Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Property Matters

You missed

Bail Declined

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 147, 148, 302, 149 and 120B – Cancellation of Bail – The complainant’s son was allegedly murdered by the accused (along with others) in a property dispute – Five accused were convicted of murder and other charges, with two others acquitted – The High Court granted bail to three accused (‘A’, ‘C’, and ‘R’) considering their long incarceration and bail granted to two co-accused. – The complainant argues against bail, fearing threats from the accused who are “dreaded criminals.” – He highlights that the High Court wasn’t aware that two accused (‘C’ and ‘R’) allegedly killed a police officer while on trial, further demonstrating their violent nature – The Court acknowledges the oversight of not presenting details about the police officer’s murder to the High Court – The Court cancels bail for ‘C’ and ‘R’ due to their subsequent criminal act – The Court upholds bail for ‘A’ (not involved in the police officer’s murder).

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Bail Declined

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302 and 120B – Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 – Section 7 – Appeal against Grant of Bail by High Court – The main issue is the appropriateness of the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the accused – The petitioner argues against bail due to the serious nature of the crime, the recovery of the murder weapon, and the influence of the accused over witnesses – The respondents claim they have cooperated with the trial and allegations of threatening witnesses are false – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail orders, citing the seriousness of the crime and the conduct of the accused – The Court found that the High Court did not exercise its discretion judiciously in granting bail – The Court referenced previous cases outlining the principles for bail consideration, emphasizing the gravity of the crime and the potential for influencing witnesses – The Supreme Court concluded that the accused should be taken into custody and the trial should be concluded expeditiously – The judgment emphasizes the importance of a careful and principled approach to granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious crimes and potential witness tampering.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
State Laws

M.P. Excise Act, 1915 – The case involves the applicability of a rule for imposing penalties related to the liquor license period of 2009-10 and whether the old or substituted rule should apply – The main issue is whether the penalty should be based on the rule in place during the violation (2009-10) or the substituted rule from 2011, which reduced the penalty – The appellant argues for the application of the substituted rule, which imposes a lower penalty, as the old rule was repealed – The State contends that the old rule should apply to transactions from 2009-10, despite the substitution – The Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s contention, applying the substituted rule to pending proceedings – The Court reasoned that the purpose of the amendment was to balance the offence and penalty, and not applying the substituted rule would not serve public interest – The Court distinguished between the effects of repeal and substitution of rules, emphasizing that the substituted rule should apply from the date of substitution – The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court’s judgment, and the penalty was determined based on the substituted rule from 2011.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw