Supreme Court of India Judgements

46970 Judgements hosted as on 09/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(xi) — Conviction and Requirement of Caste-Based Intention — High Court’s finding that the offence was committed “simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste” held perverse — No statement in court by the victim or PW-2 suggesting that the accused were motivated by the victim’s caste — Finding based on mere observation without evidence is unsustainable. (Para 20) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) — Bail — Appeal against grant of bail — Distinguished from cancellation of bail — An appeal against the grant of bail is not on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail — Superior Court interference in bail grant requires grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or non-consideration of relevant factors including gravity of the offense and societal impact — The Court must not conduct a threadbare analysis of evidence at the bail stage, but the order must reflect application of mind and assessment of relevant factors — Conduct of the accused subsequent to the grant of bail is not a ground for appeal against grant of bail, but for cancellation. (Paras 7, 8) Penal Code, 18602 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 460 — Appreciation of Evidence — Prior Enmity and Delayed Disclosure of Accused’s Name — Where the star eyewitness (PW-2), the wife of the deceased, provided a detailed account of the assault to the informant (PW-1) immediately after the incident, but failed to name the accused in the First Information Report (FIR), this omission is fatal to the prosecution case, especially when there existed a palpable prior enmity between the witness’s family and the accused (who was the brother of the deceased’s second wife). (Paras 28, 31, 40, 41, 45) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Section 3(1)(s) — Essential ingredient — Requirement of caste-based abuse occurring “in any place within public view” — Interpretation — For an offence under Section 3(1)(s) to be made out, the place where the utterance is made must be open, enabling the public to witness or hear the abuse — Abuse uttered within the four corners of a house, where public members are not present, does not satisfy the requirement of being “within public view” — Allegation that casteist abuses were hurled inside the complainant’s residence does not meet the statutory requirement — House of the complainant cannot be considered “within public view.” (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13) Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Property Tax Revision — Akola Municipal Corporation — Challenge to legality of property tax revision (2017-18 to 2021-22) via Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Financial Autonomy of Municipal Bodies — Property tax is main source of income for Municipal Corporations to perform vital statutory obligations (urban planning, public health, infrastructure upkeep) — Financial stability and independence are integral to functional efficacy of municipal bodies — Revision of tax structure is necessary to match rising costs and sustain functions — Municipal bodies must have independent revenue sources to avoid dependency on State grants — Failure to revise tax structure for long periods (here, 2001-2017) constitutes gross laxity. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 27)
SC/ST

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(xi) — Conviction and Requirement of Caste-Based Intention — High Court’s finding that the offence was committed “simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste” held perverse — No statement in court by the victim or PW-2 suggesting that the accused were motivated by the victim’s caste — Finding based on mere observation without evidence is unsustainable. (Para 20)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) — Bail — Appeal against grant of bail — Distinguished from cancellation of bail — An appeal against the grant of bail is not on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail — Superior Court interference in bail grant requires grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or non-consideration of relevant factors including gravity of the offense and societal impact — The Court must not conduct a threadbare analysis of evidence at the bail stage, but the order must reflect application of mind and assessment of relevant factors — Conduct of the accused subsequent to the grant of bail is not a ground for appeal against grant of bail, but for cancellation. (Paras 7, 8)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(xi) — Conviction and Requirement of Caste-Based Intention — High Court’s finding that the offence was committed “simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste” held perverse — No statement in court by the victim or PW-2 suggesting that the accused were motivated by the victim’s caste — Finding based on mere observation without evidence is unsustainable. (Para 20)
SC/ST
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(xi) — Conviction and Requirement of Caste-Based Intention — High Court’s finding that the offence was committed “simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste” held perverse — No statement in court by the victim or PW-2 suggesting that the accused were motivated by the victim’s caste — Finding based on mere observation without evidence is unsustainable. (Para 20)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) — Bail — Appeal against grant of bail — Distinguished from cancellation of bail — An appeal against the grant of bail is not on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail — Superior Court interference in bail grant requires grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or non-consideration of relevant factors including gravity of the offense and societal impact — The Court must not conduct a threadbare analysis of evidence at the bail stage, but the order must reflect application of mind and assessment of relevant factors — Conduct of the accused subsequent to the grant of bail is not a ground for appeal against grant of bail, but for cancellation. (Paras 7, 8)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) — Bail — Appeal against grant of bail — Distinguished from cancellation of bail — An appeal against the grant of bail is not on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail — Superior Court interference in bail grant requires grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or non-consideration of relevant factors including gravity of the offense and societal impact — The Court must not conduct a threadbare analysis of evidence at the bail stage, but the order must reflect application of mind and assessment of relevant factors — Conduct of the accused subsequent to the grant of bail is not a ground for appeal against grant of bail, but for cancellation. (Paras 7, 8)
Penal Code, 18602 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 460 — Appreciation of Evidence — Prior Enmity and Delayed Disclosure of Accused’s Name — Where the star eyewitness (PW-2), the wife of the deceased, provided a detailed account of the assault to the informant (PW-1) immediately after the incident, but failed to name the accused in the First Information Report (FIR), this omission is fatal to the prosecution case, especially when there existed a palpable prior enmity between the witness’s family and the accused (who was the brother of the deceased’s second wife). (Paras 28, 31, 40, 41, 45)
I P C
Penal Code, 18602 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 460 — Appreciation of Evidence — Prior Enmity and Delayed Disclosure of Accused’s Name — Where the star eyewitness (PW-2), the wife of the deceased, provided a detailed account of the assault to the informant (PW-1) immediately after the incident, but failed to name the accused in the First Information Report (FIR), this omission is fatal to the prosecution case, especially when there existed a palpable prior enmity between the witness’s family and the accused (who was the brother of the deceased’s second wife). (Paras 28, 31, 40, 41, 45)
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Section 3(1)(s) — Essential ingredient — Requirement of caste-based abuse occurring “in any place within public view” — Interpretation — For an offence under Section 3(1)(s) to be made out, the place where the utterance is made must be open, enabling the public to witness or hear the abuse — Abuse uttered within the four corners of a house, where public members are not present, does not satisfy the requirement of being “within public view” — Allegation that casteist abuses were hurled inside the complainant’s residence does not meet the statutory requirement — House of the complainant cannot be considered “within public view.” (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13)
SC/ST
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Section 3(1)(s) — Essential ingredient — Requirement of caste-based abuse occurring “in any place within public view” — Interpretation — For an offence under Section 3(1)(s) to be made out, the place where the utterance is made must be open, enabling the public to witness or hear the abuse — Abuse uttered within the four corners of a house, where public members are not present, does not satisfy the requirement of being “within public view” — Allegation that casteist abuses were hurled inside the complainant’s residence does not meet the statutory requirement — House of the complainant cannot be considered “within public view.” (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13)
Acquittal Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Powers of Court – Nature and exercise of – Power to summon an accused is an extraordinary power conferred on the Court. It should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against other person against whom action has not been taken.

