Month: January 2025

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 326 — Compromise Despite Non-Compoundability — Even though section 326 is a non-compoundable offense under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court can still allow the compounding of such an offense when there is a genuine and voluntary settlement between the parties — This is an exception to the general rule and is invoked in special circumstances.

2025 INSC 37 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH H. N. PANDAKUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 162 — Scheme for golden hour — Obligation of Central Government — The court emphasizes the statutory obligation of the Central Government to create a scheme for cashless treatment of accident victims during the golden hour as mandated by Section 162(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) — This obligation is not discretionary but a legal requirement.

2025 INSC 45 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. RAJASEEKARAN — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 306 —Abetment of Suicide — The appellant sought anticipatory bail after the High Court rejected her plea — The State of Punjab acknowledged her participation in the investigation and stated no further custodial interrogation was needed — The Supreme Court granted her anticipatory bail, considering the State of Punjab’s submission that she cooperated with the investigation — The decision was based on the recognition that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary and that anticipatory bail would be appropriate — The Supreme Court concluded that appellant should be granted anticipatory bail, subject to any conditions imposed by the Trial Court — The State would retain the right to seek bail cancellation if conditions were violated.

2025 INSC 49 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAMTA KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of…

Railways Act, 1989 — Section 143 — The creation of multiple user IDs is not explicitly criminalized under Section 143, but unauthorized procurement and supply of tickets is — The court stated that penal provisions must be read strictly and narrowly and since the act does not mention multiple IDs, it cannot be penalized — The court found that while an authorized agent who engages in unauthorized actions would not be penalized under this law, an unauthorized person who engages in such actions would be penalized.

2025 INSC 51 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INSPECTOR, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, KOTTAYAM Vs. MATHEW K CHERIAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be applied even when a conviction has been upheld — Even though appellant’s conviction under Sections 326, 325, 452, and 323 of the IPC was affirmed by the High Court, the Supreme Court extended the benefit of the Probation Act — The fact that appellant was acquitted of more serious charges (Sections 307, 148, and 149 IPC) and that he had already served a significant portion of his sentence was also taken into consideration. — The age of the accused, the length of the criminal proceedings, and the absence of a prior criminal record can justify the application of the Probation Act — The court took into account appellant’s age (approximately 70 years old), the prolonged nature of the proceedings, and the fact that he had no prior convictions, in deciding to apply the Probation Act to him.

2025 INSC 46 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of 2025 (@…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 304 Part I — Murder — Appeal against conviction — Appellants were initially convicted of murder but the charge was later modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC — The court upheld this modification, citing the lack of clear motive, premeditation, and definitive intent to kill, despite the fatal injuries inflicted — The judgment considered the credibility of the sole eyewitness, the timing of the FIR, and the overall weight of the evidence, ultimately reducing the sentence to the time already served and imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000 each.

2025 INSC 47 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GOVERDHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ( Before : B. R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…