Supreme Court of India Judgements

47285Judgements hosted as on 19/07/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: Evidence Act

Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proof – in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events.

Jul 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SABITRI SAMANTARAY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ODISHA — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Criminal…

Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 45 and 47 and 67 – Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced – Under Section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Sections 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant.

Dec 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MURTHY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. C. SARADAMBAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Evidence Act

Defendants have denied that the plaintiff is their brother or the son of their parents – High Court directed the plaintiff to undergo the DNA test — Respondent cannot compel the plaintiff to adduce further evidence in support of the defendants’ case – In any case, it is the burden on a litigating party to prove his case adducing evidence in support of his plea and the court should not compel the party to prove his case in the manner, suggested by the contesting party

Oct 9, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHOK KUMAR — Appellant Vs. RAJ GUPTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Evidence Act

Evidence Act S 92 – Exclusion of evidence or oral agreement – The feigned ignorance about the nature of document cannot be said to be an instance of fraud. In the absence of any plea or proof of fraud, respondent is bound by the written document on which he admitted his signatures and of his wife. There is no oral evidence which could prove fraud, intimidation, illegality or failure of consideration to permit the respondents to lead oral evidence to dispute the sale deed

Oct 9, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PLACIDO FRANCISCO PINTO (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JOSE FRANCISCO PINTO AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and…

Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – HELD if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAGENDRA SAH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Evidence Act

HELD Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that such records were not maintained properly, the official record containing entries of ownership and possession would carry the presumption of correctness – In view of the transfer of land on 10.10.1956 followed by delivery of possession on 19.3.1958 and continuous assertion of possession thereof, it leads to the unequivocal finding that appellants are owners and in possession of the suit land.

Sep 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy.

Jul 19, 2026 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside.

Jul 19, 2026 sclaw
Railways Act

Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A — Compensation on account of untoward incidents — ‘No-fault’ liability — Accidental falling of a passenger from a running train constitutes an “untoward incident” — Liability under S. 124A arises irrespective of wrongful act, neglect or default of the Railway Administration, subject only to statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury or the passenger’s own criminal act — Provision held to be beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature.

Jul 19, 2026 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 31 — ‘Clean slate’ doctrine — Effect of approved Resolution Plan on claims — Upon approval under S. 31(1), claims provided in the Plan stand frozen and are binding on the Corporate Debtor and all stakeholders — Claims not incorporated in the Plan stand extinguished, withdrawn or abated — Resolution Applicant entitled to commence operations free from unforeseen liabilities — Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss ARC, (2021) 9 SCC 657, followed.

Jul 19, 2026 sclaw