Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: I P C

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27 and 106 – Murder of wife – Burden of Proof – Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence.

Jan 22, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAWAB — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 884 of…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34, 300, 302, 498-A, Section 304-Part II – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 313 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Murder of wife by throttling – Conviction and Sentence – Appeal against – In particular injuries suffered, it is quite clear that the act would fall within the scope of Section 300 of the IPC

Jan 21, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PAUL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 38…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 404 and 34 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3 and 3(2)(v) – Murder – Appeal against Order of discharge – HELD In such a situation the proceedings shall proceed in an appropriate court for the offences punishable under IPC notwithstanding investigation and the charge­sheet being not liable to be accepted only in respect of offence under Section 3 of the Act for taking cognizance of that offence

Jan 20, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. BABBU RATHORE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 300-Exception 4, 302, 304, 304-Part-I, 304-Part-II – Death due to injury in quarrel – Alteration of sentence – It is true that the deceased died because of the injuries caused by the accused – However, as observed above, the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment and after some altercation the accused took the lathi which was lying there and caused the injury on the head of the deceased – The offence committed does not amount to murder.

Jan 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANANTA KAMILYA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M. R. Shah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 166, 165, 420, 468 and 471 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) – Cheating – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Appellant knowing fully well that the invoices/bills were fake and fabricated, were presented on behalf of the firm to the bank and thus cheated the bank – Crime test requires to evaluate and provide adequate deference to factors such as role of the accused and his position within the rank of conspirators, among other things

Dec 22, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAYANK N SHAH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy and B.R. Gavai,…

I P C

SC Sets Aside Death Sentence In A 13 Day Trial, Says ‘Fast Tracking Must Not Result In Burial Of Justice’ – HELD expeditious disposal of criminal cases must never result in burying the cause of justice. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Krishna Murari set aside a death penalty awarded to a rape and murder accused in a trial that finished within thirteen days.

Dec 22, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ANOKHI LAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 and 452 – Murder – Unlawful assembly – Common object – Appeal against acquittal – Medical evidence and ocular evidence – It is trite law that minor variations between medical evidence and ocular evidence do not take away the primacy of the latter.

Dec 22, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Appellant Vs. RAVINDRA @ BABLOO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. )…

I P C

Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case – IPC – Sections 376(2)(g), 120-B, 377, 365, 366, 395, 397, 302, 307, 412 – Unnatural sex and inserted iron rod in the private parts of the prosecutrixHELD Review Petition – In the judgment dated 05.05.2017, this Court held that the case is falling within “the rarest of rare cases”

Dec 22, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and A. S. Bopanna, JJ.…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw