HELD Prosecution stands proved against accused-P and accused-S and their appeals deserve to be dismissed while the appeals preferred by accused-I and accused-K deserve acceptance – Accused-I and accused-K be released forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other offence – Ordered accordingly.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1613…
(IPC) – S 302 r/with S 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – S 25 – Murder by Gunshot – Fired fatal shot from roof of house – Evidence – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Statements of eyewitnesses are quite cogent and consistent with the earliest version recorded in the form of First Information Report – Trajectory of entry of bullet as found in Medical Report is also quite consistent with the version that deceased was shot from a height i.e. the roof of the house – Prosecution stands proved
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1613…
HELD Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that such records were not maintained properly, the official record containing entries of ownership and possession would carry the presumption of correctness – In view of the transfer of land on 10.10.1956 followed by delivery of possession on 19.3.1958 and continuous assertion of possession thereof, it leads to the unequivocal finding that appellants are owners and in possession of the suit land.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul…
Post of Police Constable- Certain types of offences, like molestation of women, or trespass and beating up, assault, causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or without use of weapons), of victims, in rural settings, can also be indicative of caste or hierarchy-based behaviour more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security – Appointment declined – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE — Appellant Vs. RAJ KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Murder – Bail – Cancellation of – Habitual offender – Hatching conspiracy from the jail – There is a high possibility of threat and danger to the life and safety of complainant and his family members, as is evident from the criminal history of accused, detailed – Bail cancelled – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARJIT SINGH — Appellant Vs. INDERPREET SINGH @ INDER AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.…
EPF Pension – Principal questions arise for consideration are whether there would be a cut-off date under paragraph 11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme and whether the decision in R.C. Gupta & Ors. Etc. etc. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization & Ors. Etc., (2018) 4 SCC 809 would be the governing principle on the basis of which all these matters must be disposed of. Referred to a larger bench.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION AND ETC. — Appellant Vs. SUNIL KUMAR B AND ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and…
Bank guarantee – ICBC, which is a Scheduled Bank, carrying on business in India, with a Bank Guarantee of equivalent amount issued by a “Scheduled Indian Bank” – Hon’ble Justice Indira Banerjee allowed the appeal and Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian dismiss the Special Leave Petitions as not giving rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution – Appeal referred to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. POWER MECH PROJECTS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…
‘ Creamy layer’ HELD Economic criterion cannot be the sole criterion for identifying ‘creamy layer’ – In spite of Section 5(2) of the 2016 Act making it mandatory for identification and exclusion of ‘creamy layer’ to be on the basis of social, economic and other relevant factors, the State of Haryana has sought to determine ‘creamy layer’ from backward classes solely on the basis of economic criterion and has committed a grave error in doing so
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PICHRA WARG KALYAN MAHASABHA HARYANA (REGD.) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…
Quashing of criminal proceedings – Stage of framing of charge – High Court has entered into the appreciation of the evidence and considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or not, – HELD it is not a court conducting the trial and/or was not exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order of conviction or acquittal.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARANYA — Appellant Vs. BHARATHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Summoning additional accused – HELD As per the settled preposition of law, the powers under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised at any stage before the final conclusion of the trial. – dismissing the application under Section 319 CrPC submitted on behalf of the complainant to summon the private respondents herein as additional accused are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANJEET SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…