Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: I P C

I P C

Common Intention–Even a past enmity by itself may not be a ground to hold for drawing any inference of formation of common intention amongst the parties. –Criminal Law–Common Intention–It is well settled that Section 34 of IPC does not create a distinct offence, it only lays down the principle of joint criminal liability–The necessary conditions for the application of Section 34 of Code are common intention to commit an offence and participation by all the accused in doing act or acts in furtherance of common intention–Penal Code, 1860, Section 34. 

Jan 2, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 131 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Criminal Appeal No. 2067 of 2008…

I P C

Criminal Law–Five persons convicted and sentenced by Session Court–Four accused preferred Criminal appeals–High Court allowed the appeal of one but in respect of others confirmed the order of conviction and sentence–Appeal before Supreme Court–Contention that when the High Court acquitted one of the accused not believing the prosecution story and granted benefit of doubt to him, such benefit ought to have been to the appellant also when a part of the prosecution story was not believable and was not behaved by the High Court, on the same set of facts and circumstances, it ought not to have convicted the appellant–Contention repelled

Dec 27, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 42 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2007…

I P C

Voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons–The facts involved in a particular case, depending upon various factors like size, sharpness, would throw light on the question whether the weapon was a dangerous or deadly weapon or not–That would determine whether in the case Section 325 or Section 326 IPC would be applicable.

Dec 25, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 1956…

I P C

Murder—Single blow—One injury was caused to the deceased by farsi blow on the head which indicates that the appellant has not taken undue advantage of the deceased—Conviction u/s 302IPC modified to be u/s 304 Part-IIPC

Dec 23, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3070 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1787 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                              Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indira Banerjee Criminal Appeal No.…

I P C

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part-II and S.34-Culpable Homicide-­ Common Intention—Occurrence had taken place at spur of the moment without premeditation—It cannot be said that the appellants had any common intention to kill or knowledge that death was likely to ensue- Therefore, in absence of common intention to kill, each appellant was liable for his own individual acts.

Dec 21, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2940 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1763 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph Criminal Appeal No. 1540…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw