Category: I P C

Where the complainant was aware that the accused was married at the inception of the relationship, and the relationship was prolonged (spanning several years, even after both parties obtained divorces from their respective spouses), the consent given by a mature complainant is deemed reasoned and conscious, negating the element of “misconception of fact” — A subsequent breach of promise does not automatically convert the initial consent into one obtained by deceit under S. 375 IPC.

2025 INSC 457 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JASPAL SINGH KAURAL Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER ( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra…

Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Consent — Misconception of Fact — Promise to Marry — Consent to sexual intercourse given by a mature individual, fully aware from the outset that the promisor is already married (though separated), cannot be deemed to be vitiated by a “misconception of fact” under Section 375 IPC merely based on a promise to marry after obtaining a divorce

2025 INSC 458 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER ( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )…

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,…

You missed