Jul 16, 2017 sclaw

  AIR 2004 SC 4298 : (2004) CriLJ 4185 : (2004) 7 JT 509 : (2004) 7 SCALE 282 : (2004) 7 SCC 792 : (2004) 3 SCR 894 Supp…

Constitution Evidence Act

The case of the Appellants and the Writ Petitioners, in most of the cases, is based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel on the basis of a promise apparently made by the Respondents to the land owners that they would be granted dealerships in lieu of the lands offered by them for setting up of the retail outlets

Jul 16, 2017 sclaw

  (2013) 8 AD 665 : (2013) 10 JT 304 : (2013) 8 SCALE 762 : (2014) 1 SCC 201 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MOHD. JAMAL — Appellant Vs. UNION…

Acquittal I P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 378 – Appeal – Acquittal – Interference with possible reasonable view – Sole testimony of complainant alleged to have been beaten by the accused persons – The complainant reaching the place of occurrence by chance – Improbability of prosecution case – Order of acquittal, restored.

Jul 16, 2017 sclaw

  AIR 1977 SC 1213 : (1977) 4 SCC 598(1) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JIMMY HOMI BHARUCHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : S. Murtaza…

Rent

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Section – 12(3)(a), 12(3)(b) – Possession of the suit premises – Predecessor in interest of the respondents instituted a suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Act) for possession of the suit premises against the appellants-tenants.

Jul 16, 2017 sclaw

  (1995) 7 JT 400 : (1995) 5 SCALE 481 : (1995) 6 SCC 576 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA LAXMIKANT REVCHAND BHOJWANI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PRATAPSING MOHANSINGH PARDESHI…

You missed

SC/ST

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(xi) — Conviction and Requirement of Caste-Based Intention — High Court’s finding that the offence was committed “simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste” held perverse — No statement in court by the victim or PW-2 suggesting that the accused were motivated by the victim’s caste — Finding based on mere observation without evidence is unsustainable. (Para 20)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) — Bail — Appeal against grant of bail — Distinguished from cancellation of bail — An appeal against the grant of bail is not on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail — Superior Court interference in bail grant requires grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or non-consideration of relevant factors including gravity of the offense and societal impact — The Court must not conduct a threadbare analysis of evidence at the bail stage, but the order must reflect application of mind and assessment of relevant factors — Conduct of the accused subsequent to the grant of bail is not a ground for appeal against grant of bail, but for cancellation. (Paras 7, 8)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 18602 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 460 — Appreciation of Evidence — Prior Enmity and Delayed Disclosure of Accused’s Name — Where the star eyewitness (PW-2), the wife of the deceased, provided a detailed account of the assault to the informant (PW-1) immediately after the incident, but failed to name the accused in the First Information Report (FIR), this omission is fatal to the prosecution case, especially when there existed a palpable prior enmity between the witness’s family and the accused (who was the brother of the deceased’s second wife). (Paras 28, 31, 40, 41, 45)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw
SC/ST

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Section 3(1)(s) — Essential ingredient — Requirement of caste-based abuse occurring “in any place within public view” — Interpretation — For an offence under Section 3(1)(s) to be made out, the place where the utterance is made must be open, enabling the public to witness or hear the abuse — Abuse uttered within the four corners of a house, where public members are not present, does not satisfy the requirement of being “within public view” — Allegation that casteist abuses were hurled inside the complainant’s residence does not meet the statutory requirement — House of the complainant cannot be considered “within public view.” (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw