Supreme Court of India Judgements

46750 Judgements hosted as on 24/03/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Acquittal

Acquittal

Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s conviction of six individuals for rioting and related offences, restoring their acquittal, as their mere presence at the crime scene amidst a large crowd was insufficient to prove membership in an unlawful assembly without evidence of specific roles or overt acts.

Mar 23, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 381 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHIRUBHAI BHAILALBHAI CHAUHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ.…

Acquittal

The Supreme Court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, citing inconsistencies in recovery witness testimonies, discrepancies in the recovery process, and lack of corroboration for the “last seen” testimony — The Court emphasized that recovery memos prepared at the police station lacked sanctity — Granting the benefit of the doubt, the Court acquitted the Appellant, set aside the convictions, and ordered his release.

Feb 9, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 167 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJA KHAN Vs. STATE OF CHATTISGARH ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Manmohan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2025…

Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 923 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WADLA BHEEMARAIDU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA — Respondent ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 924 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IRFAN KHAN — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 782 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LALU YADAV — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 783 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. SRINIVAS D. SRIDHAR — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

Acquittal Circumstantial Evidence

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 307 and 201 — Murder of mother, wife, and daughter, and the attempt to murder of neighbor — Circumstantial Evidence — The main issue was whether the appellant was guilty of the murders and attempted murder, and whether the death penalty was warranted — The appellant argued that the evidence, particularly the testimony of the injured neighbor, was unreliable and that the recoveries of the hammer and clothes were not credible — The State argued that the evidence, including the neighbor’s testimony and the recoveries, proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt — The Supreme Court found the testimony of the neighbor unreliable due to contradictions and delayed recording — The recoveries were also deemed not credible — The Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt — The evidence did not conclusively prove the appellant’s guilt — The Court referred to established principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, highlighting the need for a complete chain of evidence excluding any hypothesis of innocence — The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, directing the appellant to be released if not required in any other case.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 788 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VISHWAJEET KERBA MASALKAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V.…

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

2024 INSC 735 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAY SINGH @ VIJAY KR. SHARMA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi…

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

2024 INSC 737 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAILASHBEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

Acquittal I P C

Distinction Between Assault and Jostling/Struggling — The court distinguished between an assault, which involves an intentional application of force or a threat to apply force, and jostling or struggling that may occur during an attempt to resist arrest or escape — The mere act of jostling or struggling, without evidence of intent to assault or use criminal force, does not constitute an offence under Section 353 IPC. Necessity of Compliance with Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. for Prosecuting under Section 186 IPC —The court held that for prosecuting an offence under Section 186 IPC (obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions), it is mandatory to follow the procedure laid down in Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which requires a complaint or report by the public servant concerned or by some other person authorized by him in writing.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 600 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAHENDRA KUMAR SONKER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ( Before : B.R. Gavai, K. V. Viswanathan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

You missed

I P C

Conviction under Section 302 requires proof of premeditation or intention to kill; absence of such elements may lead to reduced charges, such as under Section 304 IPC, with sentencing considerations potentially based on time already served

Mar 25, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Mere presence at a crime scene, without evidence of an overt act or specific role, is insufficient to convict an individual as a member of an unlawful assembly, especially in cases involving large crowds and public disturbances

Mar 25, 2025 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State

Mar 25, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 154 — Registration of FIR — Mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if information discloses commission of a cognizable offense; no preliminary inquiry permissible in such cases.

Mar 25, 2025 sclaw