda’ and detained under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 based on a police recommendation citing several criminal cases. He was already on bail in those cases, and the detaining authority did n

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

CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIAversusM.R VIJAYABHASKAR & ORS.

2021 INSC 2866 May 2021Disposed off

The Chief Election Commissioner (EC) sought an order restraining the media from reporting oral remarks made by the Madras High Court, which alleged that the EC was "singularly responsible for the second wave of COVID‑19" and should face murder charges. The High Court’s oral observations were not part of its written ord

GURU DUTT PATHAKversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2021 INSC 2856 May 2021Dismissed

The case concerns the murder of village Pradhan Ram Aasare Pathak, for which four accused were charged under IPC sections 302 and 34. The trial court acquitted all four, relying on alleged relationships among witnesses, lack of independent witnesses, disputed motive, and questions about the place of occurrence and inju

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusMEHRAM & ORS.

2020 INSC 3846 May 2020Disposed off

The State of Rajasthan appealed against the High Court's conversion of the murder conviction of accused Mehram (No.5) under Section 302 IPC to a lesser offence under Section 326 IPC and the reduction of his sentence to five months. The facts reveal that the accused, armed with lethal weapons, lay in wait behind bushes

RAMBIRversusSTATE OF NCT, DELHI

2019 INSC 6266 May 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Rambir, was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for strangling his wife with a saria on a rooftop after a quarrel over money. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment, a decision upheld by the Delhi High Court, which rejected his claim that the killing fell under Exception 4 to Section 30

STATE OF HLMACHAL PRADESHversusRAJIV JASSI

2016 INSC 3846 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed the High Court's acquittal of Dr. Rajiv Jass, who was convicted by a trial court for murdering his pregnant wife by forcibly administering organophosphorus poison. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including multiple ante‑mortem injuries on the victim, the accused

PRABHAKAR VITHAL GHOLVEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2016 INSC 3896 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Prabhakar Vithal Golve, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the fatal assault of a deceased man, allegedly triggered by a minor grievance over a telephonic message. The prosecution failed to establish any motive for the killing, and the evidence showed that the assault was a spontaneous reaction to t

IQBAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTIAR PRADESH

2015 INSC 3876 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Iqbal and Khurshed were convicted under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code for participation in a dacoity that occurred on a new‑moon night, based primarily on the testimony of three eye‑witnesses and their identification of the accused in a test identification parade. The prosecution failed to recover

SATISH CHANDRA & ANR.versusSTATE OF M.P.

2014 INSC 3646 May 2014Case Partly allowed

Sunita, a married woman, committed suicide within three years of her marriage by self‑immolation after a quarrel with her mother‑in‑law over a dowry demand for a gold chain. A dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, certified by a doctor, alleged that the mother‑in‑law repeatedly harassed her for the dow

KUSHALBHAI RATANBHAI ROHIT & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2014 INSC 3666 May 2014Dismissed

An FIR under the NDPS Act led to the arrest of a accused who escaped while being escorted by police constables. The constables were charged under IPC Section 222 and convicted, prompting them to file a criminal appeal. The Gujarat High Court, after dictating an acquitting order in open court but before signing it, reca

RAJ KUMAR SINGH @ RAJU @ BATYAversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2013 INSC 3136 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted of murder, rape and kidnapping of a 4‑year‑old girl based solely on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of four family members and forensic findings. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the credibility of the witnesses, noting material contradictions, embellishments and incons

MURUGAN @ SETTUversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2011 INSC 3626 May 2011Dismissed

The appellants Murugan @ Settu (A1) and his accomplices A2 and A3 were convicted for kidnapping, compelling marriage and raping a girl, Shankari (PW‑4). The appellants contended that Shankari was an adult who voluntarily went with A1 and that the birth and school certificates were unreliable. The Supreme Court examined

SUSHIL SURIversusC.B.I & ANR.

2011 INSC 3616 May 2011Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a petition by Sushil Suri, an executive director of Morepen Labs Ltd., who sought to quash a CBI chargesheet under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that the company had repaid the hire‑purchase loan it obtained fraudulently from Punjab & Sind Bank and thus caused no loss. The chargesh

SIVAKUMARversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2026 INSC 3186 April 2026Case Partly allowed

The case arose from a boundary dispute between close relatives in which the deceased Ganesan’s brother was killed after a heated altercation. The accused Senthil (A‑1) and Sivakumar (A‑2) were originally convicted of offences under Sections 324 and 325 IPC respectively, while the trial court acquitted them of the more

DR. S. BALAGOPALversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

2026 INSC 3196 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a pediatric surgeon, performed an orchidectomy on a 1½‑year‑old boy after obtaining a consent form that listed both orchidopexy and orchidectomy, but the father alleged that consent for orchidectomy was never given and that the term was interpolated. An FIR was filed under multiple IPC sections and the c

