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

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 465(2) – Sanction for prosecution – Irregularity in – Effect of – Irregularity in sanction would not by itself render the trial vitiated. Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act-Section 3(4) – Harbour – Meaning of – Must be understood in its ordinary meaning as for penal provision – Mens rea is not excluded from constituting harbouring.

Apr 22, 2017 sclaw

  AIR 1998 SC 201 : (1998) CriLJ 369 : (1997) 9 JT 18 : (1997) 6 SCALE 689 : (1997) 8 SCC 732 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA KALPNATH RAI…

I P C

Rape—Intercourse—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual inter course necessary to the offence rape. Modesty—Test—Action which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. Rape—Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape.

Apr 20, 2017 sclaw

    2007(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 1995 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Criminal Appeal No.…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 300 – Murder – Incident of firing – Ocular as well as medical evidence – Oral evidence not found at variance with medical evidence – Prosecution evidence pertaining to assault by fire arms substantially tallied with medical evidence – Inconsistency relating to distance from which gunshots were fired held to be inconsequential

Apr 19, 2017 sclaw

  (2008) 8 JT 411 : (2008) 10 SCALE 536 : (2009) AIRSCW 1752 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SURAJ SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before…

I P C

Murder—As per S.B. Sinha, J.- It can not be conclusively said that murder of wife for usurping property is a particularly rarest of rare incident–It could, be a rare case. Murder—Death penalty—Imposition of—As per Markandey Katju, J.- That pre-planned, calculated, cold-blooded murder has always been regarded as one of an aggravated kind.

Apr 17, 2017 sclaw

  2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1851 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice  Markandey Katju Criminal Appeal No. 454 of…

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