Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Indian Penal Code, 1860

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

SUSHILA AGGARWAL AND OTHERSversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 10629 January 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined two questions referred to a larger bench: whether an order of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) must be limited to a fixed period, and whether such bail terminates when the accused is summoned or when charges are framed. Relying on the Constitution Benc

SHEESH RAM AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2014 INSC 6329 January 2014Dismissed

The case involved the murder of Bairam, the son of complainant Heera, arising out of a long-standing land dispute and enmity between the parties. The trial court convicted all accused under Sections 148, 302 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 IPC, but the Rajasthan High Court acquitted four accused and convicted the remaining thr

SATNI BAIversusSTATE OF M. P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH)

2010 INSC 6729 January 2010Dismissed

Satni Bai was convicted of murdering her four‑year‑old son under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence: witnesses (her brother‑in‑law, sister‑in‑law and a 16‑year‑old girl) saw her standing near the corpse with a blood‑stained axe, the axe and her saree were found blood‑stained, and the pos

VISHNU KUMAR SHUKLA & ANRversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR

2023 INSC 102628 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Vishnu Kumar Shukla and his wife, were charged under IPC sections 448, 454 and 380 for allegedly breaking into a shop and stealing goods. They contended that the complaint was frivolous, based on a forged tenancy agreement, and that the FIR was an abuse of process. The trial magistrate rejected their di

ABHISHEK SAXENAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR

2023 INSC 108828 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Abhishek Saxena, was charged under IPC sections 323, 384 and 406 for alleged assault, extortion and criminal breach of trust arising from a FIR filed on 4 September 2016. He had earlier filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and a guardianship application under the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890, befo

JAI PRAKASHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 129428 November 2019Dismissed

The case concerned the murder of Ravi Prakash, alleged to have been committed by accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 under Sections 302 and 120B IPC. The trial court convicted the three accused based on the testimony of two eye‑witnesses and medical evidence, but the High Court acquitted them, finding material inconsistencies in th

NARAYAN MALHARI THORATversusVINAYAK DEORAO BHAGAT AND ANR.

2018 INSC 111728 November 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellant's son and daughter‑in‑law were teachers at a school where the first respondent, Vinayak Bhagat, repeatedly called and harassed the daughter‑in‑law. Despite the son’s attempts to stop the calls, an altercation occurred and the son later committed suicide, leaving a note blaming the respondent. An FIR under

CHHANNU LAL VERMAversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2018 INSC 111228 November 2018Case Partly allowed

Chhanun Lal Verma was convicted of murdering three persons and attempting to murder others, and was sentenced to death and life imprisonment by the Sessions Court, a decision affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to apply the "rarest of rare" doctrine correctly, as the

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusMANGA SINGH

2018 INSC 112028 November 2018Leave granted

The State of Himachal Pradesh prosecuted Manga Singh for raping his nine‑year‑old cousin who was staying at her aunt's house. The child testified that the accused forced her to sleep with him and inserted his private part into hers, a claim she reported to school teachers who lodged an FIR. The trial court convicted th

MANOHAR LAL SHARMAversusSANJAY LEELA BHANSALI & ORS.

2017 INSC 115628 November 2017Dismissed

The petitioner, Manohar Lal Sharma, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a direction that the film "Padmavati" not be exhibited abroad without a certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and that the CBI register an FIR against the film's producers under Section 7 of the Cinematograph Ac

ISHWAR PRATAP SINGH & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2017 INSC 115528 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were originally charged under IPC sections 323, 504 and 506. Two years later, following a complaint to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, the Commission directed the police to add an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, resulting in a supplementary charge‑

RAM AUTAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2016 INSC 107028 November 2016Case Partly allowed

The incident arose when the deceased's cattle trespassed into the fields of the appellants, leading to a heated exchange. Later that day, while seated in adjacent compounds, an altercation escalated; the appellants, urged by others, fetched a gun and shot the deceased, who was also assaulted with lathis. The trial cour

MOHD. HASHIMversusSTATE OF UP & ORS.

2016 INSC 106628 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were convicted under IPC sections 323 and 498‑A and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. They sought release on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The question before the Supreme Court was whether Sect

SURESH &ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2014 INSC 81928 November 2014Disposed off

The appellants Suresh and others were convicted for kidnapping and murdering Devender Chopra and his son Abhishek, and for concealing evidence, under IPC sections 302, 34, 364-A, 201 and 120-B. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence, including the recovery of the victims' bodies and belongings at the accu

K. RAVI KUMARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2014 INSC 82028 November 2014Disposed off

The appellant K. Ravi Kumar was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and cruelty under Section 498‑A IPC for stabbing and setting his wife on fire. He appealed, contending that the killing occurred during a sudden quarrel without pre‑meditation, thus falling within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The Supreme Court

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusSANKAR GHOSH

2013 INSC 79228 November 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Sankar Ghosh, a Sepoy of the Kolkata Armed Police, was arrested and charged under IPC sections 392, 395 and 412 and Arms Act sections 25 and 27 for alleged involvement in a dacoity. A departmental inquiry found him guilty and he was dismissed from service. The Sessions Court later acquitted him on the ground that the p

MADHU @ MADHURANATHA & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2013 INSC 79428 November 2013Disposed off

The appellants Maohu @ Madhuranatha and others were convicted for the robbery‑murder of the son of PW‑22, based largely on circumstantial evidence, and were sentenced to death under Sections 302 and 364 IPC read with Section 34. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that circumstantial evidence alone can s

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSHAMBHU KEWAT AND ANOTHER

2013 INSC 79528 November 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The accused Shambhu Kewat and Banwari Kewat assaulted shopkeeper Abdul Rashid with an iron rod, causing grievous injuries and were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, receiving a ten‑year rigorous imprisonment sentence. After the conviction, the victim and the accused reached a monetary settlem

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION FARIDKOTversusM/S SH. DURGA JI TRADERS & ORS.

2011 INSC 82328 November 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Punjab State Warehousing Corporation filed a private criminal complaint under Sections 406 and 409 of the IPC alleging a shortage of rice entrusted to the respondents. The trial court had earlier exempted the complainant from personal appearance, but later dismissed the complaint in default on the ground that the c

SRIPATI SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS SON GAURAV SINGHversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

2021 INSC 68728 October 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellant advanced Rs 2 crore to respondent No.2 as a business loan, secured by cheques described as "security" and promised to be repaid by June/July 2015. The cheques were presented for encashment in October 2015 after the repayment deadline and were dishonoured for insufficient funds. The appellant filed crimina

THWAHA FASALversusUNION OF INDIA

2021 INSC 68828 October 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined bail applications of two accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) for alleged offences under Sections 38, 39 and 13. The Court held that the charge‑sheet material did not show reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations under Sections 38 and 39 were prima fac

M/S. SHREE MAHAVIR CARBON LTD.versusOM PRAKASH JALAN (FINANCER) & ANR.

2013 INSC 72728 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Shree Mahavir Carbon Ltd filed a criminal complaint under IPC sections 420, 406, 468, 471 (also 419, 486) alleging cheating, siphoning of funds and falsification of accounts by Om Prakash Jalan and others. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons. The respondents moved the High Court under CrPC s.482

SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 74928 October 2010Dismissed

The appellant husband and his mother‑in‑law were accused of dowry death after the bride, aged about 24, was found strangled and burnt in her matrimonial home within three years of marriage. The prosecution proved, on circumstantial evidence, that the accused repeatedly demanded a Maruti car as dowry, harassed the victi

CHOTKAUversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2022 INSC 103228 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Chotkau, was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a six‑year‑old girl based solely on the testimonies of three prosecution witnesses and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court found serious contradictions in the witnesses' accounts regarding the FIR filing, the handling of the

MAHESHWAR TIGGAversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2020 INSC 56428 September 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Maheshwar Tigga was convicted by the trial court and the Jharkhand High Court for rape, voluntarily causing hurt and wrongful restraint under Sections 376, 323 and 341 IPC, based on the prosecutrix’s allegation that he assaulted her when she was a minor. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecutrix was indeed a m

ROMILA THAPAR AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2018 INSC 91228 September 2018Disposed off

Five eminent citizens filed a writ petition under Article 32 on behalf of five human‑rights activists arrested in connection with the Bhima‑Koregaon violence. The petitioners alleged that the arrests were fabricated, that the police were using the media to prejudice public opinion, and sought a Special Investigating Te

HEMUDAN NANBHA GADHVIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2018 INSC 90928 September 2018Dismissed

The appellant was convicted under IPC s.376(2)(f) for sexually assaulting a nine‑year‑old girl. The victim initially identified the appellant in a test identification parade (TIP) but later turned hostile and refused dock identification. The High Court upheld the conviction on the basis of the FIR, medical report, seme

SOMASUNDARAM @ SOMUversusSTATE REP. BY DY. COMM. OF POLICE

2020 INSC 41228 September 2016Matter referred to larger bench

The case concerned the abduction and murder of former MLA M.K. Balan. The prosecution’s case against appellants A‑3 (Manickam), A‑4 (Somasundaram) and A‑15 (Bomb Selvam) relied primarily on the testimony of two alleged accomplices, PW‑10 and PW‑11, supported by peripheral witnesses and documentary evidence. The trial c

NASIB HUSSAIN SIDDI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2011 INSC 71928 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

In 2003 a police constable attempted to escort two men to the police station; one, Hussain Ibrahim Siddi, grabbed and pushed the constable while his wife and mother intervened verbally. All three were convicted under IPC sections 325, 506(2), 333, 342 and 114 and sentenced to three years, later reduced by the Gujarat H

BALJINDER SINGH @ BITTUversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2011 INSC 72028 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

In July 1994, Baljinder Singh and his brother Bhupinder Singh assaulted Kulwinder Singh, the owner of a cart that had inadvertently entered their paddy field, inflicting knife and fist injuries. The trial court convicted Baljinder under IPC sections 326 and 324, sentencing him to four years rigorous imprisonment with a

RAJESH KUMARversusSTATE THROUGH GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI-II

2011 INSC 72228 September 2011Disposed off

The appellant Rajesh Kumar was convicted of murdering two children, aged four years and eight months, and was sentenced to death by the trial court and the Delhi High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the death penalty was justified under the "rarest of rare" doctrine, emphasizing the need to balance

BRUNDABAN MOHARANA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF ORISSA

2010 INSC 65328 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, the in‑laws of Amani Moharana, were convicted by the trial court for murder based on two dying declarations of the deceased, one recorded by a doctor (PW‑8) and another by a police officer (PW‑9) under Section 161 of the CrPC. The High Court discarded the doctor’s declaration as a Xerox copy but upheld

RAJA GOUNDER & ANR.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2010 INSC 65528 September 2010Dismissed

The appellants, Raja Gounder and others, were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of their brother amid a land dispute. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the deceased's widow, who was also the sister‑in‑law of the accused, and on medical evidence showing multiple injuries

IN RE: MEPUNG TADAR BAGE, MEMBER, ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus

2025 INSC 104728 August 2025Reference answered

The President of India referred a matter under Article 317(1) of the Constitution seeking the removal of Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage, a member of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), alleging misbehaviour in connection with the leakage of the Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination question paper in

ANIL KHANDELWAL ETC.versusPHOENIX INDIA AND ANR.

2025 INSC 106928 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Bank of Baroda issued a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act to recover defaulted loans, but a clerical error inflated the outstanding amount, leading the borrower Phoenix India to allege defamation and file a criminal complaint under Sections 499, 500 and 501 IPC against the Bank's senior officers. The magistr

MANIK MADHUKAR SARVE & ORS.versusVITTHAL DAMUJI MEHER & ORS.

