Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 19/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Acquittal

Acquittal Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence – they must exclude all hypotheses consistent with the innocence of the accused and inconsistent with his guilt – Incriminating circumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and otherwise also the circumstance of last seen was inconclusive – Appeal dismissed.

Jul 18, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2128…

Acquittal

Murder – In the absence of any credible eye witness to the incident and the fact that the presence of the accused appellants at the place of incident is not well established – Constrained to accord benefit of doubt to both the accused appellants – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.

Jul 18, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. MUSLIM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (NOW UTTARAKHAND) — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal CBI Corruption

(CrPC) – Section 306(4)(a) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 5(2) – In cases where the Special Court decides to proceed with a case under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is no need to consider the requirement of the approver being examined as a witness in the Magistrate’s Court according to Section 306(4)(a).

Jul 11, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. SRINIVASULU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Acquittal

In explaining the circumstances appearing in the evidence against the appellant in terms of the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there was no summing­up of any evidence specifically against the appellant by the Trial Court – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.

Jul 11, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMOL BHASKARRAO WAGHMARE — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.744…

Acquittal

Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt – It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof would lie upon the accused

Jul 3, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2128…

Acquittal I P C

In the absence of any credible eye witness to the incident and the fact that the presence of the accused appellants at the place of incident is not well established – Constrained to accord benefit of doubt to both the accused appellants – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.

Jun 20, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. MUSLIM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (NOW UTTARAKHAND) — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed

Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw