Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Acquittal

Acquittal

Common Intention –Unless a common intention is established as a matter of necessary inference from the proven circumstances, the accused person will be liable for their individual acts and not for the act done by any other person.Appeal against conviction–Appellant acquitted by trial Court–High Court convicted the appellant–Held, if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not to be disturbed by appellate Court–

Jan 5, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 175 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy Criminal Appeal No. 1657…

Acquittal

Criminal Law –Murder–Circumstantial evidence–Last seen theory–Deceased last seen with accused–Held, The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible

Jan 5, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 161 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No.598-599 of…

Acquittal

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302–Murder–Material Contradictions-Acquittal- -Inconsistent version between the evidence of Investigation Officer and father of deceased with regard to recovery of material objects and also in identification of those material objects—Acquittal upheld. 

Dec 19, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2911 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1760 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran Criminal Appeal No. 1133-1135…

Acquittal

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A-Cruelty against wife—Relatives of Husband–Quashing–Appellants are not the immediate family members of the husband—They are his maternal uncles—Except the bald statement that they supported the husband who was harassing the wife for dowry and that they conspired with the third Respondent for   taking away his child to the U.S.A., nothing else indicating their involvement in the crime was mentioned—Prima facie case has not been made out against the appellants for proceeding against them under Sections 498-A, 120-B, 420 and 365 IPC-FIR quashed

Dec 19, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2909 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1759 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao CRIMINAL APPEAL No.…

Acquittal

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302~Murder~Injuries on deceased-Acquittal- -Weapon of offence—Deceased had suffered multiple chop injuries- Weapon of offence recovered from place of occurrence is an ordinary knife used for cutting betel nut, one feet long with a bent sharp point—Chop injuries were not possible with the same—The alleged knife was not even shown to doctor for eliciting opinion if the injuries could have been caused by the same—Accused acquitted.   

Dec 18, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2862 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1752 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha Criminal Appeal No. 1330…

Acquittal

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 498-A and 406–Quashing of complaint–Cruelty to wife-Wife filed complaint under Section 498-A, 406 I.P.C. against husband and his parents–Major allegations against husband with only minor reference to the in-laws–Death of husband during pendency of trial–Husband already dead complaint against in-laws quashed.

Nov 25, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 507 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before  The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S.Sirpurkar The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2003 Neelu…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw