Category: Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 306 – Abetment of Suicide – The Supreme Court reiterated that to constitute abetment, there must be a positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide – The Supreme Court also stated that mere allegation of harassment without any direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide would not amount to abetment

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUMAR @ SHIVA KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal…

The prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, as there were glaring discrepancies in the eyewitnesses’ version, absence of the testimony of the material witnesses and the ballistic report, and non-recovery of the weapon of crime – The Court also observed that the trial court had erred in convicting and acquitting the co-accused on the same set of evidence.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Sections 2(b)(i) and 3(1) – Quashing of FIR – Member of gang – For framing a charge for the offence under the Gangsters Act and for continuing the prosecution of the accused under the above provisions, the prosecution would be required to clearly state that the appellants are being prosecuted for any one or more offences covered by anti-social activities as defined under Section 2(b) – FIR and criminal proceedings were quashed – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FARHANA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Sections 18(A), 18(c), 27 (b)(ii) and 28 – Conviction and sentence – Imposing a sentence of imprisonment would be unjustified, particularly when the intent to sell/distribute under Section 18(c) of the Act has been held unproven – It fit to modify the impugned judgment, set aside the sentence of imprisonment as awarded, and instead thereof, impose a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the Appellant – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PALANI — Appellant Vs. THE TAMIL NADU STATE — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of 2024…

Court is not expected to reject the testimony of an interested witness, however, when the testimony is full of contradictions and fails to match evenly with the supporting evidence (the wound certificate, for instance), a Court is bound to sift and weigh the evidence to test its true weight and credibility – High Court had erred in reversing the decision of acquittal – Acquittal order passed by Trial Court restored – Appellants are acquitted from all the charges – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MALLAPPA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Criminal…

It is very difficult to connect any accused with the injuries sustained by the deceased in the absence of any cogent evidence – Therefore, it is not possible to uphold the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KISHORE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(xi) – The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had assaulted the victim with the intention of dishonouring or outraging her modesty, as required under Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act – The Court also held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DASHRATH SAHU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 19(1)(a) – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 500 – Defamation – Quashing of complaint – A complaint has been filed against the appellant/accused, the registered owner of the ‘Sunday Blast’ newspaper – Allegation is that the accused allowed the publication of a news article in the February 24, 2013 edition with the title “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj,” – Order passed by Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad rejecting the complaint of the respondent-complainant is a well-reasoned order

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY UPADHYA — Appellant Vs. ANAND DUBEY — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(S). …of 2024…

You missed