Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Acquittal

Acquittal

HELD considering that the place of occurrence was an open place and the other circumstances (i.e. motive, disclosure, recovery and extra judicial confession) were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, shifting the burden on the accused to explain the circumstances in which the deceased sustained injuries, or to demonstrate that he parted company of the deceased, would not be justified – Appeal dismissed

May 2, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. PHOOLCHAND RATHORE — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…

Acquittal Narcotics

N D P S Act, 1985 – Section 8(c) read with Sections 21(c), 27A, 28 and Section 29 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Confessional statements were made by the accused to an police officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act and hence, bar of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the confessional statements will have to be kept out of consideration – Prosecution has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants

Apr 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BOTHILAL — Appellant Vs. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal Narcotics

NDPS – Appellant has been convicted merely on the ground that he was the registered owner of the truck – Primary error committed by the Courts below while convicting the Appellant is that the onus is sought to be shifted on him to prove his innocence without the foundational facts having been proved by the prosecution – Hence, the conviction of the Appellant cannot be legally sustained.

Apr 30, 2023 sclaw

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

Acquittal

HELD for the principle of determining the guilt of the accused in a case involving circumstantial evidence is not that of probability but certainty and that all the evidence present should conclusively point towards only a singular hypothesis, which is the guilt of the accused – Appeal allowed judgement HC set aside

Apr 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAGHAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH @ PANKAJ SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ )…

Acquittal

HELD the accused having secured the acquittal, the presumption of their innocence gets further reinforced and strengthened. Therefore, the appellate court ought not to lightly interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court unless there is gross perversity in the appreciation of the evidence and even if two views are possible, it should follow the view taken by the trial court rather than choosing the second possible version.

Apr 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FEDRICK CUTINHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2251…

Acquittal Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) – Unless both demand and acceptance are established, offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) cannot be proved – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.

Apr 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOUNDARAJAN — Appellant Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE ANTICORRUPTION DINDIGUL — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh…

Acquittal

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Sections 7, 16(1)(a)(i) and 19(2) – Appellant who sold the article of food after purchasing the same from the manufacturer through the invoices which contained the warranty as prescribed under the Act and the Rules – Hence, he had the protection available under Section 19(2)(a) of the Act – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.

Apr 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SRI MAHAVIR AGENCY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

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