Search Judgments

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 302 – This case involves an appeal against the High Court’s decision to convict three appellants (father, son, and son-in-law) under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of Pushpendra Singh, overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal.

The prosecution’s case rested on the testimonies of witnesses, particularly the lady of the house (PW-7) where the murder occurred, and the recovery of weapons allegedly used in the crime. The appellants argued false implication, questioning the reliability of eyewitness accounts and the validity of weapon recovery as evidence.

The Supreme Court scrutinized the testimonies of key witnesses, noting contradictions and inconsistencies.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 302 and 307; Government Resolution No. RLP No.1006/CR621/PRS-3 dated 15.03.2010 – This case concerns an appeal by a life convict seeking premature release after serving almost 20 years of his sentence. The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The government initially directed his release after 24 years, categorizing his crime under Category 4(d) of the 2010 guidelines for premature release.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 374(2) and Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 120-B, 143, and 201 – The State of Rajasthan appealed against a High Court judgment that acquitted the accused-respondents who were previously convicted by the Trial Court for offenses under Sections 302 (read with 120-B), 143, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Trial Court had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and fines for the murder of Suresh Sharma.

The prosecution’s case rested on the theory that the accused conspired to murder Suresh Sharma due to land disputes and personal animosity. Key pieces of evidence included the recovery of a blood-stained “chunni” (stole), call detail records, and witness testimonies placing the deceased near the residence of one of the accused shortly before his death.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 498-A, 377, 506 read with Section 34 & Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – The appellants (father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law) sought to quash an FIR filed against them by the 2nd respondent (complainant/daughter-in-law) for offenses under Sections 498-A (cruelty towards a married woman), 377 (unnatural offenses), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC. The complainant alleged dowry demands and harassment after her marriage. The High Court had previously rejected the appellant’s application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court, upon examining the FIR and the final report, found the allegations against the appellants to be vague and general in nature, lacking specific details to constitute offenses under Sections 498-A, 377, and 506 of the IPC.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 12; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – This case involves a challenge to the High Court’s decision to quash a crime registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against Accused 4 (A4). The complainant, an MLA, alleged that A4 offered him a bribe to influence his vote in the Member of Legislative Council (MLC) elections.

The High Court quashed the proceedings, finding no direct link between A4 and the alleged crime. The FIR was registered based on a written complaint, but there was a delay in its registration, raising concerns.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – This appeal challenged the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, reversing the concurrent convictions by the Trial Court and Sessions Court. The appellant argued that the High Court erred in its revisional jurisdiction, overlooking the established facts of the dishonored cheque being issued for a legally enforceable debt. The appellant also contended that the accused failed to prove the complainant’s lack of financial capacity to advance the loan and highlighted the accused’s willingness to pay the cheque amount during sentencing.

The respondent argued that the complainant’s low salary at the time made it impossible for him to provide such a substantial loan.

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 528 ; Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 376 and 376 (2)(n) – This case involves an appeal against a judgment by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which refused to quash an FIR and chargesheet against the appellant under Sections 376 and 376 (2)(n) of the IPC. The complainant, a Computer Operator, alleged rape by the appellant, her colleague, under the false pretext of marriage. The appellant had previously filed complaints against the complainant, leading to a show-cause notice from her employer.

The Supreme Court examined the case, noting that the FIR was filed after the show-cause notice and four months after the alleged incident.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – The petitioners challenged the order of the appellate court that remanded a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, back to the trial court for fresh consideration after their acquittal. The petitioners argued that they were not given notice before the remand order, the appeal itself was not maintainable without seeking leave of the Court, and the appeal was time-barred.

The court dismissed the first argument, noting that the petitioners were aware of the proceedings and had engaged counsel. Regarding the second argument, the court cited Celestium Financial Vs.

Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – The appeal was filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (appellants) against the decree passed by the Principal District Court, Dindigul, in favor of the plaintiff (first respondent), directing payment of insurance claims. The plaintiff’s husband had taken five insurance policies from the appellants and died in a car accident. The appellants settled claims for two policies but repudiated the remaining three, alleging non-disclosure of material facts regarding the insured’s health, specifically a prior accident in 2001 and a stomach ailment in 2006.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the insured’s death was due to a sudden accident and not attributable to any pre-existing medical condition.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 372 and 378 – This case involves appeals against the High Court’s decisions regarding the acquittal of Amit Jogi in a murder case. The State of Chhattisgarh, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the de-facto complainant (Satish Jaggi) challenged the High Court’s orders that dismissed their respective petitions and applications against the acquittal.

The key issue revolved around the maintainability of the appeals, considering that the investigation was initially conducted by the State Police but later transferred to the CBI. The State’s appeal was dismissed based on the principle that only the Central Government can appeal in cases investigated by the CBI under Section 378(2) of the CrPC.