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

Previous Bad Character—Use of previous bad character evidence is prohibited except when the convict himself chooses to lead evidence of his good character. Murder—Death Sentence—Life Imprisonment—The criminal, however ruthless he might be, is nevertheless a human being and is entitled to a life of dignity notwithstanding his crime. Murder—Death Sentence—Where the social re-integration of the convict may not be possible, the option of a long duration of imprisonment is permissible. DNA Test—Failure to produce available DNA evidence leads to an adverse presumption against the prosecution and in favour of appellant for the purpose of sentence only.

Mar 24, 2019 sclaw

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 172 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 2051 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer Hon’ble Mr.…

I P C

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 and S.448–Outraging modesty of woman-­Reduction in Sentence—Compounding of Offence—House Trespass-Incident is about 10 years old-Submission by complainant that with passage of time, the grudges amongst each other have vanished away and have taken a shape of friendship-Sentence reduced to period already undergone which was more than minimum prescribed sentence-­Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.320

Mar 22, 2019 sclaw

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 618 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 2138 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta Criminal Appeal No(s). 1415…

I P C

Rape–Medical certificate granted by the Doctor suggests that the Hymen was torn at 6’O clock position and the rugosity was lost–There was no reason for the poor girl to falsely implicate the accused. Rape–Defence cannot take advantage of bad investigation where there is clinching evidence available to the prosecution–Truthful version of the prosecutrix cannot be ignored.

Mar 17, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 593 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S.Sirpurkar Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2009 (Arising…

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