Category: I P C

Insulting or Abusing SC-ST Person – Quantum of sentence – Appellant and his family members were insisting that the de facto complainant should vacate the shop in her possession – Reason for the incident appears to be the dispute over the said shop -Considering these facts and the fact that the appellant has already undergone a sentence for more than 9 months, this is a fit case where the substantive sentence should be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VETRIVEL — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S.…

(IPC) – Section 498A – Cruelty – When an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence – If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another lady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable – appellant is reported to be approximately 80 years old, sentence reduced.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MEERA — Appellant Vs. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVOTRIYUR POLICE STATION CHENNAI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 304 Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Reduction of sentence – Land dispute – Sudden quarrel – No premeditated or preplanned incident – While confirming the conviction for offence under Section 304(ii) of the IPC – Sentence reduced form ten years to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  GOVINDAN — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt – If the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the ‘offenders’ had used the firearm or deadly weapon, only such of the ‘offender’ who has used the firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAM RATAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ. )…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 392 and 397 – Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 – Sections 11 and 13 – Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt – If the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the ‘offenders’ had used the firearm or deadly weapon, only such of the ‘offender’ who has used the firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAM RATAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ. )…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 304 Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Reduction of sentence – Land dispute – Sudden quarrel – No premeditated or preplanned incident – While confirming the conviction for offence under Section 304(ii) of the IPC – Sentence reduced form ten years to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVINDAN — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

(IPC) – Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i), 377, 201, 302 read with Section 376A – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Conduct of the appellant in the prison has been found to be satisfactory – There are no criminal antecedents – It is the first offence committed by the appellant – No doubt, a heinous one – Appellant is not a hardened criminal – It therefore cannot be said that there is no possibility of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated foreclosing the alternative option of a lesser sentence and making imposition of death sentence imperative – the death penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 302 IPC is commuted to life imprisonment

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LOCHAN SHRIVAS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 – Section 6(1) – Notice of forfeiture – Section 6(1) of the 1976 Act nowhere provides that it is “mandatory” to serve the convict or detenu with a primary notice under that provision whilst initiating action against the relative of the convict –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE I (2), KUMBAKONAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. V. MOHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar…

(IPC) – Sections 391, 395 and 397 – Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt – Mere acquittal of some of the accused on the same evidence by itself does not lead to a conclusion that all deserve to be acquitted in case appropriate reasons have been given on appreciation of evidence both in regard to acquittal and conviction of the accused

(2021) 13 SCALE 284 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GANESAN AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr.…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.