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

Framing of charges–Even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. Cruelty to wife–Not even a whisper of wilfull conduct of appellants of harassment of the complainant at their hands with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand by then so as to attract Section 498-A IPC–Proceedings quashed.

Oct 21, 2017 sclaw

2008(1) Law Herald (SC)  8 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain Criminal Appeal No. 1716 of 2007…

I P C

Relation witness–Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder–Applicability of Section 300 Exception 4–Discussed. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder–Sudden fight– A “sudden fight” implies mutual provocation and blows on each side–The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side–For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. Medical evidence and ocular evidence–Variation in–Effect of–Held; Eyewitnesses’ account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility.

Oct 16, 2017 sclaw

  2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 4087 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam Criminal Appeal No. 1592 of…

I P C

Relation witness–Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder–Applicability of Section 300 Exception 4–Discussed. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder–Sudden fight– A “sudden fight” implies mutual provocation and blows on each side–The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side–For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1.

Oct 14, 2017 sclaw

  2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 4073   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam Criminal Appeal No. 1533 of…

I P C

Death by Negligence–Negligence and rashness to be punishable in terms of Section 304-A must be attributable to a state of mind wherein the criminality arises because of no error in judgment but of a deliberation in the mind risking the crime as well as the life of the person who may lose his life as a result of the crime. Death by Negligence–Accident on unmanned railway crossing, where appellant was driving a bus and engine of train struck and rear of bus–Several injured and two died–Section 302 IPC has no application. Death by Negligence– The provision of section is not limited to rash or negligent driving–Any rash or negligent act whereby death of any person is caused becomes punishable

Oct 14, 2017 sclaw

  2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 4060     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam Criminal Appeal No.…

I P C

Confession is a substantive piece of evidence, but as a ‘Rule of Prudence’ the Court should seek other corroborative evidence to test its veracity. Kidnapping and Extortion–The act of kidnapping for extorting ransom from the victim cannot be termed as an act committed “with intent to overawe the Government as by law established–TADA not applicable. Confession–Admissibility of–The mere fact that retracted subsequently is not a valid ground to reject the confession. The crucial question is whether at the time when the accused was giving the statement he was subjected to coercion, threat or any undue influence or was offered any inducement to give any confession

Oct 4, 2017 sclaw

  2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 4030 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. G. Balakrishnan The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mathur Criminal Appeal No.…

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