Supreme Court of India Judgements

47020 Judgements hosted as on 04/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Acquittal

Acquittal

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1A) and Section 16(1)(a)(ii) – Adulterated Haldi Powder HELD the report of the public analyst does not mention that the sample was either “insect infested” or was “unfit for human consumption”, in the absence of such an opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish the requirements of Section 2 (1a)(f) of the Act

Jul 30, 2020 sclaw

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2255 OF 2010 PREM CHAND …APPELLANT Versus STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT JUDGMENT N. V. RAMANA, J. 1.…

Acquittal

IPC, 1860 – Sections 366A and 506 – CrPC , 1973 – S. 313 – Illicit intercourse HELD Important links of the story, including what happened in the crucial five minutes when the girl was locked inside the room or how the male tenant reacted, are missing – Similarly, other links of the story are grossly inconsistent – once a plausible version put forth in defence U/Section 313 CrPC stage, it is for the prosecution to negate such defense plea – Appeal allowed. DOD 28/7/2020

Jul 28, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PARMINDER KAUR @ P.P. KAUR @ SONI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and…

Acquittal

ACQUITTAL – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(1) and 450 – Rape – Material contradictions – Benefit of doubt There is a delay in the FIR – The medical report does not support the case of the prosecution – FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution – The manner in which the occurrence is stated to have occurred is not believable

Feb 14, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANTOSH PRASAD @ SANTOSH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 – Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Sections 3 and 5 – Unlawful assembly – Persons were armed with deadly weapons like country­ made bombs etc. HELD the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited, the appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court. It is obvious that the High Court also did not find material evidence to convict the accused and, therefore, set aside the judgment and remitted the matter to the trial court. In a criminal case, remand is not to be ordered as a matter of course. It is only if there is a minis­trial or some technical issues have arisen that such an order may be made but in very rare circumstances. – The trial court was justified in acquitting the accused

Dec 25, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KOOLI SASEENDRAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Murder of child by mother – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – HELD Though the doctor has opined in the post-mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia but in absence of any clear evidence on record it is not safe to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC – Appeal allowed.

Dec 23, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANJU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34 and 302 – Murder – Common intention – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Appellant was present on the spot of the offence HELD In order to invoke the principle of joint liability in the commission of a criminal act as laid down in Section 34, the prosecution should show that the criminal act in question was done by one of the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention of all.

Dec 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIRENDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and K. M. Joseph, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 363, 364, 364-A and 365 and Section 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 21 (1)(a) – Explosives Act, 1884 – Section 3 and 5 – Murder – Acquittal – Last seen together theory -Apart from Extra-Judicial Confession by Appellant Accused No.-1 no direct evidence was adduced by the prosecution to establish involvement of the accused in the alleged crime. Entire case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence and theory of last seen together.

Dec 15, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SHAILENDRA RAJDEV PASVAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT ETC. — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari,…

You missed

Education

Meritorious reserved category candidates must be considered against unreserved vacancies at the screening stage without availing any concession, prioritizing merit over category bias.

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw
State Laws

The Commission under the WBCE Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services and qualifications of personnel, distinct from medical negligence handled by State Medical Councils.

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw
Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw
Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw