Supreme Court of India Judgements

46610 Judgements hosted as on 24/09/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: June 2024

Constitution

Rule for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 – Rule 6 – The case involves appeals against the order of the Patna High Court which directed a de novo trial and made observations against the Special Judge’s approach in conducting the trial – The appeals raise questions regarding the legality of the High Court’s order, the conduct of the trial by the Special Judge, and the application of video conferencing rules in court proceedings – The appellant challenges the High Court’s order of remittal and the observations made against the Special Judge – The respondent defends the High Court’s decision and the observations made therein – The Supreme Court’s judgment addresses the legal provisions for conducting a trial, witness protection, fair trial principles, and the supply of documents to the accused – The Court examines the rules for video conferencing, witness protection scheme, and the importance of a fair trial in the criminal justice system – The judgment discusses the procedural safeguards in the CrPC, 1973, and their substantive elements that protect constitutional rights – The Court emphasizes the need for due compliance with procedural laws to ensure a fair trial and the rights of all stakeholders, including the accused, the victim, and society

Jun 2, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNITA DEVI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M. M. Sundresh and S. V. N. Bhatti,…

Service Matters
Service

Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – Rule 5(1) – Two judicial officers challenged the promotion process for Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the post of Additional District Judge, arguing that the High Court of Gujarat incorrectly applied the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ instead of ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ as stipulated by the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – The main issue was whether the promotion process adhered to the principle and if the final Select List was in contravention of this principle – The petitioners contended that the High Court wrongly assessed all eligible candidates for a minimum merit level and then promoted them based on seniority, which equates to ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ – The High Court argued that ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ should not be confused with pure merit and that seniority should also be considered – The Court analyzed the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32, the legislative history of the 2005 Rules, and the decision in All India Judges’ Association (3), emphasizing the need for merit-based criteria for promotion in the Higher Judicial Service – The final decision on the promotion process’s adherence to ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ was to be determined.

Jun 2, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 436 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dhananjaya Y.…

I P C Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.

Jun 2, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 452 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BARAKATHULLAH ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

Accident

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 173 – Enhancement of compensation – Indigent person – Appellant, an indigent person, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for Rs. 10 lakhs – The MACT awarded her Rs. 2,41,745 with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till realization – The appellant then filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat seeking enhanced compensation – The High Court dismissed the appeal and denied the appellant permission to file the appeal as an indigent person, stating that she had received compensation by the MACT and was therefore not indigent – The appellant argued that she was still indigent despite receiving compensation from the MACT, as she had not yet received the awarded amount – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment – The court held that the appellant was still indigent despite receiving compensation from the MACT, as she had not yet received the awarded amount – The court granted the appellant liberty to appeal as an indigent person and requested the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment – The court relied on previous judgments to define the concept of an ‘indigent person’ and applied the principle that lack of monetary capability should not preclude a person from seeking justice – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and granted the appellant liberty to appeal as an indigent person.

Jun 2, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 457 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYA — Appellant Vs. SIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol,…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307 — Attempt to Murder — The complainant was abused and beaten by the accused, leading to an FIR under various IPC sections —Whether the injuries sustained by the complainant justify framing charges under Section 307 IPC — Petitioner argues that the injuries and the act of throttling indicate an intention to kill, warranting charges under Section 307 IPC — Respondent states that the injuries were minor, and the medical report did not conclusively support the charge of attempt to murder —The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, directing the trial court to frame charges under Section 307 IPC —The intent to kill can be inferred from the circumstances and the doctor’s report suggesting the possibility of throttling —The extent of injuries is irrelevant if the intent to cause death is present, as per established legal precedents —The trial court must proceed with charges under Section 307 IPC, and the trial should be expedited.

Sep 28, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 323, 302, 364, 449, 450, 380/34 and 120-B —Abduction and Murder — Seven accused were charged, with five initially convicted and two acquitted — The High Court later convicted all seven —Whether the High Court’s reversal of acquittal and conviction of all accused was justified based on the evidence — Petitioners argue that no motive for A-6 and A-7, unreliable witness testimonies, discrepancies in the time of death, and lack of proof of deceased’s residence — Prosecution contends that consistent witness testimonies, sufficient evidence of motive, and proper appreciation of evidence by the High Court — The Supreme Court acquitted all seven accused, finding the High Court’s reversal of acquittal unjustified and the evidence insufficient —Doubts about witness credibility, lack of direct evidence, and improper exclusion of some testimonies by the High Court —The High Court failed to meet the higher threshold required to reverse an acquittal, and the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt —The convictions were set aside, and all accused were acquitted.

Sep 28, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 148, 302, and 307 — The appellants, armed with weapons, attacked the victims, resulting in serious injuries — The prosecution’s case is supported by eyewitness testimonies and medico-legal evidence —Whether the appellants acted with common intention to kill and if the absence of independent witnesses affects the prosecution’s case — The appellants claimed self-defense and alleged false implication due to a prior FIR filed by A-4’s daughter — The prosecution argued that the appellants had a common intention to kill, supported by consistent eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence —The High Court’s decision finding the appellants guilty under sections 148, 302, and 307, IPC read with section 34 is upheld —The court emphasized the reliability of injured eyewitnesses and the formation of common intention even moments before the act — The appeal is dismissed, affirming the High Court’s judgment.

Sep 28, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 — Cruelty — The complainant filed an FIR against her in-laws under various sections of the IPC, alleging cruelty and dowry demands — The appellants sought to quash the FIR and chargesheet — Whether the FIR and chargesheet should be quashed due to lack of specific allegations and the existence of a civil dispute — Appellants argue that the FIR is vague, lacks material particulars, and is an abuse of the criminal process — The allegations are general and relate to a civil property dispute — Respondent contends that rhe High Court found a prima facie case of cruelty and specific allegations against each appellant — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and chargesheet, finding the allegations vague and the proceedings an abuse of the criminal process —The Court noted the lack of specific details in the allegations and the existence of a contentious civil dispute between the complainant’s husband and his family — The Court emphasized the need for careful examination of allegations in cases where the FIR appears to be motivated by ulterior motives —The appeal was allowed, and the FIR and chargesheet were quashed.

Sep 28, 2024 sclaw