Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Murder

Murder

Murder – Common intention – Appeal against acquittal – Once it has been established and proved by the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased and as such, they shared the common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased or not – State appeal allowed

Mar 9, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF M.P. — Appellant Vs. RAMJI LAL SHARMA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal…

Murder

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25 and 27 – Murder – Re-appreciation of evidence – evidence cannot be discarded only for the reason that PW allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being ferociously assaulted and stabbed

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURESH YADAV @ GUDDU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Criminal…

Murder

(IPC) – Ss 302 and 149 – Murder – Injuries on vital parts – From the evidence of doctor, it can be gathered that the injuries on the vital parts like right lung and liver which resulted into bleeding and shock were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary cause of nature – Once the prosecution establishes the existence of the three ingredients forming a part of “thirdly” in Section 300, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on the part of the accused to cause death – It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause the injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature

Dec 1, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINOD KUMAR — Appellant Vs. AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal…

Murder

(IPC) – S 302 r/with S 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – S 25 – Murder by Gunshot – Fired fatal shot from roof of house – Evidence – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Statements of eyewitnesses are quite cogent and consistent with the earliest version recorded in the form of First Information Report – Trajectory of entry of bullet as found in Medical Report is also quite consistent with the version that deceased was shot from a height i.e. the roof of the house – Prosecution stands proved

Sep 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1613…

Murder

(IPC) – Sections 302, 120B, 147, 148 and 324 – Murder – HELD In the face of appellant’s such identification by name in the testimony of eye witnesses, it can be safely concluded that the failure to conduct the Test Identification Parade (TIP) for the appellant will not vitiate his conviction – Conviction of the appellant u/S 302, 120B, 147, 148 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld – Appeal dismissed.

Aug 30, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LALA @ ANURAG PRAKASH AASRE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw