Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Acquittal

Acquittal

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 113B – no eye-witness to the crime – Presumption – nothing specific has been stated by the complainant to bring home the guilt of the appellant for raising presumption as contained in Section 304B IPC read with Section 113B of the Evidence Act. In cross-examination, stated that he had seen his sister 4/5 months before her death – Appeal allowed.

Mar 26, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNSHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Acquittal

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988 – Order restricts unauthorised possession of gas cylinders – HELD officer or the Department of Food and Civil Supplies of the Government, not below the rank of an Inspector authorised by such Government – It nowhere prescribes that a Sub-Inspector of the Police can take action – Appeal allowed.

Mar 25, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence – Appeal against – there are no circumstances brought on record which will prove the demand for gratification. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) will not be attracted – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.

Mar 21, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEERAJ DUTTA — Appellant Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Acquittal

Murder – Acquittal – Cardinal principles in the administration of criminal justice in cases where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence, is that where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to the accused must be adopted

Mar 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1304…

Acquittal

HELD in the impugned judgement, there is neither any reasoning, nor any appreciation of evidence on record. We cannot convict the accused on the basis of the principles of preponderance of probability. It is our duty to make sure that miscarriage of justice is avoided at all costs and the benefit of doubt, if any, given to the accused.

Mar 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UDAYAKUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1741…

Acquittal

Acquittal HELD save and except for the confessional statement of the accused, the Prosecution is not able to link the weapon with the accused. There was no scientific evidence, or the marks of his fingerprints, other identification marks or any tell-tale signs of the blood found on body of the deceased, linking it to the metal pellets of the bullet fired from the weapon recovered during investigation.

Mar 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NARENDRASINH KESHUBHAI ZALA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal

HELD proceeded with the acquired assumption of the guilt of the accused for the reason that he was lastly seen with the deceased, and lodged a false report, forgetting that as per the version of the father of the deceased, father of the accused had himself apprised him of his missing daughter, at least two days prior to the incident. Doubt and suspicion cannot form basis of guilt of the accused. The circumstances linking the accused to the crime are not proven at all, much less beyond reasonable doubt.

Mar 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GUNA MAHTO — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 108…

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw