I P C Archives - Page 32 of 63 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

March 31, 2026 9:42 am

IPC, 1860 S. 376 HELD Even the school records reveal that she was a minor during the said incident.Since, the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident the accused appellant has been rightly convicted under Section 376 of the IPC. Defence of consensual act dis-believed..

Aug 3, 2020 sclaw

Even the school records reveal that she was a minor during the said incident. Since, the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident the accused appellant has…

I P C

IMP : Proceedings under sections 498A, 506, 323, and 406 read with section 34 of the IPC. Compromise between husband & wife. Proceedings Quashed by SCOI

Jul 20, 2020 sclaw

The Supreme Court recently quashed charges of Cruelty by a wife against her husband basis an amicable settlement between them. A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde & Justice R Banumathi held that considering…

I P C

First Information Report was lodged under Section 394 IPC and charge was accordingly framed. Because of the use of deadly weapon, the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 397 IPC. – Appeal dismissed.

Jul 8, 2020 sclaw

2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 726 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2001…

I P C

Probation–Accused possessed industry of lubricating oil/grease without licence–White Collar Offence–Probation rejected.

Jul 7, 2020 sclaw

2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 721 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam…

I P C

Attempt to murder–It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof Attempt to murder—-To justify a conviction under Section 307 I.P.C., it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted

Jul 7, 2020 sclaw

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kuamr Ganguly Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP…

I P C

FIR–Delay in –Delay in a case of sexual assault, cannot be equated with the case involving other offences–It would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging in FIR.

Jul 7, 2020 sclaw

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2002 State of Himachal Pradesh v.…

Evidence Act I P C

Criminal Jurisprudence–If a person is charged under a grave Section, but however, if acquitted under the said grave section by the Trial Court, then it would amount to travesty of Justice if in his own appeal he is convicted under that grave section, without there being any appeal from the State and without there being prior notice of enhancement issued by the appellate Court.

Jul 7, 2020 sclaw

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2872 of 2008) Jarnail…

I P C

Culpable Homicide–Asthmatic patient kept under unhygienic conditions by Police Officers–Cause of death has been shown to be asphyxia on account of detention of the deceased in unhygienic condition despite his respiratory problems–Accused can be proceeded against under Section 304 Part II and Section 330 I.P.C. and not under Section 302 I.P.C.

Jul 6, 2020 sclaw

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Criminal Appeal No. 1683 of 2008 Indu Jain v. State of M.P. {Decided on 23/10/2008} For the…

I P C

Murder–Appeal against conviction–If the High Court intends to differ from the conclusions of the trial Court it has to indicate reasons therefore–Merely stating that the evidence of a witness is not believable would not suffice.

Jul 6, 2020 sclaw

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 2002 State of Orissa v. Sikhar Jena {Decided on 01/12/2008}…

I P C

Common intention–For applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused

Jul 6, 2020 sclaw

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 2007 Chaman v. State of Uttaranchal {Decided on 01/12/2008} For…

You missed

Land Acquisition National Highways Authority Act

National Highways Act, 1956 — Amendments and compensation provisions — Section 3-J introduced in 1997 removed applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) provisions for solatium and interest — Overturned by various High Courts, including reading down Sections 3-G and 3-J to grant solatium and interest — Subsequently, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) and its amended provisions extended to NH Act — Court clarified that landowners acquired lands under NH Act between 1997 and 2015 are entitled to solatium and interest — Review Petition filed by NHAI arguing financial burden was underestimated rejected, but clarification on delayed claims issued.

Mar 29, 2026 sclaw

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 102 — Applicability — Provision contemplates a situation where a judgment debtor transfers property after institution of suit to a person who then obstructs execution — Not applicable where respondents derived title from independent registered sale deeds, not from the judgment debtor.

Mar 29, 2026 sclaw

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 28-A — Re-determination of compensation — Second application for re-determination based on High Court award maintainable even after accepting compensation based on Reference Court award — Principle of merger means appellate court’s award supersedes earlier award, entitling landowners to benefit from higher compensation — Object of Section 28-A is to ensure equality in compensation among similarly placed landowners.

Mar 29, 2026 sclaw

Electricity Act

Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 61, 86 — Tariff determination and Generation Based Incentive (GBI) — State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC) has exclusive power to determine tariff — Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) introduced GBI to incentivise renewable energy generation — GBI is intended to be over and above the tariff fixed by SERC — SERC must consider GBI while determining tariff, but not necessarily deduct it — SERC’s power to determine tariff includes considering incentives — Parliament’s allocation of funds for GBI does not prevent SERC from considering it in tariff — SERC must exercise its power harmoniously with other stakeholders to achieve policy objectives.

Mar 29, 2026 sclaw

Category: I P C

You missed