SAJAL BOSEversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

2026 INSC 3226 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned an FIR registered on 18 October 2022 alleging assault, criminal intimidation and related offences against eight persons, including Sajal Bose, his wife Nabina Bose and Chandidas Joardar. The High Court quashed the proceedings against two co‑accused but refused to grant the same relief to the three ap

JASPAL SINGH KAURALversusTHE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

2025 INSC 4576 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Jaspal Singh Kaural, had a consensual physical relationship with the complainant after promising to marry her and care for her children, leading her to obtain a divorce. When the appellant later refused to marry and threatened her children, the complainant filed an FIR under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The

BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEEversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

2025 INSC 4586 April 2025Case Allowed

The appellant, a former judicial officer, was charged under Sections 376(2)(f), 417 and 506 IPC for allegedly promising marriage to a woman who was in the midst of a divorce, subsequently having a consensual relationship and later avoiding her. The complainant claimed the appellant used his position to exploit her, whi

DR. SOU JAYSHREE UJWAL INGOLEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2017 INSC 3176 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, a haemophiliac road‑accident victim, was admitted to Irvin Hospital. On 5 September 1997, after developing abdominal pain, the Emergency Medical Officer called Dr. Jayshree Ingole, the surgeon on call, who examined the patient, ordered a physician to be summoned and then left the hospital at about 11 p.m.

DEVENDRA NATH SRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF U.P.

2017 INSC 3166 April 2017Dismissed

Devendra Nath Srivastava was convicted by a trial court for murdering his wife after assaulting her with a brick, resulting in her death by asphyxia due to multiple ante‑mortem injuries. The trial court sentenced him to death under Section 302 IPC. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court set aside the murder conviction, ho

JASBIR SINGH @ JAVRI @ JABBAR SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 2846 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Jasbir Singh was convicted under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act for allegedly planning and attempting a dacoity with firearms. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting the absence of independent witnesses, the fact that the investigating officer himself conducted the

UTTAM CHAKRABORTYversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2010 INSC 1986 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

An eight‑month‑pregnant woman was found dead with severe abdominal injuries and the foetus removed. The husband, Mission Suklabaidhya, and his friend, Uttam Chakraborty, were convicted of murder; the husband received the death penalty and the friend life imprisonment. Both appealed to the Supreme Court, which examined

GYANENDRA SINGH @ RAJA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

2025 INSC 3356 March 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Gyanendra Singh, was convicted for raping his nine‑year‑old daughter, resulting in convictions under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, with a life sentence and a fine. He appealed, arguing that because the offences overlapped, the special law (POCSO) under

YUVRAJ LAXMILAL KANTHER & ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 3386 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a contractor and a store manager, were charged with offences under Sections 304 Part II, 304A, 182 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the deaths of two employees who were electrocuted while working on a sign board using an iron ladder. They filed discharge applications under Section 227 of the

XXXXversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER

2024 INSC 1816 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought to quash FIR No. 52, registered under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC, alleging that the complaint was an abuse of process because the complainant, a married woman, had voluntarily entered into a relationship with him. The High Court dismissed the petition, but the Supreme Court examined the complai

RAVINDER KUMARversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2024 INSC 2116 March 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Ravinder Kumar, was convicted for the murder of his wife Meena under Section 302 IPC, along with convictions under Sections 304B/34 and 498A/34. The prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including blood‑stained clothes recovered from the appellant's parental home, an English cale

VISHNU CHANDRU GAONKARversusN.M. DESSAI

2018 INSC 2146 March 2018Dismissed

Vishnu Chandra Gaonkar, a legal heir, alleged that advocate N.M. Dessai forged the thumb impression of a deceased appellant, Shaba Manju Velip, to withdraw a civil appeal and related execution proceedings. Gaonkar filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code seek

JOYDEB PATRA & ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013 INSC 1376 March 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Madhabi Patra died after a ceremonial function and the prosecution alleged she was poisoned by her husband Joydeb Patra and his relatives. The trial court and the Calcutta High Court convicted the accused under IPC s.302 read with s.34, relying solely on the ocular testimony of the doctor who performed the post‑mortem

M/S. NAV NIRMAN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAVEEN SINGHversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVT OF INDIA RANCHI, JHARKHAND

2026 INSC 1306 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) had two parcels of land provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and a confirmation order under s.8(3) was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal under s.26. While the appeal was pending, the Enforcement Directorate filed a

GOPAL SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 2636 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were charged with murder and causing hurt under Sections 302, 323 and 34 of the IPC, later reduced to Section 304 Part II by the High Court. The prosecution relied on two alleged eye‑witnesses, PW‑1 and PW‑3, and four court witnesses, none of whom identified the appellants in the presence of the court. T

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

VIHAAN KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2025 INSC 1626 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Vihaan Kumar was arrested on 10 June 2024 for alleged offences under the IPC, but he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC. The High Court held that the information given to his wife and the entry in the police diary did n

AYYUB & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 1686 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a suspected romantic relationship between Ziaul Rahman and his cousin Tanu. After Ziaul’s death in a physical assault, Tanu allegedly committed suicide, and the complainant Vijay (R‑2) filed an FIR accusing the appellants of abetting her suicide under Section 306 IPC. The High Court refused to quash

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

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIAversusCHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR

2025 INSC 1556 February 2025Disposed off

The appellant, an individual with salary and partnership income, filed his income‑tax returns for AY 2011‑12 and AY 2013‑14 well after the statutory due dates, attracting show‑cause notices under section 276CC of the Income Tax Act. He sought compounding of the offences under the 2014 Guidelines; the first application

GEDDAM JHANSI & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

2025 INSC 1606 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant alleged dowry demands, mental and physical harassment by her husband and in‑laws, and implicated the appellant Geddam Jhansi (her mother‑in‑law’s sister) and her son Geddam Sathyakama Jabali as pressurising her to obey her husband’s wishes. The High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings under Sec

STATE OF PUNJABversusGURPREET SINGH & ORS.

2024 INSC 1546 February 2024Disposed off

The State of Punjab appealed against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s acquittal of Gurpreet Singh and three co‑accused under sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Amarjit Kaur. The trial court had convicted them based on the eyewitness testimony of the victim’s husband and daughter, the reco

CHHOTA AHIRWARversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2020 INSC 1386 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and the main accused, who were related to the complainant, got into a quarrel over a land dispute on 22 October 1992. The main accused drew a pistol and fired, injuring the complainant, and the prosecution alleged that the appellant had instigated the shooting, seeking conviction under Section 307 read wi

DATARAM SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2018 INSC 1076 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was charged under Sections 419, 420, 406 and 506 of the IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheating a complainant of over Rs. 37 lakh. During a seven‑month investigation he was never arrested, and when he sought to quash the FIR the High Court granted him time to appear before the t

MADAN @ MADHU PATEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2018 INSC 1046 February 2018Dismissed

The appellant, Madan (also known as Madhu) Patek, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly pouring kerosene on the deceased, Latabai, and setting her on fire. The conviction was based primarily on two dying declarations recorded by a Special Executive Magistrate and a police constable, both certified by a medi

ARVIND DHAMversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2026 INSC 126 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former promoter and non‑executive chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd., was arrested in July 2024 on allegations of massive bank fraud and money‑laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Despite cooperating with the investigation and being the sole accused taken into custody among 28

THE STATE (NCT) OF DELHIversusKHIMJI BHAI JADEJA

2026 INSC 256 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Delhi appealed against a Delhi High Court decision that held each deposit made by investors in a large cheating scheme constituted a separate transaction and that separate FIRs and charge sheets were required. The scheme, alleged to involve 1,852 victims defrauded of ₹46.40 crore, was initially investigate

ABDUL NASSARversusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.

2025 INSC 356 January 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Abdul Nassar, was convicted of raping and murdering a nine‑year‑old girl, offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC, and was sentenced to death. The prosecution relied on a series of circumstantial facts, forensic DNA evidence linking the appellant’s semen to the victim’s clothing, and te

THE STATE OF TELANGANAversusHABIB ABDULLAH JEELANI & ORS.

2017 INSC 326 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Telangana filed a criminal appeal against a Hyderabad High Court order that, while refusing to quash FIR No. 205/2014 (offences under IPC sections 147, 148, 149 and 307), directed the police not to arrest the three accused. The Supreme Court held that such a direction amounts to an order under Section 438

MD. SAJJAD @ RAJU @ SALIMversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2017 INSC 296 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Md. Sajjad, was convicted under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Ramchandra Singh, based primarily on the testimony of three eyewitnesses and the suspicion of the victim's widow. The eyewitnesses identified the accused in a test identification parade held more than two month

SRI GANESHversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

2017 INSC 346 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was accused of having sexual intercourse with the complainant on five to six occasions, allegedly on a false promise of marriage, the last of which occurred in August 2009. The trial court, relying on documentary evidence, held that the appellant was born on 19 October 1991 and was therefore a juvenile at

SUSANTA DAS & ORS.versusSTATE OF ORISSA

2016 INSC 186 January 2016Dismissed

The appellants, five accused persons, were convicted for the murder of Padma Lochan Jena and grievous hurt to two others under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution proved that all five were present at the scene, armed with deadly weapons, and acted with a common object of revenge stemming from a c

PREM SAGAR MANOCHAversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2016 INSC 196 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

In the Jessica Lal murder investigation, the police sought a forensic opinion on two .22 cartridges. The appellant, Deputy Director of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, reported that the cartridges were .22 caliber and likely from a pistol, but could not give a definitive opinion on whether they were fired from th

DARSHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2016 INSC 176 January 2016Dismissed

The dispute arose between two families over irrigation rights and escalated into a violent clash in a court premises on 17 February 1995, resulting in two deaths and several injuries. Darshan Singh, the appellant, was charged with murder (IPC s.302) of Santa Singh and voluntarily causing hurt (IPC s.324) to others, but

STATE OF A.P.versusPATCHIMALA VIGNESWARUDU@ VIGGANNA @ GANAPATHI

2016 INSC 156 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh prosecuted Patchimala Vigneswarudu for the murder of his wife, alleging he strangled her after a night out, motivated by strained marital relations and suspicion of venereal disease transmission. The trial court convicted him under Section 302 IPC, but the High Court acquitted him, holding t

INDER SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2015 INSC 76 January 2015Disposed off

Four villagers were killed and an informant seriously injured in a violent clash in Dhodi village, Rajasthan, leading to the charge of murder and grievous hurt against 29 co‑villagers. The trial court convicted 24 of them under Sections 302, 307 and 149 of the IPC, while five were acquitted; subsequent appeals raised q

M.B. SURESHversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2014 INSC 76 January 2014Disposed off

M.B. Suresh and his father were charged with murder, attempt to murder and offences under the Arms Act arising from a shooting incident over a land dispute. The trial court acquitted them, but the Karnataka High Court convicted Suresh under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme

DR. MRS. NUPUR TALWARversusC.B.I., DELHI & ANR.

2012 INSC 86 January 2012Disposed off

The case arose from the murder of a young girl, Arushi, and a domestic help, Hemraj, where the CBI filed a closure report. The father of the deceased filed a protest petition, leading the Special Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC against Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nu

STATE OF PUNJABversusBALWINDER SINGH AND ORS.

2012 INSC 96 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

In 1992 a bus and a truck, both traveling at high speed, collided on a highway in Punjab, resulting in the deaths of five passengers. The drivers of the bus (Balwinder Singh) and the truck were convicted under IPC sections 304A, 337 and 279 and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment for the 304A charge and six mo

LAXMICHAND @ BALBUTYAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2011 INSC 166 January 2011Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Laxmichand, was involved in a quarrel with the deceased, Gyaniram Mahajan, who was intoxicated and refused to leave the appellant's house. The appellant dragged the deceased outside and struck him on the head with a spade, causing injuries that led to death after seven days. The appellant made several ex

SURENDERA MISHRAversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2011 INSC 176 January 2011Dismissed

Surendra Mishra was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and for illegal possession of a firearm under Section 27 of the Arms Act after he shot dead Chandrashekhar Choubey. He appealed, claiming that he was of unsound mind at the time of the offence and therefore entitled to the protection of Section 84 IPC. The S

HARI KISHANversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 136 January 2010Disposed off

The appellant Hari Kishan was convicted under sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his brother's sibling Dinesh, based primarily on the testimony of Harkesh (PW‑2), who claimed to be an eye‑witness and to have sustained injuries in the same incident. The trial and High Courts accepted his evi

BODDELLA BABUL REDDYversusPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.

2010 INSC 146 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Boddella Babul Reddy, was convicted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court for murder (Sec. 302 IPC) arising from a factional clash in which he was alleged to have hurled a bomb that killed a coolie. The trial court had acquitted all accused, including the appellant, on the ground that the prosecution evidence

HARINARAYAN G. BAJAJversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2010 INSC 156 January 2010Dismissed

In a criminal proceeding under Sections 406 and 114 IPC, the trial court had framed charges against respondents No.2‑4 and later, under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C., added respondent No.5 as a co‑accused. The newly added accused sought to have the proceedings against him commenced afresh from the inquiry stage (Section 244)

INDRESH KUMARversusRAM PHAL AND ORS.

2010 INSC 166 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Indresh Kumar alleged that Inspector Ramphal and six other police officers tortured him and his family in 1992. The trial court convicted Ramphal under IPC sections 218, 342 and 323, while acquitting the six co‑accused. The High Court later set aside Ramphal’s conviction and acquitted all accused, dismissing Indresh Ku

SUNIL KUMAR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 176 January 2010Dismissed

The appellants Sunil Kumar, Tilak Singh and Ram Singh were convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Sections 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code for the death of Salim, who died from head injuries inflicted with sticks. The prosecution relied on the testimony of three eye‑witnesses, including the deceased's fathe

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CBI/ACB/BANGALOREversusB.A. SRINIVASAN AND ANR.

2019 INSC 13225 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

B.A. Srinivasan, a former Assistant General Manager of Vijaya Bank who retired on 31‑Oct‑2012, was alleged to have conspired with others to fraudulently sanction and disburse loans, violating bank rules. An FIR was lodged in 2013 and a charge‑sheet filed in 2014, charging him under IPC sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,

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