Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: I P C

I P C

Rape on a minor girl–Defence that they were falsely implicated due to enmity–Alleged dispute over a common wall was not of such a grave nature compeling the entire family of the prosecutrix to go to the extent of the putting at stake its reputation and fair name of a young girl child to settle the scores with the accused.

Nov 26, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 538 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal Criminal Appeal Nos. 70-72 of…

I P C

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 307 and 326–Attempt to murder–Grievous Hurt–Altercation between both parties–Accused caused two injuries on the person of complainant, one on the chest and other on the shoulder with a knife– Victim had remained in hospital for fifteen days due to the injuries caused to him, makes out a case of grievous hurt–Conviction under Section 307 I.P.C.  converted to one under Section 326–Accused faced trial for 22 years–Sentence reduced from 2 years to period already under gone.                                                  

Nov 25, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 499 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma Criminal Appeal No. 1012 of…

I P C

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 218, 323 and 342–Public servant–Voluntary causing hurt and wrongful confinement–Police atrocities–Case has a long history as well as political overtones–Illegal detention of appellant’s father by the police–Appellant was beaten up by the respondent with other 6 accused and a false case u/s 107/151 CrPC was registered against him–High Court had not taken into consideration any of the evidences of prosecution witnesses–Once it is found that the High Court had not taken into consideration any of vital pieces of evidence, difficult to uphold the order of the High Court–Impugned judgment of the High Court, set aside–Matter remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration

Nov 13, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 257 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar The Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal Nos. 125-126 of 2003…

I P C

Common intention–Existence of common intention is a question of fact–Since intention is a state of mind, it very difficult, if not impossible, to get or procure direct proof of common intention–Courts, in most cases, have to infer the intention from the act(s) or conduct of the accused or other relevant circumstances of the case. Murder–Appellant was present at the scene of occurrence and simply watched A1 throwing acid on the deceased without preventing A1 from doing so clearly establishes that the appellant had intended to cause injury to and also disfigurement of the deceased and as such is liable to be punished under Section 326 IPC.

Nov 13, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 236 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S.Sirpurkar The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 1418 of 2004 Bengai…

I P C

– Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 307, 109, 120-B/34–Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, Section 3(1) read 2(e), 3(2) read with Section 120-B–Arms Act, Section 3 & 7, Section 25(1A), 25(1B)–Murder–Death sentence–Rarest of rare case-If a person is sentenced to imprisonment, even if it be for life, and subsequently it is found that he was innocent and was wrongly convicted, he can be set free. Of course, the imprisonment that he has suffered till then cannot be undone and the time he has spent in the prison cannot be given back. Such a reversal is not possible where a person has been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. The execution of the sentence of death in such cases makes miscarriage of justice irrevocable. It is a finality which cannot be corrected.

Nov 11, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 153 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal Nos. 85-86 of 2006…

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw