Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Murder

Murder

(IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 – Murder – Common intention – Evidence of injured witnesses cannot be brushed aside without assigning cogent reasons – Evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted – His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else

May 2, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KALABHAI HAMIRBHAI KACHHOT — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Murder

If evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was murdered by the accused by using firearm, the factum of motive loses its importance, more so, in this case the motive has been established by leading cogent evidence to show that only because the deceased had developed relationship with accused’s wife, has decided to eliminate the deceased

Mar 7, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAHUL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 262…

Murder

Murder of wife at the advanced stage of pregnancy – Of late, Courts have, from the falsity of the defence plea and false answers given to Court, when questioned, found the missing links to be supplied by such answers for completing the chain of incriminating circumstances necessary to connect the person concerned with the crime committed – Accused-husband rightly convicted.

Feb 25, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. DAMODARAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.…

Murder

(IPC) – Sections 302 and 34 – Murder – Common intention – Absence of a positive act of assault was not a necessary ingredient to establish common intention – No further evidence is required with regard to existence of common intention – plea that there is no role or act of assault attributed to him, denying the existence of any common intention for that reason – Appeal dismissed.

Sep 30, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SUBED ALI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee,…

Murder

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34, 302, 304, 304-Part II and 307 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32(1) – Murder – Conviction and sentence – Appeal against – Act of pouring kerosene over a person and then putting him on fire by lighting a match stick has all the ingredients of doing an act with the intention of causing death of a person in a gruesome manner

Jan 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

Murder

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 201 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 161 – Murder – Dead body was recovered at the instance of the appellant – A complete chain which clearly leads to only one inference that it is the accusedappellant alone who could have murdered deceased – Appeal dismissed.

Dec 23, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARINDER SINGH @ HIRA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal…

Murder

Decided on : 05-12-2019 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120B, 302, 201, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 223, 227, 228 and 391 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 8 and 10 – After the commission of the crime, accused absconded and did not join the investigation – Prosecution has made out a strong prima facie case and the materials on record are sufficient to frame charges against accused.

Dec 8, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. SHIV CHARAN BANSAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy,…

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