Supreme Court of India Judgements

46800 Judgements hosted as on 11/06/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Acquittal

Acquittal

Hostile witnesses — Effect — When a large number of witnesses, including eyewitnesses, turn hostile, prosecution case often collapses for want of evidence — While reasons for hostility can be varied (coercion, fear, monetary consideration, etc.), it cannot automatically lead to conviction based on prior S. 161 statements or IO’s testimony about such statements, as these are not substantive evidence — Court’s consternation at collapse of a serious case due to witness hostility cannot be a reason to convict on insufficient or inadmissible evidence, amounting to a moral conviction anathema to criminal jurisprudence.

May 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 657 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RENUKA PRASAD Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.…

Acquittal Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w S. 13(2) a— Illegal gratification — Demand and Acceptance — Proof beyond reasonable doubt — Where prosecution case regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by public servant (Revenue Inspector) suffered from material contradictions and inconsistencies in evidence of complainant (PW1) and other prosecution witnesses (PW7) Minor discrepancies may not be fatal, but serious contradictions going to root of matter, rendering evidence untrustworthy, are grounds for acquittal.

May 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 655 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARITALA SUDHAKAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…..of 2025 [@…

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,…

You missed

Consumer

Developer liable for refund with agreed interest for delayed possession; interest on allottee’s loan not developer’s direct liability, though loan financing can be a factor in awarding general compensation

Jun 12, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India — Article 20(3) — Right Against Self-Incrimination — Constitutional Validity of Narco-Analysis Test — Forced Tests Raise Serious Questions — Involuntary Administration Hit by Article 20(3) – Involuntary Narco-Analysis Test — Contravention of Rights — Results Not ‘Material Evidence’ — Violates ‘Substantive Due Process’ — Breaches Privacy Boundaries.

Jun 11, 2025 sclaw
C P C Railways Act

Demand notices for misdeclaration of goods under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989 are valid even if raised after delivery of goods, unlike punitive charges for overloading which must be recovered before delivery.

Jun 10, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC is limited to determining a prima facie case from the FIR, without appreciating defence evidence or conducting a mini-trial.

Jun 10, 2025 sclaw