Category: Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 279, 304A — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) — Sections 134, 187 — Rash and negligent driving causing death — Driver acted on conductor’s signals for stopping and starting the bus — Driver cannot be held negligent when following conductor’s instructions — Death could be due to passenger’s own lack of care while alighting — Driver acquitted.

2026 INSC 565 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAMMAD HANIF JAINUM KHALIFA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 366, 374(2) — Death Sentence — Appeal against conviction and sentence — High Court partly allowed appeals by acquitting of one charge and confirming conviction and sentences for remaining offences, including death sentence — Supreme Court considered submissions on behalf of accused-appellants and respondent-State — Supreme Court analyzed evidence and found prosecution failed to establish circumstances beyond reasonable doubt — Accordingly, judgments of trial court and High Court set aside, and appeals allowed.

2026 INSC 578 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MEHTAB Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(s). 1342-1343…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304-A — Causing death by negligence — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 134(b) and Section 187 — Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person and Punishment for offences relating to accident — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Driver convicted under Section 304-A IPC and Sections 134(b) and 187 MVA — High Court partly allowed revision, setting aside conviction for Section 279 IPC but maintaining conviction for Section 304-A IPC.

2026 INSC 504 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHADEVANNA D.M. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 223(1) first proviso — Applicability of — Proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) filed before commencement of BNSS — Cognizance taken after commencement of BNSS — Accused not given opportunity of hearing at cognizance stage — Provision mandates hearing of accused before taking cognizance — Non-compliance is an illegality vitiating cognizance order — High Court judgment set aside.

2026 INSC 519 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARVINDER SINGH Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ( Before : M. M. Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No……..of…

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Offences under Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv), and 38(1) — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B — Poisons Act, 1919 — Section 6 — Foreigners Act, 1946 — Section 14(c) — Passport Act, 1967 — Section 3 read with Section 12(1)(a) — Conviction for charges including conspiracy to revive banned organization LTTE — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Supreme Court’s finding that appellant was falsely implicated due to mistaken identity — Reliance on oral testimony of two key witnesses who introduced crucial alias name “Ranjan” years after the alleged incident and only after appellant’s arrest — Inconsistencies and material improvements in their testimonies — Failure of prosecution to establish identity with reliable oral or documentary evidence — Absence of any contemporaneous description, documentary linkage, or independent corroboration connecting appellant to the alleged absconding accused “Sri” — Appellant residing openly and lawfully as a refugee, pursuing visa to Switzerland inconsistent with being an absconding accused — Conviction and sentence set aside — Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.

2026 INSC 516 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Q BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM, TAMIL NADU ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta…

Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Burden of Proof — Reasonable Doubt — Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that leaves no reasonable ground for doubt, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, with the sole remaining incriminating circumstance being the “last seen together” theory, which was deemed insufficient for conviction as an accomplice.

2026 INSC 417 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANAND JAKKAPPA PUJARI @GADDADAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 374 — Appeal against dismissal of criminal appeal by High Court — Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act — Prosecution case based entirely on circumstantial evidence — No eyewitnesses — Reliability of prosecution witnesses critically examined — Admission by key witness regarding darkness and identification by voice only, materially undermining credibility — Evidence found insufficient to meet standard of proof in criminal law and exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence — Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted.

2026 INSC 317 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAY PRAKASH YADAV Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed