Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Murder

Murder

Murder–Doctrine of Parity–Appellant submitted that there is a parity between the co-accused persons and while other were convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC he alone has been convicted under Section 302 IPC–However, appellant had given a fatal blow on the neck with aruval and injury caused by such act proved fatal–Plea of parity rejected.

Feb 25, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 530 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 38…

Murder

Kidnapping for ransom and murder–All three accused-appellant committed offence of murder in a pre-planned manner by using scientific methods–Soon after kidnapping, deceased was reduced to a corpus with the help of chemicals and he was done to death in inhuman, diabolical and dastardly manner–Sentence  converted from death sentence to life imprisonment

Dec 13, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 713 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal Criminal Appeal Nos. 1396-1397 of…

Murder

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302–Murder–Motive–Son killed his father–Son nursed grudge against his father because of his share in the agricultural land—Motive to kill stood established—Conviction upheld.

Dec 7, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2724 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1605 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before                            Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogol                     Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha Hon’ble Mr.…

Murder

Murder–Death sentence–Murder of five innocent persons committed for ransom– Accused were not named in the FIR–FIR was lodged against unknown persons–Name of the appellants came into light during investigation–Appellants in prison for the last 14 years–Death sentence commuted  into that of life imprisonment–Despite the nature of the crime, death penalty can be substituted with life sentence. Test Identification Parade–Merely because there was delay, the outcome of the identification parade cannot be thrown out if the same was properly done after following the procedure

Dec 1, 2018 sclaw

Mulla v. State of U.P. 2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 609 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu Criminal…

Murder

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 302–Murder–Murder of Wife–Circumstantial evidence –Burn injuries–Kerosene oil stove was planted at the site in a fake attempt to hide the homicidal death–Prosecution proved beyond pale of doubt that the deceased died a homicidal death and not an accidental death on account of bringing insufficient dowry and appellant having extra-marital affairs–Presence of kerosene oil on the body of the deceased and clothes put on by her, rules out the theory of accidental fire.

Nov 22, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 455 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M.Panchal Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2009…

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