Category: I P C

Criminal Law — Kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Essential ingredients for conviction — The act of stopping children at pistol point and forcibly abducting a child satisfies the condition of threatening to cause death or hurt. –Proof of ransom demand — While Call Detail Records (CDRs) and Section 65-B of the Evidence Act are valuable, their absence is not fatal if the demand is established through cogent and corroborated oral testimonies of multiple witnesses, including the victim’s family and the investigating officer.

2026 INSC 569 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARJINDRA SINGH ETC. Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — High Court’s power to quash proceedings is distinct from compounding offences under Section 320 CrPC and can be invoked even for non-compoundable offences — Inherent power to be exercised to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of process of court — Nature and gravity of offence to be considered — Heinous offences generally not quashed, but cases with overwhelming civil flavour, particularly arising from commercial/financial transactions, may be quashed if parties have settled disputes and conviction is remote, to prevent oppression and injustice.

2026 INSC 588 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAY KUMAR KELA AND ANOTHER Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 147, 148, 436, 302/149, 324/34, 323, 379, 302/109, 436/109, 379/109, 324/109, 323/109 — Conviction for offences related to mass violence, murder, arson, and causing injury — Affirmation of conviction and sentence by High Court — Supreme Court found no merit in appeals and dismissed them, upholding concurrent findings of lower courts.

2026 INSC 560 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHENDRA RAI @ HARENDRA NARAIN SINGH AND OTHER ETC. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304-A — Causing death by negligence — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 134(b) and Section 187 — Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person and Punishment for offences relating to accident — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Driver convicted under Section 304-A IPC and Sections 134(b) and 187 MVA — High Court partly allowed revision, setting aside conviction for Section 279 IPC but maintaining conviction for Section 304-A IPC.

2026 INSC 504 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHADEVANNA D.M. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307 — Attempt to Murder — Essential ingredients are intention/knowledge to commit murder and an overt act in pursuance of that intention/knowledge. The nature of the injury is a relevant consideration, but not determinative; intention can be inferred from circumstances like weapons used, motive, etc.

2026 INSC 524 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROSHAN LAL Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 — Conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and High Court — Supreme Court’s power of interference under Article 136 of Constitution of India — Such power to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of justice, where there is manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice due to misreading or ignoring material evidence — Standard for conviction on circumstantial evidence — Circumstances must be fully established, consistent with hypothesis of guilt, of a conclusive nature, exclude every possible hypothesis except that of guilt, and form a complete chain leaving no reasonable doubt of innocence — Failure to prove motive is not fatal to the prosecution case when facts are clear.

2026 INSC 522 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHETAN DASHRATH GADE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Criminal Law — Murder and Conspiracy — Appreciation of Evidence — Supreme Court’s Role in Appeals Against Acquittal — The Supreme Court reiterated that its role in an appeal against an acquittal is to examine whether the High Court committed an error in disturbing the Trial Court’s findings, especially when two competent courts have reached opposite conclusions on the same evidence — The Court must re-appreciate the evidence to deliver a final finding.

2026 INSC 507 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. PONNUSAMY AND OTHERS ( Before : M. M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 34 — Common intention — Requires proof of pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds, which must be clearly discernible from the material on record — Mere presence at the scene of offence without proof of participation or shared intention is insufficient to sustain conviction with the aid of Section 34 IPC — Prosecution must establish that accused shared a common intention and acted in furtherance thereof.

2026 INSC 467 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.440…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 498A — Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband — For the conviction under Section 498A, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused mental or physical cruelty to the woman. In this case, the evidence presented by the prosecution regarding dowry demands and cruelty was found to be contradictory and uncorroborated by independent witnesses. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A IPC was set aside.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARENDRA SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ( Before : Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2014…

You missed