Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Murder

Murder

Forensic– Gun Shot Injury–Cartridge of .303 bore can be fired from .315 bore weapon–High Court, therefore, conscious of the fact that in an appeal against acquittal, interference should be minimal and that too in case of perversity of the judgment of the trial Court, held that the finding were indeed perverse and accordingly reversed the judgment of acquittal–Appeal dismissed

Nov 11, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 150 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of…

Murder

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302—Murder- Gunshot Injury-Seven gunshot injuries found in body of deceased—Defense version that deceased committed suicide—Held; It is not possible for a person to commit suicide by firing seven gun shots one after the other on his/her body with the use of DBBL Gun in hands

Sep 11, 2018 sclaw

2018(2) Law Herald (SC) 738 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1021   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDRA BHAWAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : R.K. Agrawal…

Murder

Murder–Non-examination of witness-Witnesses have vividly deposed about the genesis of the occurrence, the participation and involvement of the accused persons in the crime-Mere non-examination of the witnesses, who might have been there on the way to hospital or the hospital itself when deceased narrated the incident, would not make the prosecution case unacceptable-Conviction upheld.                                                       

Aug 10, 2018 sclaw

(2017) 99 ACrC 976 : (2017) 174 AIC 244 : (2017) 3 AICLR 520 : (2017) AIR(SCW) 1121 : (2017) 2 AIRJharR 668 : (2017) AIR(SC) 1121 : (2017) 1…

Murder

Murder-Motive-Non-mention of motive in FIR—- Not a fatal defect—An FIR is not to be read as an encyclopedia requiring every minute detail of the occurrence to be mentioned therein–The absence of any mention in it with regard to the previous altercation, cannot affect its veracity so as to doubt the entire case of the prosecution–The altercation suffices to establish motive—Conviction upheld-Evidence Act, 1872, S.8.

Jul 25, 2018 sclaw

2018(2) Law Herald (SC) 484 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 928 :(2018) AIR(SC) 2142 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SATPAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Kurian Joseph, Mohan M.…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw