English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

HARILAL ETC.
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH)
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 138
2023 INSC 801
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA
*
, MANOJ MISRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in upholding the order of the Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the appellants to imprisonment for life u/s 302 IPC. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Murder – Conviction of the accused u/s. 302 and courts below – Ocular account of two prosecution witness that the assault on the deceased took place at night, however, neither of them lodged the FIR, rather, a named FIR lodged next day by the village chowkidar of neighbouring village, even though she was not an eye witness –
 Decision Date :
 05-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2216/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

HARENDRA RAI
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 583
2023 INSC 806
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In a murder case, the acquittal of respondent no.2 recorded by Trial Court and the High Court having been reversed and respondent no.2 having being convicted u/ss.302 and 307 IPC by the Supreme Court by an earlier judgment, now the issue for consideration was the no.2. Sentence / Sentencing – Murder – Conviction vide earlier judgment ([2023] 11 S.C.R. 403) – Death sentence not appropriate on facts, and as such imprisonment for life awarded alongwith fi ne – However, fi ne awarded to be paid as damages – Also,
 Decision Date :
 01-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1726/2015
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

DIGAMBAR
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 96
2023 INSC 445
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL
 Criminal Law – ‘Rarest of rare’ case – When not – One ‘P’ was married but had a love affair with ‘G’ – This was opposed by her brother-‘D’, who along with co-accused-‘M’ committed the murder of ‘P’ and the case to be ‘rarest of rare’, awarded death penalty and life imprisonment to ‘D’ and ‘M’, respectively – Correctness of – Held: No interference warranted with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court that the accused
 Decision Date :
 28-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 221/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

MUNNA PANDEY
 versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 1005
2023 INSC 793
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court erred in confi rming the conviction and death sentence passed by trial court against appellant- accused for off ences punishable u/ss.302, 376, IPC and s.4, POCSO Act, 2012, despite serious lapses in the entire investigation. Penal Code, of Children from Sexual Off ences Act, 2012 – s.4 – Serious lapses in investigation, confi rmation of conviction and death sentence – Propriety: Held: s.162, CrPC does not prevent a Judge from looking into the record of the police investigation – Being a case of rape
 Decision Date :
 04-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1271/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
 versus
PHOOLCHAND RATHORE
-
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 601
2023 INSC 444
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, MANOJ MISRA, ARAVIND KUMAR
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 201 – Acquittal under – Prosecution rested its case on the circumstances, inter-alia, (a) the accused bore a grudge against his wife for keeping jewellery with her sister (PW8); (b) on the fateful day, during day time, accused on with PW8 and threatened to kill the deceased and set the house on fire; (c) in the evening of that fateful day, the accused quarrelled with the deceased and took her with him on a bicycle, while extending threats that he would kill her; (d) later, that evening, the deceased was found in a
 Decision Date :
 28-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1315/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

RAM KISHOR ARORA
 versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
-
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 743
2023 INSC 1082
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the action of the respondent ED in handing over the document containing the grounds of the arrest to arrestee and taking it back after obtaining the endorsement and his signature thereon, as a token of he having read the same, and in not furnishing a copy time of arrest would render the arrest illegal u/s. 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – High Court dismissed the petition seeking declaration that the arrest of the appellant on 27.06.2023 by the respondent Directorate of Enforcement
 Decision Date :
 15-12-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3865/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

PREM SINGH
 versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
-
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 800
2023 INSC 3
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201 and s.84 – Murder – Disappearance of evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of – Plea of mental incapacity – Tenability – Allegations against appellant that, he took his two sons, aged about 9 years and canal, strangulated them to death, and threw their dead bodies into the canal – Trial court held appellant guilty u/ss.302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence – Held: There is no infirmity in the findings concurrently
 Decision Date :
 02-01-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 01/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

RAJPAL
 versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
-
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 1136
2023 INSC 1089
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the concern expressed by the Court on the lethargy in following its earlier orders in the matter of dealing with bail applications arising out of the same FIR. Judicial notice – Bail applications arising out of the same FIR diff erent Judges leading to anomalous situation – Some of the Judges granting bail and some other Judges refusing to grant bail, even when the role attributed to the applicants is almost similar – Earlier orders by this Court that it would be appropriate that all the matters
 Decision Date :
 12-12-2023
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 15585/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed as withdrawn

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

JABIR & ORS
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 969
2023 INSC 48
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 364, 201 – The prosecution case was that the victim ‘H’, aged about 7 years, went missing on 8.10.1999 – On 10.10.1999, his dead body was found in the sugarcane field of ‘Y’ in Village – The victim’s father (PW-1) recorded on 21.11.1999 – In the FIR, the informant alleged that he was told by PW-3 and PW-2 that they had seen A-3 taking deceased boy ‘H’ into her house on 08.10.1999 – PW-4 told him that on 09.10.1999 at about 6 AM, he had seen ‘H’ standing along with A-1
 Decision Date :
 17-01-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 972/2013
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

BALWANT SINGH
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 265
2023 INSC 482
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL
 Constitution of India – Arts. 32, 72, 161 – Mercy Petition – Petitioner was convicted for having committed an offence u/s. 120- B, 302, 307 of IPC and u/s. 3(b), 4(b) and 5(b) r/w s. 6 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and was awarded death sentence – Death reference of by the High Court – Petitioner neither preferred appeal against the decision of the High Court nor preferred the mercy petition – The mercy petition for the petitioner was preferred by the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee – The case of the petitioner is that the Union has not
 Decision Date :
 03-05-2023
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 261/2020
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

PHULEL SINGH
 versus
STATE OF HARAYANA
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 793
2023 INSC 863
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether in the totality of the circumstances, it can be said that the dying declaration (Ex. P.L.) is free from doubt; whether evidence prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was harassed on account of non-fulfi llment of demand of dowry. Evidence Act, – Dying declartion free from doubt or not – Doubt whether the dying declaration recorded was voluntary or it was tutored – Doubt regarding fi tness of victim – Variation in statement made by victim: Held: The present case mainly rests on the dying declaration of the
 Decision Date :
 27-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 396/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SANJIT SAHA & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
-
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 83
2023 INSC 1085
Coram : K.V. VISWANATHAN
 83 : 2023 INSC 1085 83 CASE DETAILS SANJIT SAHA & ANR. v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) D. No. 46699 of 2018) OCTOBER 09, 2023 [K. V. VISWANATHAN, J.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the steps/guidelines to be taken in cases where despite the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XXII r. 5 – Special Leave Petitions in Criminal Proceedings – Surrendering by the accused – Lapse in the communication – Eff ect: Held: Convict has to surrender to the sentence before fi
 Decision Date :
 09-10-2023
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 46699/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Matter referred to larger bench

 | Direction Issue :
 Papers alongwith this order be placed before Hon’ble CJI

 |  Bench :
 1 Judge
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

BOBY
 versus
STATE OF KERALA
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 335
2023 INSC 23
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Discovery of Fact – Criminal trial – Three accused – Disclosure statement allegedly made by accused no.3-appellant – Recovery of dead body of complainant’s husband – Appreciation of evidence – Held: s.27 requires and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to the said fact – The information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery – If a fact is actually discovered in consequence of
 Decision Date :
 12-01-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1439/2009
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

PANKAJ BANSAL
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 714
2023 INSC 866
Coram : A.S. BOPANNA
*
, SANJAY KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the arrest of the appellants u/s. 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was valid; whether there was proper compliance with s.19(1) of the Act of 2002 and as to whether the Vacation Judge/Additional Sessions Judge correctly passing the remand orders; what is the importance of informing the arrested person of the grounds for his/her arrest. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Compliance of s.19 of the Act – Proper or not: Held: The remand order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the Vacation
 Decision Date :
 03-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3051/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

PEETHAMBARAN
 versus
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 1144
2023 INSC 481
Coram : KRISHNA MURARI
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing of proceedings – Non-exercise of power u/s. 482 – Justification of – Appellant charged u/s. 420 along with the other accused persons for cheating the de-facto complainant and other persons for certain sum jobs – Registration of FIR – Final report that as no proper evidence, case should be considered as a false case – Another final report filed which stated that Inspector of Police conducted further investigation as per order passed by District Police Chief – Petition
 Decision Date :
 03-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1381/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SUNIL
 versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 381
2023 INSC 840
Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY
*
, MANOJ MISRA
 HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: (i) Whether based on the evidence led, the appellants could be convicted for the off ence of murder of the two deceased with the aid of s.34 IPC or only for the off ence punishable u/s. 307 IPC r/w. s. 34 IPC; (ii) Whether, on account of not putting the to the appellants while recording their statements u/s. 313 Cr.PC, appellants’ conviction with the aid of s.34 of the IPC stood vitiated. Penal Code, 1860 – Prosecution case that there was an altercation between two families – The main accused went to his house on Street
 Decision Date :
 21-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 688/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH
 versus
STATE OF M.P
-
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 761
2023 INSC 887
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, PANKAJ MITHAL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in altering the charge u/s. 302 read with ss. 148 and/or 149 to a charge u/s. 302/34 IPC, and convicting and sentencing the appellant for the off ence punishable u/s 302/34 and u/s. 201 IPC. Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 Murder – Common intention – Causing disappearance of evidence of off ence, or giving false information to screen off ender – Conviction of accused persons for the off ence punishable u/s. 302 rw ss. 148 and 149 and s. 201 and sentenced accordingly, for committing triple
 Decision Date :
 09-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1209/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

বাংলা - Bengali
हिन्दी - Hindi
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

M/S SRI MAHAVIR AGENCY & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 126
2023 INSC 375
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 : ss.7, 14, 16(1)(a)(i), 19(2) – Food Adulteration – Protection u/s. 19(2), to the vendor – Availability of – Appellant purchased ‘Pan Parag’ from the manufacturer through invoices and Sample of ‘Pan masala’ collected from the business premises of the buyer of pan masala, from the appellant – Samples seized tested and found to be below standard – Appellant’s case that he is merely a vendor who purchased pan masala from the manufacturer in
 Decision Date :
 17-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 982/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN
 versus
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 1016
2023 INSC 264
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, HIMA KOHLI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Constitution of India : Arts. 137 – Review jurisdiction in matters pertaining to capital punishment – Scope of – Petitioner accused a 7-year old child – Conviction u/ss. 364A, 302 and 201 IPC and imposition of death sentence by the courts below – Upheld by this Court – Review thereagainst – Dismissed through circulation – However, in view of the judgment in Mohd. Arif’s case, order
 Decision Date :
 21-03-2023
 | Case No :
 REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 159/2013
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

RAVINDER SINGH
 versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 480
2023 INSC 426
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, SANJAY KUMAR
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 432 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 45, 53 – Power to impose a modified punishment – Special category sentencing to life imprisonment in excess of 14 years – Appellant was convicted for having committed offence u/s. 376, 377, 506 imprisonment – Trial Court directed that the appellant should not be given any clemency by the State before he spent at least 20 years in jail – Same was confirmed by the High Court – On appeal, held: It is settled that the power to impose a modified punishment within the
 Decision Date :
 25-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1031/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

SAUMYA CHAURASIA
 versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
-
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 848
2023 INSC 1073
Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellant aggrieved by the order of the High Court dismissing the bail application fi led u/s.439 of Cr.P.C. has preferred this appeal. (i) Whether the appellant was prima facie found involved in the commission of the off ence of money laundering s.3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the appellant being a woman should be granted the benefi t of the fi rst proviso to s.45 of the PMLA; (iii) Whether an impudent attempt was sought to be made by alleging all the throughout in the synopsis, list of dates, questions
 Decision Date :
 14-12-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3840/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

KRISHAN KUMAR AND ANR
 versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 861
2023 INSC 679
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SANJAY KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Conviction of the appellants-accused u/ ss.201, 300, 302, IPC r/w s.34 based on circumstantial evidence, consisting of evidence of last seen, extra judicial confession, recovery of weapon of off ence and motive, if justifi ed. Evidence – Conviction based upon – When not justifi ed: Held: Categoric fi nding of the courts below on appreciation of the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses is that none of the witnesses had spoken of having lastly seen the deceased in the company of the accused alive and
 Decision Date :
 08-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1076/2015
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

M/S. MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOTHER
 versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 317
2023 INSC 5
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Interest Tax Act,1974 – s.2(5-A) and s.2(5-B) – Hire-purchase agreements – Appellants-assessees are credit institutions within meaning of s.2(5-A) – Whether appellants-assessees liable to pay tax on interest component included in hire-purchase instalments paid – ITAT referred to CBDT Circular No. 760 dated 13th January 1998 and observed that hire-purchase agreement is a composite transaction, and has elements of bailment and sale and appellants-assessees are not liable to pay interest tax as hire instalments are not interest on loans and
 Decision Date :
 03-01-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 10201/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

CHARAN SINGH @ CHARANJIT SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 511
2023 INSC 404
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 304 B, 498 A and 201 – Dowry Death – Presumption as to dowry death – Prosecution case that woman married two years ago, killed by her husband-appellant and in- laws for dowry – Death was unnatural and the victim was cremated without even informing her the appellant, brother-in-law and mother-in-law u/ss. 304 B, 498 A and 201 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s 304B, rigorous imprisonment for two years respectively u/ ss. 498A and 201 – In appeal, the conviction and sentence of the brother-in-law
 Decision Date :
 20-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 447/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

BALWINDER SINGH (BINDA)
 versus
THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 100
2023 INSC 852
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, HIMA KOHLI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to admissibility in evidence of the confessional statement recorded by the Narcotics Control Bureau officers u/s. 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; and proving of possession prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s. 67 – Confession statement made by an accused u/s. 67 before an offi cer of Narcotics Control Bureau – Admissibility in evidence: Held: Statement made by an accused and recorded u/s. 67
 Decision Date :
 22-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1136/2014
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
 versus
DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS LLP & ANR
-
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 949
2023 INSC 484
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Companies Act, 2013 – s.140(5) – Analysis and Interpretation of – Maintainability of proceedings u/s.140(5) after resignation of the auditors – s.140(5) empowers the Tribunal (NCLT), either suo motu or on an application made to it by the Central Government or by to take action against the auditor who has acted in a fraudulent manner or is abetting or colluding in fraud with the management of a company – If on completion of an enquiry it is found by the Tribunal that an auditor of a company has, whether directly or indirectly, acted in a
 Decision Date :
 03-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2305/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

NO.15138812Y L/NK GURSEWAK SINGH
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1139
2023 INSC 648
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Penal Code, 1860: s. 304 Part I, s 300 exception 4 – Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Appellant and the victim, both Lance Naik in the Indian Army – Altercation between them on the issue of seniority, after consuming liquor – Appellant snatched the bullet at him, resulting in the death of the victim – Appellant convicted by the court martial for the offence punishable u/s. 302 rw s. 69 of the Army Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life – Order of conviction and sentence upheld by the courts below – On appeal, held:
 Decision Date :
 27-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1791/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

STATE BANK OF INDIA
 versus
P. ZADENGA
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 740
2023 INSC 868
Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether clause 4 of the Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) dated 10th April 2002 create a bar on departmental proceedings continuing when the person subjected thereto is being tried before a criminal court for off ences of the same origin; and whether acquittal in proceedings entail a benefi t in the surviving proceedings, inuring a right upon the delinquent employee of automatic discharge in disciplinary proceedings. Service Law – Departmental proceedings pending criminal trial arising from the same transactions, if to be stayed – Acquittal
 Decision Date :
 03-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 2518/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
 नेपाली - Nepali
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

AVTAR SINGH & ANR.
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 639
2023 INSC 280
 Essential Commodities Act, 1955: s. 7 – Penalties – Appellants in unauthorized possession of gas cylinders – Conviction and sentenced u/s. 7, by the courts below – Appellants’ case that gas cylinder were seized by sub-inspector of the police, who was not authorised to thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all – Other methods are necessarily forbidden – In the absence of the authority and power with the Sub-Inspector to take action as per the Order, the proceedings initiated by him totally unauthorised and have to be
 Decision Date :
 23-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1711/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 1 Judge
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

UDAYAKUMAR
 versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 943
2023 INSC 239
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302, 120B – Murder – Due to rivalry A-1 alongwith A-3 hatched a conspiracy to murder the victim and engaged services of A-2 for the same – A-2 killed the victim with a sickle thereafter, fled with A-1 and A-2 – Incident witnessed by PW-1 – life imprisonment – High Court acquitted A-1 and A3 for both the offences and A-2 for the offence u/s 120B, however, conviction of A-2 for the offence punishable u/s 302 upheld on the basis of identification by PW1 – On appeal, held: Other than the identification of A-2 being the
 Decision Date :
 16-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1741/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

 RAJESH & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 1
2023 INSC 839
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA, SANJAY KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In a case based on circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the kidnapping and murder, and where the prosecution’s case essentially turned upon the ‘recoveries’ made at the behest of the Evidence Act, whether their conviction on diff erent counts and death sentence imposed on two out of the three appellants was justifi ed, when the confessions were made before their arrest and prior to being ‘accused of any off ence’. Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.26, 27 – Being
 Decision Date :
 21-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 793/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

ARUP BHUYAN
 versus
STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.
-
[2023] 8 S.C.R. 496
2023 INSC 292
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss.10(a)(i), 3 and 4 – s.10(a)(i) provides that where an association is declared unlawful by a notification issued u/s.3 which has become effective under sub-section 3 of that Section, a person who is and continues to be a member shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years and shall also be liable to fine – Whether “active membership” is required to be proven over and above the membership of a banned organization under the UAPA, 1967 – Held: The object and
 Decision Date :
 24-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 889/2007
 | Disposal Nature :
 Reference answered

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

MADAN
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 765
2023 INSC 990
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Six deaths were caused on account of brutal fi ring by the appellants and other accused persons. The trial court imposed sentence of capital punishment to the appellants (‘M’ and ‘S’) herein for the off ence punishable u/s. IPC, while it sentenced accused ‘I’ to imprisonment for life for the same. (i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the case for conviction u/s. 302 of IPC; (ii) Whether the present case falls in the category of rarest of rare cases; (ii) Whether on the facts of
 Decision Date :
 09-11-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1381/2017
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

AFJAL ANSARI
 versus
STATE OF UP
-
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 969
2023 INSC 1071
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: What are the parameters to be considered for the suspension of conviction u/s. 389(1) CrPC; whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case for the suspension of conviction u/s. 389(1) CrPC; and whether conviction of an off ence involving a valid ground to deny suspension of conviction u/s. 389(1) CrPC. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 (1) – Suspension of conviction –Appellant-member of Parliament, convicted u/s. 3(1) of the Gangsters Act and sentenced to four years imprisonment with a fi ne of Rupees One
 Decision Date :
 14-12-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3838/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

P. SARANGAPANI (DEAD) THR. LR PAKA SAROJA
 versus
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 433
2023 INSC 844
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in confi rming the conviction of appellant-accused no.1 u/s. 7 and s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Allegation demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.1500/- as gratification other then legal remuneration from the defacto- complainant – Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused no.1 for the off ences u/s. 7 and s.13(1)(d)r/w 13(2) of the 1988 Act – High Court confi rmed the conviction –
 Decision Date :
 21-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2173/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.