Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Dying Declaration

Acquittal Dying Declaration

Circumstantial Evidence—Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence—The inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. Cruelty to wife–Mere fact that the deceased had died an unnatural death cannot be itself be a circumstance against the accused particularly when Section 498-A has been held to be inapplicable

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

  2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 839 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Criminal Appeal No.223 of…

You missed

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
Service

”Backlog Vacancies Get Priority: Supreme Court Orders Re-appointment Based on Reservation Rules” Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 – Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 – Rule 6 – Appointment – The case revolves around a service dispute regarding the appointment to a Scheduled Tribes (ST) reserved post at Bangalore University – The appellant was appointed based on merit, while respondent no. 7 was within the preferential age bracket – The main issue is whether the 2001 Rules apply to the university’s appointment process and if the appointment of the appellant, who was outside the age bracket, was legal – The appellant argued that the university should be governed by the Universities Act, not the 2001 Rules – Respondent no. 7 claimed that the university’s advertisement declaring the ‘Mode of Selection’ as per the 2001 Rules was correct – The court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the university’s advertisement was binding and the 2001 Rules were applicable – The court cited the amendment to Sec. 4(1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990, and subsequent government letters as mandating the university to follow the 2001 Rules for filling backlog vacancies – The court found that the university’s conduct in advertising the ‘Mode of Selection’ as per the 2001 Rules was in compliance with statutory requirements and government demands – The court concluded that respondent no. 7 should be appointed as per the 2001 Rules and suggested the university consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate the appellant.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Cr P C

“The charge sheet needs to include witness statements and include complete, clear entries that specify each accused person’s role” Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 173(2) – The appeals concern the nature of chargesheets filed by the state/police in some jurisdictions, particularly when they lack sufficient details of facts constituting the offense or relevant evidence – The main issue is whether chargesheets are being filed without adequate details or evidence, often merely reproducing the complainant’s details from the FIR, and whether this meets the legal requirements – The judgment discusses the legal position on the contents of a chargesheet as per Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with reference to the recent judgment in Dablu Kujur vs. State of Jharkhand – The Court quashed the chargesheet and summoning order, discharging the appellants, and clarified that the observations made will not affect any civil proceedings.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
State Laws

“Jalkar vs. Private Ownership: Supreme Court Settles Dispute Over Pond Land in Bihar” Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 – Section 37 – Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts – The dispute involves 0.32 decimal of land in Bihar, originally settled by ex-landlord ‘R’ to ‘M’, and then allegedly inherited by the plaintiff-appellant through adoption – The main issue is the possession and confirmation of the plaintiff’s possession over the land, which was challenged by the State authorities claiming the land as state-owned pond land (jalkar) – The plaintiff-appellant claims continuous possession since the land was settled to ‘M’ and asserts that the Consolidation Officer’s order confirming his title should be respected – The State of Bihar contends that the land is pond land and cannot be settled to the plaintiff-appellant, and that the civil suit is not maintainable due to the bar under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act – The Supreme Court set aside the appellate courts’ judgments, restored the trial court’s decree, and confirmed the plaintiff-appellant’s title and possession of the land – The Court found that the appellate courts erred in ignoring the final and conclusive order of the Consolidation Officer, which recognized the plaintiff-appellant’s rights – The Court reasoned that the Consolidation Officer’s order, which became final, should have been given effect to, and the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is impliedly excluded in such matters – The Supreme Court concluded that the civil suit for declaration of rights over the land is not barred by Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, and the plaintiff-appellant’s rights stand recognized by the consolidation authorities.

May 5, 2024 sclaw