Category: I P C

The judgment emphasizes that the accused’s intention to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide is essential for Section 306 IPC to apply — Furthermore, the alleged harassment should be so severe that the victim has no option but to end their life, and there must be evidence of direct or indirect incitement to commit suicide.

2025 INSC 168 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AYYUB AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, CJI., Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan,…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307 — Attempt to Murder — The complainant was abused and beaten by the accused, leading to an FIR under various IPC sections —Whether the injuries sustained by the complainant justify framing charges under Section 307 IPC — Petitioner argues that the injuries and the act of throttling indicate an intention to kill, warranting charges under Section 307 IPC — Respondent states that the injuries were minor, and the medical report did not conclusively support the charge of attempt to murder —The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, directing the trial court to frame charges under Section 307 IPC —The intent to kill can be inferred from the circumstances and the doctor’s report suggesting the possibility of throttling —The extent of injuries is irrelevant if the intent to cause death is present, as per established legal precedents —The trial court must proceed with charges under Section 307 IPC, and the trial should be expedited.

2024 INSC 731 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHOYEB RAJA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,…

Civil Dispute vs. Criminal Offence — The court emphasized that the dispute was essentially civil in nature (related to employment termination) and that initiating criminal proceedings was an abuse of the legal process. – Civil Dispute vs. Criminal Offence — The court emphasized that the dispute was essentially civil in nature (related to employment termination) and that initiating criminal proceedings was an abuse of the legal process.

2025 INSC 105 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MADHUSHREE DATTA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Prashant…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 415 and 420 — Cheating — The court found that the elements of cheating under Section 415 were not met — The appellant did not deceive the 4th respondent, nor did the sale deeds cause harm or damage to the 4th respondent — The appellant did not claim to be or represent the 4th respondent, nor did the appellant try to transfer the rights of the 4th respondent — The court cited a previous case, Mohd. Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 , stating that while a seller can be accused of defrauding a purchaser if they sell property that does not belong to them, a third party who is not the purchaser may not be able to make such a complaint

2025 INSC 31 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JIT VINAYAK AROLKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal…

Minor inconsistencies in witness testimony do not invalidate the entire testimony, the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Indian law, a faulty investigation does not automatically lead to acquittal, and testimony of interested witnesses can be relied upon if it is credible

2025 INSC 28 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EDAKKANDI DINESHAN @ P. DINESHAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERELA ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 326 — Compromise Despite Non-Compoundability — Even though section 326 is a non-compoundable offense under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court can still allow the compounding of such an offense when there is a genuine and voluntary settlement between the parties — This is an exception to the general rule and is invoked in special circumstances.

2025 INSC 37 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH H. N. PANDAKUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.…