Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 15 — Scope of Section 15 — The court clarified that Section 15 of the POCSO Act criminalizes the storage or possession of any child pornographic material involving a child, regardless of whether the accused has the intention to share or transmit the material. The court further distinguished between the three distinct offences punishable under Section 15(1), (2), and (3) of the POCSO Act. Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 67B — Scope of Section 67B — The court held that Section 67B of the IT Act criminalizes the publication, transmission, or creation of any material depicting children in sexually explicit acts or conduct — The court clarified that the act of merely viewing or downloading child pornography, without any intention to publish, transmit, or create such material, does not fall within the purview of Section 67B of the IT Act.
2024 INSC 716 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. S. HARISH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1) and 13(1)(d) — The respondent, an Income Tax officer, was denied promotion due to pending criminal charges and a sealed cover procedure was adopted — Whether the mere grant of prosecution sanction constitutes pending criminal charges, justifying the sealed cover procedure — Petitioner argue that the prosecution sanction implies pending criminal charges, warranting the sealed cover procedure — Respondent states that no criminal charges were pending at the time of the DPC meeting, making the sealed cover procedure unjustified —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, rejecting the sealed cover procedure as the charge sheet was filed after the DPC meeting —The prosecution for criminal charges is considered pending only after a charge sheet is issued — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was found fit for promotion.
2024 INSC 729 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DOLY LOYI — Respondent ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan, JJ.…
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 — Section 4 — The appellants sought a declaration and injunction in a civil suit — The defendants requested impounding of six documents related to property transactions, claiming they were not duly stamped — Whether the appellants are liable to pay stamp duty and penalty on agreements to sell executed prior to the sale deed —The appellants argued that since the sale deed was registered and stamp duty paid, the prior agreements did not require separate stamping —The respondents contended that the agreements included a clause about the transfer of physical possession, necessitating stamp duty —The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision to impound the documents and send them for adjudication of stamp duty and penalty —The court emphasized that the agreements to sell were separate transactions requiring individual stamp duty, as they included clauses for possession transfer —The court referred to Section 4 and Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I, concluding that the agreements were conveyances requiring stamp duty — The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were directed to pay the appropriate stamp duty and penalty on the impounded documents.
2024 INSC 730 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHYAMSUNDAR RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PUSHPABAI NILKANTH PATIL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 304 Part I — Murder — Alteration of Sentence — The main issue was whether the appellants’ conviction under Section 302 IPC was justified or if it should be altered to a lesser offense — The appellants argued that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions in witness testimonies, and that the injuries sustained by the appellants were not explained by the prosecution —The respondent-State maintained that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction and sentence were justified —The Supreme Court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Part-I of Section 304 IPC, sentencing the appellants to the period already undergone —The Court found that the incident occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation and that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants —The Court concluded that the case fell under Part-I of Section 304 IPC due to the lack of premeditation and the sudden nature of the fight —The appeals were partly allowed, and the appellants were ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
2024 INSC 727 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL @ SONU ETC. — Appellant Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,…
Genuineness of Will and Partition Suit — The Court emphasizes that in a partition suit where a Will is challenged, the genuineness of the Will must be determined as a necessary step to resolve the dispute over the property — Delays in deciding this issue should be minimized to prevent multiplicity of litigation.
