Supreme Court of India Judgements

467750 Judgements hosted as on 06/05/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: I P C

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.

Jul 4, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 452 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BARAKATHULLAH ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 307 — The appellant, a police guard, was convicted for the murder of his cousin and neighbour, who allegedly had an affair with the appellant’s wife — The murder occurred inside a police station in Delhi —The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence, claiming self-defence or, alternatively, grave and sudden provocation — The appellant argued for self-defence, stating the deceased attempted to snatch his weapon to kill him — The prosecution presented eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence to establish a premeditated murder — The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and life sentence for murder, finding no evidence of self-defence or grave and sudden provocation.

Jul 4, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 462 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURENDER SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

I P C Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.

Jun 2, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 452 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BARAKATHULLAH ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

I P C Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.

May 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 452 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BARAKATHULLAH ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 – The appellant challenges the quashing of an FIR against seven accused persons for forging a power of attorney and a sale deed of his land by the High Court of Jharkhand – The Supreme Court allows the appeal and restores the FIR and the consequent case to the trial court, finding the High Court’s exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. unjustified and unsustainable – The Supreme Court holds that the High Court erred in assuming that there was no criminality involved in the alleged offences and that the matter was purely civil in nature – The Supreme Court also clarifies that the Sub-Registrar had the authority to initiate prosecution under the Registration Act, 1908, and that the quashing of the circular on which the Sub-Registrar relied did not affect the merits of the case.

May 27, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVIN KUMAR RAI — Appellant Vs. SURENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1) – Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 1998 – Section 4 – Gang Rape – The victim’s testimony, along with her mother and aunt’s statements, was consistent with the initial complaint and corroborated by medical evidence – The defense argued that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – Whether the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were not significant and did not affect the overall credibility of the evidence – The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The court rejected the defense’s argument that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant and rejected the defence’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 393 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SELVAMANI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep…

I P C Murder

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder of wife – The appeal raises questions about the admissibility of evidence, particularly the statement of a witness recorded under Section 299 CrPC and a confessional note allegedly written by the appellant – The appellant’s counsel argued that the trial court erred in admitting the statement of the complainant and questioned the authenticity of the confessional note and the handwriting expert’s report – The State contended that the chain of incriminating circumstances was complete and pointed exclusively towards the appellant’s guilt, emphasizing the reliability of the confessional note and the absence of the appellant post-crime – The Court found that the prosecution had established a complete chain of incriminating evidence, including motive, last seen together, medical evidence, confessional note, and the appellant’s abscondence – The Court relied on provisions of Section 299 CrPC and Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, affirming the admissibility of the witness’s statement recorded in the appellant’s absence – The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, concluding that the appellant was guilty of the murder of his wife and should surrender to serve the remainder of his sentence – If he fails to surrender, the trial court is directed to take steps to apprehend him.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 385 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUKHPAL SINGH — Appellant Vs. NCT OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

I P C

Criminal Law – ‘History Sheet’ – The appellant challenged the inclusion of his minor children’s details in a ‘History Sheet’ and the proposal to declare him a ‘Bad Character’ in the police records – The primary issue was the inclusion of innocent family members, particularly minors, in the ‘History Sheet’ without any adverse material against them – The appellant argued for the quashing of the ‘History Sheet’ and the proposal to declare him a ‘Bad Character’, emphasizing the lack of evidence against his minor children – The Delhi Police agreed to revisit the rules to ensure the dignity and privacy of innocent individuals are not compromised – The court modified the impugned judgment, directing the amended Standing Order to be applied to the appellant’s case and designating a senior officer to audit ‘History Sheets’ – The court recognized the need to protect the identity of minors and ensure that ‘History Sheets’ do not unfairly target innocent individuals – The judgment referenced the Juvenile Justice Act and the prohibition on disclosing the identity of minors, emphasizing the need for police to adhere to these provisions – The court concluded by expanding the scope of the proceedings to address potential biases in police practices and directed all states and union territories to consider amendments similar to the ‘Delhi Model’.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 383 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMANATULLAH KHAN — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and K.V.…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 – Murder of Wife – The court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt – The court pointed out that the incident occurred inside the appellant’s house, and the deceased was found in a pool of blood- The court also noted that the appellant failed to disclose the involvement of any unknown intruders to the police – The court rejected the defence’s argument that the incident was a result of a sudden fight, stating that the appellant took undue advantage and acted in a cruel manner.- The court applied Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proof on the person who claims to have special knowledge of the facts.The case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the court found the appellant guilty of murder – False Explanation – The appellant’s false explanation regarding the incident was considered an additional incriminating circumstance.

May 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 368 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ANEES — Appellant Vs. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala…

You missed

Service

Under Rule 17, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, prior contractual service counts towards pension upon subsequent regularisation, subject to the employee opting to refund/forgo specified monetary benefits.

May 6, 2025 sclaw
I B C

Service of an IBC Section 8 demand notice upon Key Managerial Personnel at the Corporate Debtor’s registered office constitutes valid service on the company, emphasizing substance over technical form.

May 6, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings precludes conducting a ‘mini trial’ by assessing evidence credibility; consistency requires acknowledging coordinate bench decisions involving co-accused.

May 5, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Quashing FIR under 482 CrPC impermissible when complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offences; allegations accepted true, investigation not thwarted based on delay, civil suit, or witness status if complicity alleged.

May 5, 2025 sclaw