2024 INSC 63628 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the bail granted by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court to respondent No.1, who was accused of conspiracy, cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust in a massive financial scam involving a cooperative society. The prosecution alleged that the respondent withdrew approximately ₹9 cr

PREM PRAKASHversusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 63728 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

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

MENOKA MALIK AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 75128 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a violent clash between CPI(M) and IPF workers in Karanda village, West Bengal, where a mob set fire to houses, assaulted occupants and caused five deaths and twenty‑four serious injuries. The trial court acquitted all 82 accused, relying on alleged inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, a stamped

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusMANINDER SINGH

2015 INSC 61428 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI alleged that Maninder Singh, together with a co‑accused, obtained credit facilities from New Bank of India by submitting forged documents and colluding with a bank manager, thereby cheating the bank of over Rs 10.62 lakh. After a lengthy investigation, a charge‑sheet was filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471

NARAYAN MANIKRAO SALGARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2012 INSC 35428 August 2012Case Partly allowed

The appellants were convicted under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 341, and 323 of the IPC for the death of Khushal Salgar. The prosecution relied on the testimony of two eye‑witnesses, a dying declaration, and forensic evidence. The Supreme Court examined whether the evidence established a common object to cause mur

CHIRAG SEN AND ANOTHER ETC.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 90328 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, prominent badminton players and their coach, were accused in a private complaint of falsifying birth records to gain entry into age‑restricted tournaments, leading to the registration of an FIR under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 34 IPC. The complaint relied mainly on an unauthenticated 1996 GPF nomination

GAJANAN DATTATRAY GOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2025 INSC 91328 July 2025Dismissed

Gajanan Dattatray Gore was arrested for offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating and criminal breach of trust. He applied for regular bail before the High Court, which granted bail on the condition that he would deposit Rs 25,00,000 within five months, based on an affidavit‑undertaki

VERNONversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2023 INSC 65528 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the Bhima‑Koregaon violence of December 2017, after which the National Investigation Agency (NIA) expanded the investigation, searched the residences of several activists and arrested Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira. The prosecution alleged that the two were members of the banned CPI (Maoist) and

SANDEEP KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR

2023 INSC 65428 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an informant and prosecution witness, identified three persons named in the FIR but omitted from the charge‑sheet as assailants during his examination‑in‑chief. He moved an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon these persons, which the trial court allowed. The High Court, on revision, set a

SHIV KUMAR SHARMAversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2022 INSC 76528 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a public servant, was convicted under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly manipulating measurement books and causing excess payment in school construction works. The prosecution alleged that he reduced

SANJAY PURAN BAGDE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2022 INSC 76628 July 2022Dismissed

On the night of 2-3 November 2015, the deceased Vilas Gawande was attacked by four accused; two of them wielded an axe while the other two, Sanjay Puran Bagde and Rajratna (Nandu) Bagde, held the victim. The victim’s wife, an eyewitness, testified that all four were present and that the accused had a pre‑meditated plan

THE STATE OF KERALAversusK. AJITH & ORS.

2021 INSC 36628 July 2021Dismissed

During the 2015 Kerala budget presentation, several opposition MLAs climbed onto the Speaker's dais and damaged furniture, leading to a criminal case under IPC sections 427, 447, 34 and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The public prosecutor sought to withdraw the prosecution under Section 321 of t

PARMINDER KAUR @ P.P. KAUR @ SONIversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2020 INSC 46728 July 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Parminder Kaur, a single woman living with her child and mother, was convicted under IPC sections 366A and 506 for allegedly enticing a minor girl to illicit intercourse with her tenant boy and for threatening the victim’s brother. The prosecution’s case rested on the testimony of the minor victim and he

V. K. MISHRA&ANR.versusSTATE OF UTIARAKHAND &ANR.

2015 INSC 52528 July 2015Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the death of Archana Mishra, who died of poisoning within six weeks of marriage, and determined that she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in‑laws in connection with dowry demands. The prosecution established the essential ingredients of Section 3048 IPC and the

SUDARSHAN KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2011 INSC 52328 July 2011

The appellant, Sudarshan Kumar, was convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetting the suicide of his wife, Sudesh, who could not conceive a child and was repeatedly harassed, beaten, and sent away by him. The trial court sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, a sentence upheld by the H

RAM NIWASversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 44028 July 2010Dismissed

Ram Niwas and four others were tried for the murder of Sher Singh and the attempted murder of Chanda. The trial court convicted Ram Niwas under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, acquitting the remaining accused and giving benefit of doubt to two of them. On appeal, the appellant argued that the testimony of two key witn

MAYANDIversusSTATE REP.BY INSP.OF POLICE

2010 INSC 44228 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a kitchen employee of a hotel, attacked the managing director with a concealed sickle, inflicting multiple injuries. The victim, a known heart patient who had undergone angioplasty, died the following day; medical evidence attributed death to myocardial infarction and not to the injuries. The trial court

BIRAPPA & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2010 INSC 44528 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved three accused—Birappa (A‑1), Kareppa (A‑2) and Muttappa (A‑3)—charged with the murder of Gulappa. The trial court convicted Birappa based primarily on the testimony of a single eyewitness, PW‑1, the brother of the deceased, while acquitting the other two. On appeal, the High Court upheld Birappa's con

BEERE GOWDAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2010 INSC 44628 July 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Beere Gowda, was charged with murdering his two‑and‑a‑half‑year‑old daughter Pallavi by forcibly administering a mixture of nitric and sulphuric acid, obtained from a goldsmith, while his second wife Indramma was a co‑accused. The Sessions Court acquitted both, holding that the child might have ingested

DEO NARAINversusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 44728 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Six persons were tried and convicted for the double murder of Ram Swarup and Ram Pratap Singh under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. While the appeal was pending, four of the accused died, and the High Court dismissed the appeal of the two survivors, Shiv Singh and Deo Narain. Deo Narain challenged his con

SATPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 44828 July 2010Dismissed

Satpal Singh was convicted of rape under Section 376 IPC for assaulting the minor Rajinder Kaur. He appealed, arguing that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate four‑month delay, that the victim was a major, and that the act was consensual because they were schoolmates. The Supreme Court held that the delay was explai

ARUMUGAMversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2010 INSC 45028 July 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Arumugam, murdered his step‑mother Saroja by strangling her with a rope. He made an extra‑judicial confession first to his step‑sister and shortly thereafter to the Village Administrative Officer, who recorded the statement and handed him over to police. The rope was recovered, and post‑mortem evidence s

SHAIK AHMEDversusSTATE OF TELANGANA

2021 INSC 30828 June 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellant kidnapped a 13‑year‑old schoolboy and demanded a ransom of Rs 2 lakhs, but the prosecution failed to prove that he threatened the victim’s death or hurt, nor that his conduct created a reasonable apprehension of such harm. The Sessions Court and High Court convicted him under IPC s.364A, interpreting the

N.S. GNANESHWARAN ETC.versusTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

2025 INSC 78728 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were charged under sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly diverting bank funds. Parallel civil recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal were settled through a One Time Settlement (OTS) in which the ba

BATLANKI KESHAV (KESAVA) KUMAR ANURAGversusSTATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

2025 INSC 79028 May 2025

The appellant, Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag, sought to quash FIR No. 103 of 2022 alleging offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, claiming the allegations of sexual relations under a false promise of marriage were fabricated. The de‑facto complainan

GURMEET SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2021 INSC 29928 May 2021Dismissed

Gurmeet Singh was convicted under Section 304‑B of the IPC for the dowry‑related death of his wife, who died after consuming poison within four years of marriage. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution had not proved the "soon before" dowry demand, that the presumption of causation under

SATBIR SINGH & ANOTHERversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2021 INSC 30128 May 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for dowry death (Sec. 304B IPC) and abetment of suicide (Sec. 306 IPC) after the victim died from severe burns within a year of marriage, allegedly following dowry harassment. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had proved the essential ingredients of Sec. 304B, including th

KUSTI MALLAIAHversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2013 INSC 35828 May 2013Dismissed

The appellant Kusti Malliah and his co‑accused were convicted for the murder of Neelagiri Parvamma and for stealing her ornaments, offences punishable under IPC ss.302, 404 read with s.34. The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of a sole eye‑witness (PW‑6) who saw the assault from a distance, corroborated by

SUJIT BISWASversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2013 INSC 35928 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was accused of raping and murdering a three‑year‑old girl and was convicted under Sections 376(2)(f) and 302 IPC, receiving a death sentence which was later commuted to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested mainly on two circumstantial facts – the appellant pointing out the location of the vict

KARAN SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

2013 INSC 35528 May 2013Dismissed

Karan Singh was convicted for the murder of Raj under IPC s.302, the prosecution alleging a motive of non‑payment of Rs 47,000 for a buffalo. Eye‑witnesses Maya Devi (PW‑3) and her daughter Birma (PW‑4) saw the appellant dragging the victim with a rope, and an independent witness (PW‑8) corroborated the allegation. The

RAVIRALA LAXMAIAHversusSTATE OF A.P.

2013 INSC 35728 May 2013Dismissed

The appellant, Ravirala Laxmaiah, was convicted for murdering his wife Balamani by strangulation and for dowry-related harassment under IPC sections 302 and 404. The trial court and High Court relied on circumstantial evidence, the appellant’s failure to explain the death (last‑seen theory), false statements to the vic

SWISS TIMING LIMITEDversusORGANISING COMMITTEE, COMMONWEALTH GAMES 2010 DELHI

2013 INSC 36228 May 2013Case Allowed

Swiss Timing Ltd., a Swiss company, entered into a contract with the Commonwealth Games 2010 Organising Committee to provide timing and scoring services. The Committee failed to pay the agreed fees, prompting Swiss Timing to invoke the arbitration clause in the agreement. The Committee objected, claiming the contract w

CHUNNI BAIversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 57728 April 2025Case Partly allowed

Chunni Bai was convicted of murdering her two young daughters after the trial court and High Court upheld a Section 302 IPC conviction. She claimed she acted under the influence of an invisible power, asserting unsoundness of mind under Section 84 IPC. The Supreme Court examined the eyewitness testimony, medical autops

K.P. TAMILMARANversusTHE STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

2025 INSC 57628 April 2025Dismissed

The case concerns the honour killing of a Dalit boy, Murugesan, and his Vanniyar bride, Kannagi, in 2003. Police officers Sub‑Inspector K.P. Tamilmaran (A‑14) and Inspector M. Sellamuthu (A‑15) failed to register an FIR despite being informed of the murders and later fabricated evidence to implicate Dalit relatives whi

RAVISH SINGH RANAversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

2025 INSC 63528 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ravish Singh Rana, was accused by his live-in partner of raping her after refusing to marry, leading to FIR No. 482 of 2023 under IPC sections 376, 323, 504 and 506. The appellant sought quash of the FIR invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, arguing that the two-year cohabitatio

SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH BADALversusBALWANT SINGH KHERA AND ORS.

2023 INSC 46628 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a private complaint alleging that the Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) filed a false affidavit with the Election Commission of India, contradicting its constitution submitted to the Gurudwara Election Commission, thereby violating the secularism requirement of Section 29‑A of the Representation of People

PRAKASH AGGARWALversusGANESH BENZOPLAST LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2023 INSC 46428 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. (complainant) entered into Inter‑Corporate Deposit agreements with Morgan Securities & Credits Ltd., pledging shares as security. When the value of the pledged shares fell, the lender invoked the pledge and sold the shares to itself and its group companies in 2001. The complainant waited until 20

DIGAMBARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2023 INSC 44528 April 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellant Digambar, brother of the deceased Pooja, and his accomplice Mohan were convicted of murdering Pooja and her lover Govind, who were found dead after being taken on a motorcycle. The trial and high courts sentenced Digambar to death and Mohan to life imprisonment, deeming the case "rarest of rare". On appea

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANRversusVIJAYANAGARAM CHINNA REDDAPPA

2023 INSC 72628 April 2023Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed against a High Court order that granted a writ of habeas corpus, directing the release of a life convict (P. Reddy Bhaskar) who had escaped twice and was later sentenced to a one‑year simple imprisonment for kidnapping. After being granted special remission for his life sentence, th

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusPHOOLCHAND RATHORE

2023 INSC 44428 April 2023Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against the High Court's acquittal of Phoolchand Rathore, who had been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his wife under sections 302 and 201 IPC. The prosecution's case rested on alleged motive (a dispute over jewellery), a disclosure statement and recovery of blood

BOHATIE DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LRversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS

2023 INSC 46528 April 2023Disposed off

The mother of the deceased sought a reinvestigation of a murder case (IPC ss.302, 120B) by the Central Bureau of Criminal Investigation (CBCID) after the accused had been chargesheeted and a quashing petition dismissed. The Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, ordered the transfer of investigation to CBCID based solely on

STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusHEMENDHRA REDDY & ANOTHER. ETC.

2023 INSC 46028 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigated alleged disproportionate assets of D. Dwarakanadha Reddy and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, filed a closure report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in 2008, and the Special Judge accepted it. In 2013 the CBI obtain

SANTOSH @ BHUREversusSTATE (G.N.C.T.) OF DELHI

2023 INSC 44328 April 2023Disposed off

The case concerned the murder of Hari Shankar whose body was found in an apartment rented by the appellant Santosh @ Bhure. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence – tenancy of the flat, the presence of blood, a suicide letter allegedly written by co‑accused Neeraj, and recovery of a knife and blood‑stained c

KALABHAI HAMIRBHAI KACHHOTversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2021 INSC 27428 April 2021Dismissed

The appellants, three villagers, were convicted for the murder of Gokalbhai and the assault of two others after a quarrel over rent and animosity. The prosecution presented 32 witnesses, medical and post‑mortem reports, serological evidence and the testimony of injured witnesses who identified the accused. The defence

PAWAN KUMARversusSTATE OF H.P.

2017 INSC 41528 April 2017Dismissed

The appellant, previously acquitted of kidnapping and rape offences, repeatedly threatened and teased the victim, a teenage girl, leading her to set herself ablaze and die. The victim’s dying declaration, recorded by a Head Constable in the presence of a doctor, implicated the appellant as the sole cause of her death.

UPENDRA PRADHANversusSTATE OF ORISSA

2015 INSC 36228 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Upendra Pradhan was convicted for murder under IPC sections 302 and 34, based on the High Court's reversal of an acquittal granted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The appellant contended that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence and that the benefit of doubt should apply, also challenging the re

HARI SHANKERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2015 INSC 36128 April 2015Case Partly allowed

Hari Shanker and three others were convicted for the murder of Shiv Shanker under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution's case rested on the eye‑witness PW2 who said Hari fired the first shot, striking the victim's wrist, while other accused fired the fatal abdominal shot. The High Court acquitte

GOLBAR HUSSAIN AND ORS.versusSTATE OFASSAMANDANR.

2015 INSC 36528 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were acquitted by the trial court for a murder under IPC s.302 read with s.149, but the High Court convicted them on the basis of testimonies of two related witnesses, PW‑4 and PW‑5, who were brothers of the deceased. The Supreme Court examined two issues: the scope of an appellate court's power in an ap

NATHA SHANKAR MAHAJANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2011 INSC 34028 April 2011Dismissed

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly beating his wife and setting her ablaze. The sole basis of the conviction was the victim's dying declaration, recorded by an executive magistrate and endorsed by the treating doctor as being made while she was conscious. The appellant contended that any do

BUDDHU SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

2011 INSC 34128 April 2011Case Partly allowed

Three accused—Buddhu Singh, his father Ledwa Singh and brother Balchand Singh—grappled with the deceased and Buddhu delivered a single axe blow that struck the victim's head, causing fatal injuries. The trial court and the High Court convicted all of them under Section 302 IPC for murder and sentenced them to life impr

ROOPSENA KHATUNversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2011 INSC 34328 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Roopsena Khatun, a 15‑year‑old orphan girl, was convicted of murdering a child, Baby Khatun, by allegedly drowning her in a pond and stealing a silver chain from the corpse. The prosecution's case rested on four circumstantial pieces: the accused’s alleged disclosure and pointing out the body, an extra‑judicial confess

KANWARJIT SINGH KAKKARversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

2011 INSC 33928 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Two government doctors were alleged to have engaged in private practice after hours, charging Rs 100 per patient, in violation of a government circular that prohibited such practice without permission. An FIR was lodged under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section

A.C. MUTHIAHversusBOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ANR.

2011 INSC 33728 April 2011Matter referred to larger bench

The appellant, a former President of the BCCI, challenged an amendment to Clause 6.2.4 of the BCCI's Regulations that exempted IPL, Champions League and Twenty‑20 events from the ban on administrators having commercial interests. He argued that the amendment was made to benefit the second respondent, who as a BCCI offi

S. KHUSHBOOversusKANNIAMMAL AND ANR.

2010 INSC 24728 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The actress S. Khushboo made remarks in a 2005 news‑magazine survey endorsing societal acceptance of premarital sex and live‑in relationships. Several members of the PMK political party filed criminal complaints alleging defamation, obscenity, indecent representation of women and incitement under the IPC and the Indece

VIJENDER KUMAR @ VIJAYversusSTATE OF DELHI

2010 INSC 25028 April 2010Dismissed

Vijender Kumar, son of a bus operator, suspected his helper Yogesh of stealing part of the bus fare. After a personal search recovered Rs 100, Kumar became angry, beat Yogesh and then retrieved a knife from a nearby scooter to stab him in the abdomen, causing Yogesh's death. He was convicted under Section 302 IPC for m

MOHAN MALI & ANR.versusSTATE OF M.P.

2010 INSC 25128 April 2010Disposed off

Mohan Mali and another were convicted under IPC sections 302, 324 and 326 and sentenced to life imprisonment. One co‑accused, Dhanna Lal (appellant No.2), claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000,

IMRAN PRATAPGADHIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR

2025 INSC 41028 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Rajya Sabha member, posted a video of a mass‑marriage on the social‑media platform X, in which a poem was recited in the background. The poem was alleged to promote communal enmity, leading the police to register an FIR under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. T

AKHILESHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 43128 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed an FIR alleging that four persons shot his father dead over a boundary dispute. While the chargesheet named only two of the alleged shooters, the trial court, relying on the testimonies of two prosecution witnesses, summoned the other two persons under Section 319 of the CrPC. The High Court set asi

MOHD MUSLIM @ HUSSAINversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI

2023 INSC 31128 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mohd Muslim, was arrested in 2015 in connection with a seizure of 180 kg of ganja and charged under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution relied on statements of co‑accused, the appellant’s confessional statement and bank‑transaction records, but failed to produce any direct evidence li

STATE OF PUNJABversusDIL BAHADUR

2023 INSC 30728 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab appealed against the High Court's order reducing the sentence of Dil Bahadur, who had been convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC for rash and negligent driving that caused one death and two injuries. The High Court had lowered the term from two years rigorous imprisonment to eight months,

PULEN PHUKAN & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF ASSAM

2023 INSC 30528 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved the murder of Pradip Phukan, alleged to have been committed by a group of thirteen persons who entered his house and assaulted him with sharp weapons, resulting in his death. The trial court convicted eleven accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 326, 447 and 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life

SHIVA KUMAR @ SHIVA @ SHIVAMURTHYversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2023 INSC 30628 March 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted under IPC sections 366, 376 and 302 for raping, kidnapping and murdering a woman, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder. The appellant appealed, arguing that only the High Court or Supreme Court can impose a modified punishment such as a fixed-term life senten

HARITA SUNIL PARABversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 29028 March 2018Dismissed

Harita Sunil Parab, a practising advocate in Mumbai, filed FIRs in Delhi and Ghaziabad alleging offences under various IPC sections and later sought to have those cases transferred to Mumbai, claiming threats from the accused, fear of a biased investigation and personal inconvenience. The Supreme Court examined whether

SHIVAWWA AND ANRversusTHE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.

2018 INSC 28528 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, Chanabasayya, was killed when he fell from a tractor‑trailer owned by respondent No.2 while returning from unloading maize at Holealur. His father filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation from the insurer (respondent No.1), the vehicle owner (respondent No.2) an

VIRUPAKSHAPPA GOUDA AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

2017 INSC 28328 March 2017Dismissed

Virupakshappa Gouda and another were charged under several IPC sections, including 302 and 149, for an alleged honour killing. They applied for bail repeatedly; the trial court and High Court rejected the first two applications and a Special Leave Petition, but a third application was granted bail by an Additional Sess

KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARKALGUD POLICE

2017 INSC 27628 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved an alleged unlawful assembly in which members of two rival groups clashed, resulting in the death of a farmer, Channegowda. The accused were convicted by the Karnataka High Court on charges including murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and assault (Sec. 324 IPC) despite the trial court’s acquittal. On appeal, the S

SANGHIAN PANDIAN RAJKUMARversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

2014 INSC 22628 March 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered appeals by two police officers, an IPS officer and a Sub‑Inspector of the Anti‑Terrorist Squad, who had been in judicial custody for nearly seven years on charges of murder, conspiracy and related offences. Their bail applications had been rejected by the High Court of Bombay. The Court exa

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY & ORS.versusRAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD & ANR.

2014 INSC 22128 March 2014Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (as amended) after a 23‑year‑old woman was murdered and one of the accused, Raju, was a minor. Petitioners sought to have the Act read down so that juveniles who commit serious offences could be tr

R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIRversusTHE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT VIGILANCE POLICE & ANR.

2011 INSC 22628 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

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

RAJESH SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2011 INSC 22728 March 2011Dismissed

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

SUDERSHAN SINGH WAZIRversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

2025 INSC 28128 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

SACHIN YALLAPPA USULKAR & ORS.versusVIJAYATA & ORS.

2025 INSC 29028 February 2025Case Partly allowed

The case arose from a motor vehicle accident on 13 January 2016 in which the deceased, Vijay Jumnalkar, was killed after his vehicle was struck by a Bolero driven at high speed. The claimants, the deceased's wife and son, filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation, which the Motor Acc

PRADIP N. SHARMAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2025 INSC 29128 February 2025

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

ABDUL WAHID & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2025 INSC 29528 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

INDRAJIT DASversusTHE STATE OF TRIPURA

2023 INSC 17528 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

KASHIBAI & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2023 INSC 72228 February 2023Case Partly allowed

The deceased, Jayashree, married appellant No.3 and was allegedly subjected to physical and mental harassment by her mother‑in‑law and father‑in‑law (appellants) for dowry. She died by jumping into a well, and the prosecution charged the appellants under IPC sections 498A (dowry harassment) and 306 (abetment of suicide

AMRITLALversusSHANTILAL SONI & ORS.

2022 INSC 24328 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2019 INSC 29228 February 2019Dismissed

The appellants, Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh and Ramdeo Prasad, were officials/contractor handling urea bags for the Food Corporation of India. They were alleged to have conspired to misappropriate a total of 1,040 bags of urea and to falsify gate‑register, ‘G’‑Form and ‘O’‑Form entries to show that 500 bags had been deli

CHHANGA @ MANOJversusSTATE OF M. P.

2017 INSC 18628 February 2017Dismissed

The appellant, Chhanga (Manoj), was part of a four‑person group that hurled two bombs at a shop where an informant was present, causing only minor injuries because the bombs exploded at a distance. The appellant shouted "kill him" and was charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for attem

GANDI DODDABASAPPA @ GANDHI BASAVARAJversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2017 INSC 126828 February 2017Dismissed

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

RAJAGOPALversusMUTHUPANDI @ THAVAKKALAI & ORS.

2017 INSC 19028 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Five accused attacked Rajagopal with deadly weapons, inflicting twelve serious injuries that led to the amputation of both his legs. Rajagopal, the injured eye‑witness, gave a detailed, uncontradicted testimony identifying each accused and describing the specific weapons used and injuries inflicted. The trial court con

PARASA KOTESWARARAOversusEEDE SREE HARI & ORS.

2017 INSC 18728 February 2017Dismissed

The case involved the murder of a woman whose decapitated body was recovered in a gunny sack from a canal. The Sessions Court convicted the two accused brothers on the basis of alleged motive, a "last seen" theory, recovery of the body, their absconding and false information given to the victim's father, and sentenced

CBI, ACB, MUMBAIversusNARENDRA LAL JAIN & ORS.

2014 INSC 15228 February 2014Dismissed

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

OM KR. DHANKARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2012 INSC 11428 February 2012Appeal(s) allowed

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

SURENDRA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

2012 INSC 11528 February 2012Dismissed

Five men (Surendra, Narendra, Yogesh, Amar Pal and Anil Kumar) attacked Ramchandra Singh with a burri, knife and lathis after a pending criminal dispute, inflicting multiple injuries that caused his death the next day. The trial court convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, along with Section

BRAJENDRASINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2012 INSC 11628 February 2012Case Partly allowed

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

RAMNARESH & ORS.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2012 INSC 11728 February 2012Case Partly allowed

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

CHANDRABHAN SUDAM SANAPversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 11628 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

GAMBHIR SINGHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2025 INSC 16428 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

CENTRUM FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

2022 INSC 11528 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

RAJENDRA KHAREversusSWAATI NIRKHI AND ORS.

2021 INSC 4528 January 2021

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

KASHMIRA DEVIversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

2020 INSC 9928 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The victim, Urmila (Guddi), was married into a family that repeatedly demanded additional dowry and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. After returning to her parental home due to harassment, she was burnt under suspicious circumstances and later died, leading to three dying declarations—two recorded while th

SATYA RAJ SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 9728 January 2019Dismissed

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

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusRAM KAILASH ALIAS RAM VILAS

2016 INSC 10028 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

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

JAGE RAM & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 7028 January 2015Disposed off

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

SANJAY KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2014 INSC 6028 January 2014Dismissed

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

MOHINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2013 INSC 6128 January 2013Disposed off

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

STATE THROUGH C.B.I.versusMAHENDER SINGH DAHIYA

2011 INSC 8028 January 2011Dismissed

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

POONAM CHAND JAIN AND ANR.versusFAZRU

2010 INSC 6328 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2010 INSC 6428 January 2010Disposed off

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

RAM SINGH @ CHHAJUversusSTATE OF H.P.

2010 INSC 6528 January 2010Dismissed

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

XversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

2024 INSC 90927 November 2024

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

ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2020 INSC 66527 November 2020Disposed off

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

PALANIversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2018 INSC 110527 November 2018Dismissed

The appellant Palani was convicted for the murder of his nephew Sankar under Sections 148, 435 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 149 of the IPC. The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of the victim's mother (PW‑1), who identified the accused and described the assault, and was corroborated by medical evidence and recovered we

RAJU @ BALACHANDRAN & ORS.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2012 INSC 54327 November 2012Dismissed

The appellants were convicted for the murder of Veerappan and his mother Marudayi based primarily on the testimony of PW‑5 Srinivasan, the victim's brother and a related, interested witness who also harboured enmity against the accused. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that PW‑5’s evidence should be cl

MADALA VENKATA NARSIMHA RAOversusSTATE OF A.P.

2012 INSC 54827 November 2012Case Partly allowed

The appellant was charged with raping and murdering a young woman, Lalitha. Witnesses saw him fleeing the house with blood‑stained clothes and heard him push them as they entered, and the victim gave a dying declaration that he had struck her with a grinder. The trial court acquitted him of both charges, but the High C

SATYAMA DUBEY & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 61227 October 2020Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a batch of writ petitions and intervention applications filed under Article 32 seeking a fair investigation into the gang‑rape and murder of a 19‑year‑old girl in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, and alleging illegal cremation of the victim. The State Government had already ordered the Central Bureau of

MEHBOOBALI &ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2015 INSC 80427 October 2015Dismissed

The case involved a fake currency racket in Rajasthan where accused Mehboob Ali and Firoz, while in police custody, gave statements that led to the identification and arrest of co‑accused Anju Ali, Majhar, Liyakat Ali and others, and to the recovery of forged notes. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether such s

KAMLESH & ORS.versusATTAR SINGH & ORS.

2015 INSC 80527 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The dependants of Rishi Parkash filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the driver, owner and insurer of a Maruti car and the driver of a tempo, seeking compensation for his death in a collision. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held both drivers negligent and awarded Rs.5,81,000 with inter

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

2014 INSC 101927 October 2014Case Partly allowed

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

RANJIT SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2010 INSC 74727 October 2010Dismissed

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

PHULEL SINGHversusSTATE OF HARAYANA

2023 INSC 86327 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

RAVINDRANATHA BAJPEversusMANGALORE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD. & OTHERS ETC.

2021 INSC 55527 September 2021Dismissed

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

SHRI MAHADEV MEENAversusPRAVEEN RATHORE AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 54827 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

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

GURU @ GURUBARAN & ORS.versusSTATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE

2019 INSC 109427 September 2019Disposed off

The case arose from a violent incident that followed a failed Panchayat meeting intended to settle a family dispute. The victim, Saroja, was attacked by several accused who were armed with sickles, an iron pipe and wooden staffs; she died from a severe head wound. The High Court convicted A-1 and A-2 under Section 302

JOSEPH SHINEversusUNION OF INDIA

2018 INSC 89827 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

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

RANJIT SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 65627 September 2013Disposed off

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

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusJAMIL KHAN

2013 INSC 65727 September 2013Disposed off

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

M/S NEW HORIZON SUGAR MILLS LTD.versusGOVT. OF PONDICHERRY TH. ADDL. SEC. & ANR.

2012 INSC 43027 September 2012Dismissed

New Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd and its directors, who had guaranteed a bank loan, defaulted and faced attachment of their properties under the Pondicherry Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004. They challenged the validity of that Act and a government order attaching properties, arguin

LAXMANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2012 INSC 43127 September 2012Dismissed

The case involved the murder of Nagoba, for which six of eleven accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The appellants (A‑1 and A‑2) challenged their convictions on the grounds that the key prosecution witnesses were relatives of the deceased, that there was a delay in lodging the FIR

AJAY KUMAR PARMARversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2012 INSC 43527 September 2012Dismissed

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

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

2011 INSC 71627 September 2011

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

PARAMJEET SINGH @ PAMMAversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2010 INSC 64727 September 2010Dismissed

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

GANPATversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2010 INSC 64927 September 2010Dismissed

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

KHUMAN SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 96527 August 2019Case Partly allowed

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

DENY BORAversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2014 INSC 57127 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

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

ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION,, BANGALOREversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2013 INSC 56927 August 2013Appeal(s) allowed

On 2 March 2012 a former Karnataka minister was to be produced before the City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore, triggering a large crowd, a scuffle between advocates, police and media persons, and subsequent violence that injured many and led to over 191 FIRs. The Advocates Association filed writ petitions seeking a CBI

SHIMBHU AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2013 INSC 56827 August 2013Dismissed

Shimbhu and another were convicted of gang rape and related offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 366, 342, 363, 506 and 34 of the IPC and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. They appealed, seeking reduction of the sentence on the basis of a compromise with the victim, the passage of time since the offence, and

CHENDA @ CHANDA RAMversusSTATE OF CHHATISGARH

2013 INSC 57227 August 2013Case Partly allowed

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

POOJA RANAversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2012 INSC 35327 August 2012Dismissed

Pooja Rana, born in 1993, married Sachin Kumar Rana of her own choice, after which her parents and maternal uncle filed an FIR against her husband under IPC sections 363, 366, 328 and 504. She filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the quash of the FIR and direction to register a criminal ca

JYOTI MISHRAversusDHANANJAYA MISHRA

2010 INSC 54327 August 2010Dismissed

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

PRATHAP & ANR.versusSTATE OF KERALA

2010 INSC 54527 August 2010Dismissed

The deceased Kochukuttan and his companion attacked the appellants, prompting the appellants and nine others to retaliate with swords and other deadly weapons, causing fatal injuries to Kochukuttan. Eye‑witnesses PW‑1 (the brother‑in‑law of the deceased) and PW‑2 positively identified the appellants and described the i

SHAIKH SATTARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2010 INSC 54627 August 2010Dismissed

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

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusM.NARASIMHA RAO

2010 INSC 54827 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed the High Court's acquittal of M. Narasimha Rao, who was charged with murder under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution relied on the eyewitness testimony of the victim's son (PW‑1) and wife (PW‑2), corroborated by a detailed post‑mortem report showing multiple fatal injuries. The High C

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

2023 INSC 64827 July 2023Case Partly allowed

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

PRAHLADversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2022 INSC 75327 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The victim Ramesh, who had political enmity with three accused (Mohan, Prahlad and Jagdish), was shot and died in June 1991. The trial court acquitted all three, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient. The High Court reversed the acquittal of Mohan and Prahlad, relying on the sole testimony of an eye‑witness (PW

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusGANGABISHAN @ VISHNU & ORS.

2018 INSC 64427 July 2018Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted nine accused for the death of Rajesh, who was shot in the left thigh during a dispute over cattle and crop damage. The trial court convicted all under sections 302/149, 325/149, 147, 148 and 440 IPC, but the High Court acquitted eight of them, retaining only a conviction of accuse

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

2017 INSC 68327 July 2017Directions issued

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

LOUIS PETER SURINversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2010 INSC 43427 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

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

SIDDANKI RAM REDDYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2010 INSC 43527 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted for murder (s.302 IPC) after a mob attacked the deceased in a court corridor, based primarily on the testimony of three eye‑witnesses (PW‑1, PW‑5, PW‑6) and a test identification parade. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of those witnesses, noting that PW‑1 failed to name the appell

VIJAY @ CHINEEversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2010 INSC 43727 July 2010Dismissed

The appellant Vijay and five others were convicted of gang‑rape of a girl, Asha @ Gopi, on 6‑12‑1988 under IPC s.376/34 and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. The appellant appealed, contending that the victim was a major, that there was no consent, that the prosecution relied solely on her testimony withou

PRITHIversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 43827 July 2010Dismissed

The appellant, accused of murder and related offences, challenged his conviction on the ground that the victim's dead body was never recovered and no post‑mortem was conducted, arguing that proof of corpus delicti was lacking. The prosecution relied on two eye‑witnesses, PW‑6 (who was injured) and PW‑9 (the victim's br

CHANDRAPALversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH (EARLIER M.P.)

2022 INSC 62927 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved the disappearance and subsequent discovery of the decomposed bodies of a young couple, Kumari Brinda and Kanhaiya, who were found hanging from a tree. The prosecution alleged that Chandrapal, the appellant, conspired with others to murder the couple and later staged the deaths as suicides, relying on

RAMJHAN GANI PALANIversusNATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY AND ANR

2022 INSC 48227 April 2022Dismissed

The petitioner was arrested after a joint operation by the Indian Coast Guard and DRI seized over 236 kg of heroin from a Pakistani vessel near Jakhau Port, Gujarat. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, aboard an Indian fishing boat, responded to a VHF call intended for the drug handover, indicating his role as

PATAN JAMAL VALIversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2021 INSC 27227 April 2021Disposed off

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

RE : VIJAY KURLE & ORS.versusRE:

2020 INSC 37327 April 2020Directions issued

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

STATE OF GUJARATversusMANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH

2020 INSC 36627 April 2020Appeal(s) allowed

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

SEENI NAINAR MOHAMMEDversusSTATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

2017 INSC 40627 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and IPC for the murder of a Hindu leader. The Supreme Court examined whether the required prior sanction under Section 20‑A of TADA had been validly obtained. It found that the sanctioning authority had granted approval

BRIJENDRA SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017 INSC 40927 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

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

HARIJAN BHALA TEJAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2016 INSC 34627 April 2016Dismissed

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

D. T. VIRUPAKSHAPPAversusC. SUBASH

2015 INSC 35927 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

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

K. ANBAZHAGANversusSTATE OF KARNATAKAAND OTHERS

2015 INSC 32327 April 2015Disposed off

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

ANEETA HADAversusM/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & TOURS PVT. LTD.

2012 INSC 18727 April 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether an authorised signatory of a company could be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 67/85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 without the company itself being named as an accused. The Court held that Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrume

R. SHASHIREKHAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 40227 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

ASLAM ALIAS IMRANversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2025 INSC 40327 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Aslam alias Imran, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly stabbing his brother's brother, Zahid Khan, with a butcher knife, leading to the victim's death. The prosecution's case rested on the testimonies of several eyewitnesses, notably the victim's brother (PW-1), who was an interested witnes

RAMESH KUMARAN & ANR.versusSTATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

2025 INSC 40527 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute involved two lawyers practicing before the same courts in Kodaikanal who filed cross‑FIRs against each other for the same incident on 18 December 2017, alleging assault, threats and injury. Both FIRs named the same offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of the IPC, and the matter had been pending fo

NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARYversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2023 INSC 29827 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2019 INSC 40927 March 2019

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

GANAPATHI & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2018 INSC 27127 March 2018Dismissed

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

MANJU SURANAversusSUNIL ARORA & ORS.

2018 INSC 27827 March 2018Matter referred to larger bench

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

SHAKTI VAHINIversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 26627 March 2018Disposed off

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

RANBEER SINGH (DEAD) BY L.R.versusSTATE OF U. P. & ORS.

2015 INSC 27027 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by the complainant, Ranbeer Singh, against the Allahabad High Court’s acquittal of three co‑accused (Balbir Singh, Karua and Vinod) who had been convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The trial court had found all four accused – including the main sh

NARINDER SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2014 INSC 21727 March 2014Appeal(s) allowed

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

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