2024 INSC 726 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH GOYAL @ PAPPU — Appellant Vs. SUMAN AGARWAL (BINDAL) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay…
Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 — Section 7(1) — Land Dispute — The case involves a land dispute where appellant were directed to vacate or compensate for land in Bangalore, originally requisitioned in 1941 and partially acquired in 1973 — The main issues were the rightful ownership and compensation for the land, and whether the petitioners’ delay in filing the writ petition affected their claim — The petitioners argued they were entitled to rental compensation from 1973 and the return of the unacquired land, claiming the land was not being used by the Defence department — Respondent contended that the petitioners had suppressed key facts, including the sale of part of the land, and that the petition was filed after an unreasonable delay —The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, dismissing the writ petition due to the petitioners’ suppression of facts and the delay in filing the petition — The Court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and noted the petitioners’ deliberate suppression of relevant facts — The Court cited principles of equity and the necessity for petitioners to disclose all relevant facts, highlighting that the petitioners’ conduct amounted to an abuse of process — The writ petition was dismissed, and the Court refrained from imposing punitive costs on the petitioners despite their conduct
2024 INSC 728 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HMT LTD. — Appellant Vs. SMT. RUKMINI AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307 — Attempt to Murder — The complainant was abused and beaten by the accused, leading to an FIR under various IPC sections —Whether the injuries sustained by the complainant justify framing charges under Section 307 IPC — Petitioner argues that the injuries and the act of throttling indicate an intention to kill, warranting charges under Section 307 IPC — Respondent states that the injuries were minor, and the medical report did not conclusively support the charge of attempt to murder —The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, directing the trial court to frame charges under Section 307 IPC —The intent to kill can be inferred from the circumstances and the doctor’s report suggesting the possibility of throttling —The extent of injuries is irrelevant if the intent to cause death is present, as per established legal precedents —The trial court must proceed with charges under Section 307 IPC, and the trial should be expedited.
2024 INSC 731 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHOYEB RAJA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 323, 302, 364, 449, 450, 380/34 and 120-B —Abduction and Murder — Seven accused were charged, with five initially convicted and two acquitted — The High Court later convicted all seven —Whether the High Court’s reversal of acquittal and conviction of all accused was justified based on the evidence — Petitioners argue that no motive for A-6 and A-7, unreliable witness testimonies, discrepancies in the time of death, and lack of proof of deceased’s residence — Prosecution contends that consistent witness testimonies, sufficient evidence of motive, and proper appreciation of evidence by the High Court — The Supreme Court acquitted all seven accused, finding the High Court’s reversal of acquittal unjustified and the evidence insufficient —Doubts about witness credibility, lack of direct evidence, and improper exclusion of some testimonies by the High Court —The High Court failed to meet the higher threshold required to reverse an acquittal, and the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt —The convictions were set aside, and all accused were acquitted.
2024 INSC 735 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAY SINGH @ VIJAY KR. SHARMA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 148, 302, and 307 — The appellants, armed with weapons, attacked the victims, resulting in serious injuries — The prosecution’s case is supported by eyewitness testimonies and medico-legal evidence —Whether the appellants acted with common intention to kill and if the absence of independent witnesses affects the prosecution’s case — The appellants claimed self-defense and alleged false implication due to a prior FIR filed by A-4’s daughter — The prosecution argued that the appellants had a common intention to kill, supported by consistent eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence —The High Court’s decision finding the appellants guilty under sections 148, 302, and 307, IPC read with section 34 is upheld —The court emphasized the reliability of injured eyewitnesses and the formation of common intention even moments before the act — The appeal is dismissed, affirming the High Court’s judgment.
2024 INSC 738 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALJINDER SINGH @ LADOO AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 — Cruelty — The complainant filed an FIR against her in-laws under various sections of the IPC, alleging cruelty and dowry demands — The appellants sought to quash the FIR and chargesheet — Whether the FIR and chargesheet should be quashed due to lack of specific allegations and the existence of a civil dispute — Appellants argue that the FIR is vague, lacks material particulars, and is an abuse of the criminal process — The allegations are general and relate to a civil property dispute — Respondent contends that rhe High Court found a prima facie case of cruelty and specific allegations against each appellant — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and chargesheet, finding the allegations vague and the proceedings an abuse of the criminal process —The Court noted the lack of specific details in the allegations and the existence of a contentious civil dispute between the complainant’s husband and his family — The Court emphasized the need for careful examination of allegations in cases where the FIR appears to be motivated by ulterior motives —The appeal was allowed, and the FIR and chargesheet were quashed.
2024 INSC 737 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAILASHBEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…