I P C Archives - Page 4 of 65 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

November 9, 2026 9:04 am

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 read with Section 34 — Conviction by High Court after acquittal by Trial Court — Supreme Court’s role — Appellate court can review and reconsider evidence, but must respect the presumption of innocence accorded to an accused who has been acquitted. A plausible view taken by the trial court should not be overturned merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only if the acquittal suffers from patent perversity, misreading of evidence, or if no other conclusion than guilt is possible. (Paras 26, 27, 28, 29)

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 67 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TULASAREDDI @ MUDAKAPPA AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi,…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Sections 302, 304 Part II, 147, 149 — Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder — Distinction between Murder (Section 302) and Culpable Homicide (Section 304) — Circumstances warranting conviction under Section 304 Part II — Initial conviction under Section 302/149 altered by High Court to Section 304 Part II, IPC — Incident arising from sudden quarrel and group fight (free fight) where two rival parties attacked each other — Both sides suffered injuries — Common object for forming an unlawful assembly (Section 149) not established in a free fight scenario, negating charges under Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC — Individual role of appellant assessed: causing fatal head injury with a lathi — In a sudden group clash without premeditation, where the appellant also suffered serious injuries, the intention to cause death (requisite for Section 302) is negated, but knowledge that the act (hitting vulnerable part like head with lathi) was likely to cause death is inferred (Section 304 Part II) — Offence rightly reduced to Section 304 Part II, IPC. (Paras 5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 45 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRIKRISHNA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ( Before : K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 read with 34, 148, and 341 — Murder —Appeal against reversal of acquittal — Appellate court’s duty in overturning acquittal — Trial court’s acquittal based on “imaginary and illusionary reasons” and misappreciation of evidence, including attributing undue significance to minor contradictions and perceived manipulation of delayed FIR submission, justifies reversal by High Court. (Paras 31, 45, 46, 52)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1478 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PATCHAIPERUMAL @ PATCHIKUTTI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 366A, 372, 373, 34 — Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA) — Section 3, 4, 5, 6 — Child Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation — Evidence of Minor Victim — Appreciation of Evidence — Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and High Court regarding conviction for procuring and sexually exploiting a minor victim upheld — Prosecution case substantially corroborated by testimony of minor victim (PW-13), decoy witness (PW-8), independent witness (PW-12), and recovery of incriminating articles — Minor contradictions in testimony (e.g., about forcible sexual intercourse causing injury, or apartment topography) do not vitiate the prosecution case, as the consistent version of the victim establishes procurement for sexual exploitation. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1473 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.P. KIRANKUMAR @ KIRAN Vs. STATE BY PEENYA POLICE ( Before : Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Acquittal I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1454 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNIMATI AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.…

Evidence Act I P C

Criminal Law — Conviction — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Must establish acquaintance between accused and deceased for theory to apply as a circumstance linking chain; mere fact of accused and deceased being in the same vicinity shortly before the crime, without proven acquaintance, is insufficient to propound the ‘last seen together theory’ as a conclusive link, though presence in same vicinity remains a relevant initial fact. (Para 6)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1449 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAIK SHABUDDIN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of 2025…

I P C

Criminal Law — Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence — Appreciation of Evidence — Principles Governing Circumstantial Evidence — A conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence must satisfy five conditions: (1) Circumstances must be fully established; (2) Facts established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt; (3) Circumstances must be conclusive in nature and tendency; (4) They must exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt; (5) Chain of evidence must be complete, leaving no reasonable ground for any conclusion consistent with the accused’s innocence. (Para 22)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1433 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJBHAI JETHABHAI PARMAR (ROHIT) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(S).…

Dowry Death I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304-B and 498-A) — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DPA, 1961) — Sections 3 and 4 — Dowry Death — Appeal against acquittal — Setting aside High Court’s acquittal and restoring Trial Court’s conviction — Essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC established by consistent prosecution evidence regarding dowry demand (motorcycle, TV, and cash) and continuous harassment — “Soon before death” liberally construed to emphasize nexus between death and dowry-related cruelty — Evidence of witnesses, even with minor inconsistencies, held reliable and sufficient to prove guilt; minor contradictions or use of words like ‘happily’ by witnesses do not discredit the substratum of the prosecution case proving continuous dowry harassment leading to death. (Paras 1, 14.1, 16.1, 16.2, 17, 18, 20, 22)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1435 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. Vs. AJMAL BEG ETC ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal Nos.…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 read with Section 34 — Murder — Appeal against acquittal — Powers of Appellate Court — Reversal of acquittal — Principles — The guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt (must or should, not may be) — Once an accused is acquitted, the presumption of innocence is reinforced — Interference by the appellate court must be minimal and guided by “substantial and compelling reasons” — Reversal should not occur merely because another view is possible — If two reasonable or plausible conclusions are possible on the evidence, the one favouring the acquittal must not be disturbed by the Appellate Court. (Paras 9, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1442 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJ PAL SINGH Vs. RAJVEER AND OTHERS ( Before : K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(S).…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376(2)(d) — Rape — Appreciation of Evidence — Conviction solely based on First Information Report (FIR) or previous statements of hostile witnesses — Admissibility and reliability — Victim (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case during trial — Court should be slow to act on the testimony of hostile witness and normally look for corroboration — Both Trial Court and High Court erred in placing reliance on the FIR and recording conviction by virtually converting the case into one of circumstantial evidence, especially when the main direct evidence witnesses (victim and husband) were declared hostile. (Paras 6, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1443 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAYANTIBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

You missed

Constitution

You missed

Can’t Penalise Flat Buyers Who Relied On Official Documents : Supreme Court Directs Alternative Site Before Demolition

Mere Suit Seeking Recovery Of Possession Not Sufficient When Plaintiff’s Title Is Disputed

Supreme Court Quashes Blacklisting Of Drug Supplier Over Quality Failure As Retesting Opportunity Denied

Motor Accident Claims | Victim Requiring Lifelong Attendant Can Be Considered 100% Functionally Disabled

Supreme Court of India Judgements

Category: I P C

You missed