Supreme Court of India Judgements

46820 Judgements hosted as on 28/07/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Acquittal

Acquittal

”High Threshold Not Met: Supreme Court Blocks Trial of Additional Accused in Murder Case” Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 319 and 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Issuing of the summons – The appeals concern a summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the appellants to face trial for an offence under Section 302 IPC, based on a High Court decision dated 04.04.2023 – The main issue is the sufficiency of material against the appellants prompting the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C – The appellants argue that they were incorrectly named in the FIR and subsequent statements due to a longstanding family enmity, and there is no strong evidence against them – The State contends that even if the trial against existing accused has abated, there is no bar in summoning the appellants to start the trial afresh – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the summoning order, and the High Court’s judgment dismissing the Section 482 petition – The Court found that the evidence against the appellants was not strong enough to meet the higher degree of satisfaction required for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C – The Court referenced the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for strong and cogent evidence – The Court concluded that the Trial Court erred in issuing the summons, and the High Court should have quashed the order under Section 482 Cr.P.C – The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 366 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANKAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

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,…

You missed

C P C

we are of the view that the order of status quo passed by the trial court was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are not entering into the merits of the matter as it may influence the trial court. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 30.06.2022 maintaining the order of the trial court in order to advance justice between the parties.

Jul 28, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Abkari Act, 1077 – Section 8 – Carrying 5 litres of illicit arrack – Conviction based solely on testimony of official witnesses – Delay in investigation – Testimonies of official witnesses can not be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined – Mere urging that delay casts a suspicion on the investigation, without any evidence being led in furtherance thereof, cannot be sustained

Jul 28, 2025 sclaw
Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 105, 106, 107 and 108 – Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17 and 49 – Unregistered deed of lease for immovable property – In the absence of a registered instrument, the courts are not precluded from determining the factum of tenancy from other evidence on record as well as the purpose of tenancy In the present case, factum of creation of tenancy has been established – But the purpose of tenancy, so as to attract the six months’ notice period under Section 106 of the 1882 Act cannot be established by such evidence as in such a situation, registration of the deed would have been mandatory

Jul 28, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ jurisdiction — Violation of Fundamental Rights — A writ petition under Article 32 requires a prima facie case of violation or imminent threat of violation of a Fundamental Right, with specific pleadings and prayers for relief. Vague allegations of arbitrariness or violation of natural justice without specific impact on Fundamental Rights are insufficient to maintain the petition.

Jul 28, 2025 sclaw