Supreme Court of India Judgements

47270 Judgements hosted as on 05/07/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

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

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 209, 244 — Commitment of case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Whether Magistrate is required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing such a case, where the complaint is one instituted otherwise than on a police report — Held, no — Section 244 CrPC, which mandates the Magistrate to hear the prosecution and take evidence, occurs in Chapter XIX (Part B — “Cases instituted otherwise than on a police report”) and governs warrant-case trials before a Magistrate; it has no application where the offence (here, under Section 302 IPC) is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, which is governed instead by Section 209 CrPC — Under the scheme of the 1973 Code (unlike the erstwhile 1898 Code, which mandated a full committal inquiry with recording of evidence under Section 207-A), the Magistrate’s role at the pre-commitment stage is confined to ascertaining whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, and no evidence need be taken or evaluated by the Magistrate at that stage — Requiring witnesses to depose twice, once before the Magistrate and again before the Sessions Court, would serve no purpose and is not the mandate of law — High Court’s contrary view, requiring compliance with Section 244 CrPC even in a Sessions-triable case, proceeds on an erroneous reading of law and is unsustainable.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (wholesale grocery business) — Two ITRs filed after the death of the deceased excluded by the High Court altogether from the assessment of income — Held, following the principles in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], ITRs filed post-death call for closer scrutiny with reference to surrounding financial statements, since income may be inflated in such returns, but such returns are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death — In the absence of the benefit of such surrounding financial statements on record, and it being inexpedient at this stage to remand the matter, annual income fixed with reference to the nature of the deceased’s wholesale grocery business at Rs.3,25,000 — Compensation recomputed applying 40% addition for future prospects (age 28 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 17, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.60,79,550 (as against Rs.15,36,560 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.38,40,850 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (Insurance Agent) from Income Tax Returns — High Court had averaged the last four ITRs on record — Held, erroneous — Following the principles laid down in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], for a self-employed person the average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs, not four, is the appropriate reference point — A performance-linked spike in the income of an Insurance Agent in a particular year does not justify reaching back to an additional, earlier ITR to dilute that spike — On the facts, taking the average of the income for AY 2015-16 (Rs.4,03,180), AY 2016-17 (Rs.9,59,665) and AY 2017-18 (Rs.7,00,559), annual income assessed at Rs.6,87,802 — Compensation recomputed applying 25% addition for future prospects (age 49 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.87,09,282 (as against Rs.49,77,000 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.76,09,500 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of deceased/claimant on the basis of Income Tax Returns — Whether the ITR of the previous year alone, or the average of the previous two/three years, is to be taken — Held, no hard and fast formula governs computation of annual income; ITRs, being statutory documents, are an important reference point, but a bifurcation must be made between salaried and self-employed individuals — (i) For salaried individuals, the ITR of the previous year alone ordinarily suffices, since the financial impact of a promotion or salary revision is best reflected in that year’s return; where the deceased had not completed a year in a promoted position, or had not filed a return for that period, the Court may rely on the promotion letter and other corroborative financial statements; (ii) For self-employed persons/those running their own business, the average of the ITRs for up to the previous three years is to be taken as the reference point, having regard to the inherent income fluctuation in such professions — In assessing self-employed income, the surrounding circumstances to be additionally considered include: (a) the nature of the business (including geography and category); (b) its growth pattern and the impact of the death on the business; (c) its potential/future growth, including capital-intensive businesses profitable only at scale; (d) the possibility of negative income in initial years not reflecting the true financial standing; and (e) any other relevant factor — The date of filing of an ITR is also relevant, since income may be inflated after the death/injury; such returns call for closer scrutiny against surrounding financial statements, though they are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death, if adequately supported.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw