Search Judgments

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 304 Part I, 302, 201, 34 and Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment that altered the conviction of the appellants from murder (Section 302/34 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC), reducing the sentence from life imprisonment to 7 years. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the deceased being last seen with the accused, recovery of a meat bag, and the discovery of blood-stained stones allegedly at the instance of the accused.

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and legal principles regarding circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must be fully established, point unerringly towards guilt, form a complete chain, be consistent with guilt only, and exclude every other hypothesis.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the incriminating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 364, 302, 201, 212, 120-B; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65B; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 161, 162; Sections 25 to 27 – The appellants were accused of offences under Sections 364, 302, 201, 212 and 120-B of the IPC for abducting and murdering Gurpal Singh. The Sessions Court convicted them, along with other accused, but the High Court acquitted the other accused while confirming the appellants’ conviction. The prosecution’s case relied on the testimony of an alleged eyewitness (PW-26), CCTV footage, and recovery of the deceased’s body parts and car and weapon at the instance of the accused.

The Supreme Court found the eyewitness account unreliable due to significant omissions and contradictions, and the failure to examine another alleged eyewitness, and the lack of Test Identification Parade made identification of accused doubtful.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 319 (BNSS 2023 Section 358) – This case concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that allowed a Revision Petition filed against a Sessions Judge’s order. The Sessions Judge had previously rejected an application under Section 319 of the CrPC, seeking to summon the appellant as an additional accused based on the depositions of two eye witnesses.

The High Court interfered with the Sessions Court’s decision, prompting the current appeal. The core issue revolves around whether the High Court correctly assessed the evidence, particularly the cross-examination of the eye witnesses, in relation to Section 319 of the CrPC.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 438 & Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 376 and 50 – This appeal contests the Kerala High Court’s order dated 24.09.2024, which rejected the appellant’s request for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant is accused in Crime No. 1192 of 2024, registered at the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

The Supreme Court considered the arguments of both parties and reviewed the case documents.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 319 & 232 – This case involves an appeal against a Calcutta High Court judgment that overturned a Trial Court’s acquittal of the accused. The Trial Court had acquitted the accused under Section 232 CrPC after the prosecution witnesses repeatedly failed to appear for cross-examination, despite summons. The complainant had filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the accused’s parents, but the Trial Court rejected this application due to the inadmissibility of evidence, as witnesses avoided cross-examination.

The High Court, relying on a Constitution Bench judgment, held that the application under Section 319 CrPC should have been decided even without cross-examination, based solely on the examination-in-chief.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 & 142; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – The case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed petitions seeking to quash summoning orders and subsequent proceedings in five complaint cases filed under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaints were filed by M/s Pinnacle Capital Solution Pvt. Ltd. against M/s Silverstar Fashions Private Limited, with the appellant, Ravi Dhingra, as the authorized signatory.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 227; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Section 27(b) – This appeal was filed against the Madras High Court’s order, which upheld the dismissal of the appellant’s discharge application by the Additional District Judge (ADJ) in CC No.43 of 2020. The appellant, accused No. 13, was charged under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act for allegedly consuming narcotic substances at a music festival organized at a resort. The prosecution’s case was primarily based on the confession statement of a co-accused, accused No.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 109; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 239 – The State appeals against a High Court judgment that discharged the respondent, wife of a public servant, from charges under Section 109 of the IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The charges stem from allegations that the husband possessed disproportionate assets. The High Court had overturned the Trial Court’s rejection of the respondent’s discharge application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., finding no “clinching material” to show abetment.

The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 239 Cr.P.C.

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Section 439; Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 – This appeal challenges the Bombay High Court’s order, which upheld the Special Judge’s rejection of the appellant’s bail application under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). The appellant argued that the MCOCA provisions were wrongly invoked based on a single prior criminal record. They also presented photographic evidence suggesting their absence from the crime scene. The appellant also raised concerns about prolonged incarceration of approximately five years without trial.

The Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Section 437 and 439; The Constitution Of India 1950 Article 325 –  This appeal was filed by a District and Sessions Judge of the Rajasthan Judicial Service, challenging adverse observations and directions issued against him by the High Court in a bail application matter. The High Court had found fault with the appellant for not complying with its earlier directions in Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan, which mandated the inclusion of a specific tabular format detailing the accused’s antecedents in bail orders. The appellant accepted the mistake and clarified it happened due to work pressure, and assured it would not happen again.