Supreme Court of India Judgements

47080 Judgements hosted as on 05/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: I P C

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 148, 302, and 307 — The appellants, armed with weapons, attacked the victims, resulting in serious injuries — The prosecution’s case is supported by eyewitness testimonies and medico-legal evidence —Whether the appellants acted with common intention to kill and if the absence of independent witnesses affects the prosecution’s case — The appellants claimed self-defense and alleged false implication due to a prior FIR filed by A-4’s daughter — The prosecution argued that the appellants had a common intention to kill, supported by consistent eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence —The High Court’s decision finding the appellants guilty under sections 148, 302, and 307, IPC read with section 34 is upheld —The court emphasized the reliability of injured eyewitnesses and the formation of common intention even moments before the act — The appeal is dismissed, affirming the High Court’s judgment.

Sep 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 738 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALJINDER SINGH @ LADOO AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine…

I P C Prevention of Money Laundering

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 447, 504, 506, 341, 323 and 34 — Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Sections 3, 4 and 45 ——The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception — The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of money laundering against the appellant

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 637 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM PRAKASH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

Acquittal I P C

Distinction Between Assault and Jostling/Struggling — The court distinguished between an assault, which involves an intentional application of force or a threat to apply force, and jostling or struggling that may occur during an attempt to resist arrest or escape — The mere act of jostling or struggling, without evidence of intent to assault or use criminal force, does not constitute an offence under Section 353 IPC. Necessity of Compliance with Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. for Prosecuting under Section 186 IPC —The court held that for prosecuting an offence under Section 186 IPC (obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions), it is mandatory to follow the procedure laid down in Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which requires a complaint or report by the public servant concerned or by some other person authorized by him in writing.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 600 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAHENDRA KUMAR SONKER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ( Before : B.R. Gavai, K. V. Viswanathan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 193, 376 and 504 — Establishing relations on the false pretext of marriage — Accused was granted bail, which the complainant sought to cancel — Whether the appellant’s denial in his affidavit constitutes an offence under Section 193 IPC (false evidence) — Petitioner argue that mere denial of averments does not constitute perjury — The court is not bound to make a complaint under Section 195(1)(b) unless it is expedient in the interest of justice — Respondent states that the appellant misrepresented facts and continued relations with the complainant despite being engaged to someone else —The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s direction to file a complaint against the appellant for perjury —Denial simpliciter does not meet the threshold for perjury — No malafide intention or deliberate attempt was evident from the appellant’s statements —Prosecution for perjury should be initiated only in exceptional circumstances where there is deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance —The appeal was allowed, and the proceedings arising from the High Court’s direction were quashed — The decision does not affect the ongoing criminal case against the appellant.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 601 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAMES KUNJWAL @APPELANT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol and K.V. Viswanathan,…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 304 Part I and 304 Part II — Murder during a quarrel in family dispute — Modification of sentence — The main issue is whether the conviction should be under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC — The petitioner argued that the incident was a result of self-defence and that the conviction should be set aside — The respondent supported the High Court’s decision and argued for the dismissal of the appeal — The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to alter the conviction from Section 304 Part I to Part II IPC but modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant — The Court noted the emotional state of the young appellant and the non-premeditated nature of the incident — The Court emphasized the heat of the moment and the lack of control over anger leading to the incident — The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 609 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HUSSAINBHAI ASGARALI LOKHANDWALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 389, 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 and 120B — Quashing of the summoning order and criminal proceedings — The appellant challenged the High Court of Jharkhand’s decision to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings related to a fraud case — Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the summoning order and criminal proceedings — The appellant argued that the documents submitted by the respondents were forged and that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by quashing the summoning order —The respondents contended that the documents were not forged and that the appellant had ulterior motives — The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s decision and remanded the matter back to the Judicial Magistrate for trial — The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into factual disputes that should be resolved during the trial — The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial at the stage of quashing proceedings —The appeals were allowed, and the matter was sent back for trial.

Aug 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 583 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARAMBEER KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna…

I P C Matrimonial

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 323 and 504 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce — The court recognized that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where the parties have been living separately for a significant period and all efforts at reconciliation have failed, can be a valid ground for divorce — This expands the grounds for divorce beyond the traditional grounds mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.— One-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony — The court allowed the parties to opt for a one-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony, instead of periodic payments — This provides flexibility to the parties in resolving their financial obligations towards each other.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 530 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIRAN JYOT MAINI — Appellant Vs. ANISH PRAMOD PATEL — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishram, JJ.…

I P C Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967— Section 16 — Sanction for prosecution — The court held that a sanction for prosecution under Section 16 of the Act, 1967, must be based on an independent review of the evidence collected during the course of investigation by the appropriate authority — If the sanction is not based on such a review, it is invalid – while the gravity of the offence and the possibility of tampering with evidence are important considerations, they must be balanced against the accused’s right to liberty — The court must ensure that the accused is not kept in custody for an unreasonable period of time- that a foreign national cannot be denied bail solely on the ground that they are a foreign national — The court must consider other factors, such as the length of time already spent in custody, the likelihood of the trial being completed in the near future, and the accused’s ties to the community – bail conditions cannot be arbitrary or onerous, and they must be consistent with the object of granting bail — The court cannot impose conditions that infringe upon the accused’s right to privacy or that are impossible for the accused to comply with.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 534 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHEIKH JAVED IQBAL @ ASHFAQ ANSARI @ JAVED ANSARI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before :…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 494 — Bigamy — The appellant accused his wife (first accused) of committing bigamy by marrying the second accused while their marriage was still valid — The trial court convicted the first and second accused, but the High Court later acquitted them — Whether the High Court was right in not restoring the sentence imposed by the trial court and whether the sentence was too lenient — The Supreme Court modified the sentence to six months of simple imprisonment and reduced the fine to Rs. 2,000 each — The Court emphasized the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to impose adequate punishment for serious offenses like bigamy.

Jul 16, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 523 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BABA NATARAJAN PRASAD — Appellant Vs. M. REVATHI — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal…

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. )…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 197(1) — Requirement of sanction for prosecution of public servants — Protection under Section 197(1) applies only to public servants who are not removable from office except by or with the sanction of the government — Subordinate police officers not falling under this category are not entitled to the benefit of this protection, even if the alleged offence was committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty.

Apr 5, 2026 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Dismissal from Service — Disciplinary Proceedings — Violation of Natural Justice — Requirement of Oral Enquiry — Employer’s Burden of Proof — The Apex Court held that unless the charged employee clearly admits guilt, a disciplinary enquiry must be held — The employer must first present evidence and witnesses, allowing the employee to cross-examine — Only then should the employee be given an opportunity to present their defense — The Court emphasized that relying solely on documents without examining witnesses or making them available for cross-examination when charges are denied, vitiates the enquiry.

Apr 5, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 9 Rule 13 — Setting aside an ex parte decree — A minor who was not properly represented in succession proceedings, despite being a legal heir and known to respondents, can file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC after attaining majority to challenge the ex parte proceedings.

Apr 5, 2026 sclaw
Bail Declined Companies Act

Companies Act, 2013 — Section 185 — Loan to directors — Violation of Section 185 — Loan from company to director for securing bail without special resolution — Deposit of Rs. 50 Crores for bail sourced from company funds without proper approval — Held to be not sustainable in law.

Apr 3, 2026 sclaw