Supreme Court of India Judgements

46780 Judgements hosted as on 30/05/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Acquittal

Acquittal

“Murder Conviction Overturned! Supreme Court Acquits Appellant Due to Inconsistent Eyewitness Accounts and Insufficient Evidence” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Property Dispute – The High Court affirmed the conviction, which led to this appeal – The appeal challenges the reliability of eyewitnesses and the recovery of the murder weapon, questioning the appellant’s conviction – The appellant claims false implication, questioning the credibility of eyewitnesses and the voluntariness of the extra-judicial confession – The State argues that the conviction is based on correct evidence assessment and that the appellant’s guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and directed his release, if not required in another case – The Court found inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts and doubted their presence at the crime scene, leading to the acquittal – The Court scrutinized the eyewitness testimonies, the extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of the weapon, finding them insufficient for conviction – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the appellant’s acquittal.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 349 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JASOBANTA SAHU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ORISSA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal

“Conviction Quashed After 18 Years: Supreme Court Acquits Man Due to Flawed Identification and Doubtful Evidence” Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Sections 3(a) and 4(a)(i) – Arms Act, 1958 – Section 27(1) – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 307,143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 427 and 449 read with Section 149 – The case involves who appealed against his conviction under various sections of the IPC and other acts – The incident occurred on March 6, 2006, involving an unlawful assembly, murder, and grievous injuries with deadly weapons – The appeal challenges the High Court’s partial allowance of Appellant’s appeal, which set aside some convictions while confirming others, and modified the sentences – The petitioner argued that identification in court without a Test Identification Parade, after four and a half years, is unreliable. They also contested the motive attributed to the appellant and the credibility of the recovered iron rod with alleged blood stains – The respondent emphasized the credibility of the injured eyewitness (PW-2) and the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, which found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the previous judgments, and acquitted the appellant of all charges, directing his immediate release if not required in another case – The Court found the identification of the appellant in court, without prior identification parades, to be insufficient for maintaining the conviction, especially given the time elapsed since the incident – The Court questioned the preservation of blood stains on the recovered iron rod over two years and two monsoons, casting doubt on the prosecution’s evidence – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the appellant’s acquittal.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 350 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURESH @ UNNI @ VADI SURESH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 318 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HANSRAJ — Appellant Vs. STATE OF M.P. — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2) and 302 read with Section 149 – The appellants were convicted for the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing their earlier acquittal by the trial court – The main issue was the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the admissibility of evidence, such as the FIR and recovery of weapons – The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal, contending that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and the FIR was a post-investigation document – The State contended that the eyewitness testimonies were credible and the FIR was lodged promptly without undue delay – The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds – The Court found inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and issues with the FIR and recovery of weapons – The Court applied principles regarding the appellate court’s power in appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the need for the High Court to find perversity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment to reverse an acquittal – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was flawed and restored the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 320 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BABU SAHEBAGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 304 and 34 – Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, citing unreliable witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence – The Court’s reasoning focused on the credibility of the key witnesses and the absence of corroborative material to support the prosecution’s case – The legal reasoning included the principle of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ not being applicable in Indian jurisprudence – The conclusion was that the appellant deserved acquittal due to the benefit of doubt – The judicial opinion emphasized the quality of evidence over quantity in determining the truth.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 312 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIRPAL SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Appellant was convicted for the murder – Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt, as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The Court found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and deemed them unreliable – The Court applied the principle that extra judicial confessions are weak evidence and require corroboration – The appellant was acquitted due to the prosecution’s inability to prove the charges with certainty.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 307 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARAMBIR @ DHARMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. )…

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

2024 INSC 295 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHUPATBHAI BACHUBHAI CHAVDA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 and 120B – Murder – The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the discovery of the body was solely based on the appellants’ statements and that the chain of evidence was incomplete – The Court applied the principles for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must fully establish the guilt and exclude all other hypotheses – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 299 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVISHANKAR TANDON — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 201 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Murder – Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender – How much of information received from accused may be proved – The Court found the circumstances not conclusive and not consistent only with the hypothesis of the appellant’s guilt – The Court applied the principles for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must fully establish the conclusion of guilt and exclude other hypotheses – The appellant’s conviction was not sustained due to doubts about the prosecution’s story and the failure to prove all circumstances forming the chain of evidence – Acquittal.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 298 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUN SHANKAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

Acquittal Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal -The High Court’s judgment, which upheld the acquittal, was based on the absence of valid documentary evidence of any enforceable debt or liability – Both appellate courts found no evidence of an “enforceable debt or other liability,” which is crucial for the petitioner’s case under Section 138 – The courts applied the principle of balance of probabilities and concluded that the respondent’s defence was plausible – The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no perversity in the appellate courts’ findings and no point of law warranting interference.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 288 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S RAJCO STEEL ENTERPRISES — Appellant Vs. KAVITA SARAFF AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar,…

You missed

C P C

Appellate court should decide on merits based on document interpretation when possible, rather than unnecessarily remanding, particularly when area and boundaries are consistent.

May 30, 2025 sclaw
Electricity Act

Determination of ‘change in law’ compensation and carrying cost at LPS rates is governed by PPA restitutionary principles, effective from the event date, requiring supplementary billing after competent forum adjudication.

May 30, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Fundamental right under Article 22(1) requires meaningful communication of valid arrest grounds for lawful detention, failure vitiates arrest.

May 30, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Discretionary power — Exercise of — Quashing of proceedings at advanced stage of trial — Even if trial advanced, where dispute purely commercial, fully settled with no outstanding dues, and no continuing public interest, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process and can be quashed.

May 30, 2025 sclaw