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.

DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY & ANR
 versus
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 887
2023 INSC 411
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, SANJAY KUMAR
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 397, 450 – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Case of the prosecution that appellants- accused (A1 and A2) trespassed into house of PW-1, wherein he also did his gold and silver business, concealing iron rods and robbed gold ornaments and brutally Accused held guilty of offences punishable u/ss.302, 397 and 450 and sentenced accordingly – Legality of – Held: Though there were no eye-witnesses to the actual killings, there were three separate witnesses PWs 4, 6, and 10, who were independent of each other and had no animosity
 Decision Date :
 21-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1295/2019

 |  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.

MANJUNATH & ORS.
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 727
2023 INSC 978
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In a case primarily involving a dying declaration in addition to the ocular and circumstantial evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the appellants-accused along with other accused persons, whether the High Court was justifi ed in overturning the same in respect Evidence – Dying declaration – Reliance upon in addition to the ocular and circumstantial evidence – Legality: Held: The dying declaration, although undoubtedly a substantive piece of evidence upon which reliance can be placed, in the present facts is rendered nugatory as
 Decision Date :
 06-11-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 866/2011
 | 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.

DAVINDER SINGH
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 986
2023 INSC 585
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376, 452 and 506 – Acquittal under – Allegation that appellant committed offence against the prosecutrix (PW-6) u/s. 376 at her residence – The appellant-accused was charged and convicted u/ss. 376, 452 and 506 by the Trial Court and the same was On appeal, held: There was delay in filing complaint – There was no attempt to recover the knife from the appellant as it is a specific case of the prosecution that he committed the offence by threatening to harm the prosecutrix – There was no reason as to non-examination of the sole
 Decision Date :
 22-06-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12/2015
 | 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
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.

PRADEEP
 versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1021
2023 INSC 599
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Evidence – Testimony of child witness – Sole basis of conviction – When not proper – Appellant along with co-accused was convicted for the offences punishable u/s. 302 r/w s.34, IPC and ss. 449, 324 r/w s.34, IPC based on the testimony of PW-1, minor son of the deceased was under a duty to record his opinion that the child is able to understand the questions put to him and that he is able to give rational answers – Trial Judge must also record his opinion that the child witness understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why he is of the
 Decision Date :
 05-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 553/2012
 | 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.

SATHYAN
 versus
STATE OF KERALA
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 95
2023 INSC 703
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 HEADNOTES Issues for consideration : (i) Whether the conviction, solely on the basis of offi cial witnesses is sustainable in the instant facts? (ii) Whether the delay of nearly 3 years in fi ling the challan can be said to be materially aff ecting the correctness of the judgement of the lower judgement? Abkari Act – s. 8 – Conviction under: Held : No reason is forthcoming on behalf of the appellant to challenge the veracity of the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 (offi cial witnesses) – In the instant case, conviction on the basis of testimony of the police witnesses
 Decision Date :
 11-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2363/2023
 | 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
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.

AJAY KUMAR RADHEYSHYAM GOENKA
 versus
TOURISM FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 986
2023 INSC 232
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, ABHAY S. OKA
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
*
 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – ss. 1(3), 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 29, 30, 31, 32A, 53, 61, 238 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 – Rule 6 – – ss. 138, 139, 141, 142, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 190, 200, 256, 257, 305, 482 – A demand-cum-legal notice u/s. 138 of the NI Act was issued on behalf of the respondent calling upon the company as accused no.1 and appellant herein as accused no.2 to
 Decision Date :
 15-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 172/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  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.

NARESH @ NEHRU
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 771
2023 INSC 889
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Conviction of the appellants for off ences punishable u/s.302 r/w s.149, IPC based on the statement of PW-9, as an eyewitness to the crime, if justifi ed. Evidence – Of eyewitness – When not to be relied upon: Held: Evidence of the eye-witness should quality and calibre and it should not only instil confi dence in the court to accept the same but it should also be a version of such nature that can be accepted at its face value – In the present case, testimony of PW-9 (cousin of the deceased) was shrouded with inconsistencies and he had
 Decision Date :
 09-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1786/2023
 | 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.

SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM
 versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 58
2023 INSC 687
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : In a case where in the further statement of the fi rst informant’s name of the appellant surfaced for the fi rst time, the appellant not named in the FIR as one of the accused persons and no allegation worth the name in the entire FIR against Court was justifi ed in declining to quash the FIR. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR, when in the further statement of the fi rst informant’s name of the appellant surfaced for the fi rst time – High Court declining to quash the FIR –
 Decision Date :
 08-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2344/2023
 | 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

বাংলা - Bengali
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.

AFJAL ALI SHA @ ABJAL SHAUKAT SHA
 versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 1090
2023 INSC 257
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, J.K. MAHESHWARI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 321, 406 – Constitution of India – Art. 139A – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or. 39 – Petitioner-brother of deceased sought transfer of the criminal trial pending in West Bengal to Assam by unknown persons – Respondents-accused were charged u/s. 302 r/w s.120B of the IPC and u/ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act 1959 – Charge-sheet was filed – Trial commenced – Respondent no.2 (main accused) was in the custody – During pendency of trial, a notification
 Decision Date :
 17-03-2023
 | Case No :
 TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 409/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ಕನ್ನಡ - Kannada
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.

SHIVA KUMAR @ SHIVA @ SHIVAMURTHY
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 669
2023 INSC 306
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.366, 376 and 302 – Power to impose modified punishment – Appellant convicted u/ss. 366, 376 and 302 IPC – Trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the rest of his life – High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by – In appeal before the Supreme Court, appellant contended that in view of the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors., a modified sentence can be imposed only by the Constitutional Courts and not by the Sessions
 Decision Date :
 28-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 942/2023
 | 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
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.

P. V. NIDHISH & ORS.
 versus
KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD & ANR.
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 547
2023 INSC 452
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA
 Wakf Act, 1995 – s.52A added by 2013 amendment – Penal provision – Operation of, if retrospective – Held: No – Giving effect to a penal statute so as to cover past acts is a proscribed action in law – Therefore, s.52A cannot cover cases where leases of wakf or lessee was in physical possession and facing civil proceedings for eviction at the time the amendment of 2013 came into force – Interpretation of Statutes. Wakf Act, 1995 – s.3(ee) added by 2013 amendment – “Encroacher” – Interpretation – Appellants
 Decision Date :
 28-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 309/2023
 | 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

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
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.

ROHAN DHUNGAT ETC.
 versus
THE STATE OF GOA & ORS. ETC.
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 1029
2023 INSC 16
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 – r. 335 – Whether the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence under Rules of 2006 while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release – Held: r. 335 of the Rules, 2006 provides that the period and Parole shall be counted as remission of sentence – Once the period of parole is to be counted as remission of sentence, the period of parole is also required to be excluded from the period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment. Parole – Object and
 Decision Date :
 05-01-2023
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 12574/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
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.

CBI
 versus
R.R. KISHORE
-
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1
2023 INSC 817
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, SANJIV KHANNA, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH, J.K. MAHESHWARI
 HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) required approval of the Central Government to conduct inquiry or investigation into any off ence alleged to have been committed by senior the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and provided a kind of immunity to such offi cers. Whether there could be a deprivation of such immunity by a retrospective operation of a judgment of the Court, in the context of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, was the moot question that arose
 Decision Date :
 11-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 377/2007
 | Disposal Nature :
 Matter referred to larger bench

 | Direction Issue :
 Matters be placed before appropriate Bench

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
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.

RAJARAM S/O SRIRAMULU NAIDU (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS.
 versus
MARUTHACHALAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 809
2023 INSC 51
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Money Lending – The appellant’s wife subscribed to chit funds (1992 and 1995) with the respondent for which two signed blank cheques were submitted as security – After maturity of the chit funds, appellant and his wife sought amount – However, respondent presented those cheques for encashment without any intimation to appellant – Said cheques were dishonoured as the appellant had closed the account – Respondent filed two complaint cases u/s 138 of NI Act – Both cases were dismissed by
 Decision Date :
 18-01-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1978/2013
 | 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.

PRITINDER SINGH @ LOVELY
 versus
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1033
2023 INSC 614
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – As per the prosecution, two days prior to the date of the incident, a dispute allegedly arose between the deceased-complainant’s brother and their step mother wherein she allegedly threatened the deceased that he would not survive – Two co-accused) came in a car and took the deceased on the pretext of purchasing shoes, when the complainant was also present in the house and allegedly noticed that the step mother was carrying her 12 bore double barrel licensed gun in the car – Later, dead body of the deceased was found
 Decision Date :
 05-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1635/2010
 | 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.

SANTOSH @ BHURE
 versus
STATE (G.N.C.T.) OF DELHI
-
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 719
2023 INSC 443
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, MANOJ MISRA, ARAVIND KUMAR
 Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 r/w. s.34 – Acquittal under – Prosecution case that ‘S’ was tenant of an apartment on the second floor of a building owned by PW-3 – On 12.09.2000, at about 10.40 a.m., an information was given to the police that a dead body is lying in As per prosecution, two disclosure/ confessional statements were made by each of the two accused (‘S’ and ‘N’) during police custody – Trial Court held that the proven circumstances constituted a chain which conclusively indicated that the accused ‘S’ in
 Decision Date :
 28-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 575/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
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.

PRADEEP KUMAR
 versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 682
2023 INSC 242
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Penal Code,1860 – ss. 302,34,201 – Two accused persons (including appellant) were convicted for offence of murder by trial Court –The prosecution case, rested upon three circumstances (a) the alleged confessional statement of appellant;(b) prior animosity deceased; and (c) the recovery of material from the appellant – The High Court upheld the conviction of appellant and acquitted co-accused – On appeal, held: The testimonies of PW-12(son of the deceased) and PW-13(co-villager) negated circumstances that there was tension between the
 Decision Date :
 16-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1304/2018
 | 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.

THE STATE OF CHATTISGARH & ANR
 versus
AMAN KUMAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 134
2023 INSC 189
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA
 Constitution of India – Art.226 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(b), (2) – FIR registered against one ‘AS’ and his wife ‘YS’ – FIR quashed by High Court – Justification of – Held: In the present case, FIR does make cognizable offence having been committed by ‘AS’ and ‘YS’ – Power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases – Whenever its powers are invoked either u/Art.226 or s.482,
 Decision Date :
 01-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 646/2023
 | 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.

ARVIND KUMAR
 versus
STATE OF NCT, DELHI
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 713
2023 INSC 622
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Penal Code, 1860 : s. 304A – Causing death by negligence – Scuffle between the victim-constable and the appellant-police guard – Semi Automatic Fire (SAF)-carbine of the appellant got entangled in the chain of the appellant’s belt resulting in accidental firing of five victim in his neck leading to his death – Case of the appellant that he was requested by the sub-inspector to ask the victim to desist from continuing with his conversation on the telephone – Conviction of the appellant u/s. 302 and sentenced to life by the courts below – On
 Decision Date :
 17-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2390/2010
 | 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
कोंकणी - Konkani
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.

MD. ASFAK ALAM
 versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1184
2023 INSC 660
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 438 – Grant of anticipatory bail – Disentitlement to – Husband accused of s. 498A and various other provisions under the Penal Code, and under the Dowry Prohibition Act – Anticipatory bail application pending and no husband – Grant of an interim order by the High Court directing the police not to arrest the husband during the pendency of his application u/s. 438 – Thereafter, the investigation was completed, charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken by the Sessions Judge –
 Decision Date :
 31-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2207/2023
 | 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

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.

ABHISHEK SAXENA
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR
-
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 1126
2023 INSC 1088
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the chargesheet submitted showed prima facie case u/ss. 323, 384 and 406, IPC for voluntarily causing hurt, for extortion and for criminal breach of trust; Whether the High Court has fallen in error in not invoking the powers u/s. the proceedings qua the appellant. Penal Code, 1860 – ss.323, 384 and 406 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – An FIR was registered against the appellant, his parents and relatives on 04.09.2016 alleging commission of offences u/ss. 323, 363, 384 and 406 of the
 Decision Date :
 28-11-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3628/2023
 | 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.

INDRAKUNWAR
 versus
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 959
2023 INSC 934
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether, in explaining the purported incriminating circumstance against her, the convict-appellant ought to have disclosed, over and above denial of any relationship with the deceased child, the specifi cs of her miscarriage and its aftermath; particularly has failed to discharge its burden of establishing such relationship between the deceased and the convict -appellant. Constitution of India – Right to Privacy – Personal life of a woman accused of committing a crime – Failure of Prosecution to discharge its duty: Held: The
 Decision Date :
 19-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 1730/2012
 | 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.

BIRBAL NATH
 versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 85
2023 INSC 957
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in acquitting the accused for the major off ences u/ss. 302 and 307 IPC, and convicting them only for the off ences u/ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 325/149 and reducing their sentences to the period already undergone contractions in the two statements of the injured eye witness, one given to police u/s.161 Cr.PC., and the other given before the court, would be suffi cient to discredit a witness. Penal Code, 1870 – ss. 304 Part I, 308, 147, 148, 323, 324, 325/149 – Culpable homicide not
 Decision Date :
 30-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1587/2008
 | 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

বাংলা - Bengali
ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
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.

INDRAJIT DAS
 versus
THE STATE OF TRIPURA
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 142
2023 INSC 175
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, VIKRAM NATH
 Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302/34, 201 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Information received from one of the prosecution witness that his nephew was missing since the previous evening – Victim had gone on his bike but did not return – On informed that the victim had gone out with two friends – Both the friends alleged to have confessed their crime before the investigating officer – One of them being juvenile, tried under Juvenile Act – As regards the other the trial court held that the prosecution had fully
 Decision Date :
 28-02-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 609/2015
 | 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.

CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY
 versus
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 1014
2023 INSC 250
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Issuance of summons – Legality of – A complaint was made against the appellant-archbishop and other accused persons for having committed an offense u/s 120B, 406, 409, 418, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468 r/w 34 of IPC alleging along with other accused persons had fraudulently disposed of certain immovable property belonging to the church – The first complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed by the court at Maradu on 30.09.2021 without taking cognizance of the complaint as the counsel for complainant did
 Decision Date :
 17-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 836/2023
 | 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.

KAMAL PRASAD & ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF CHHATTISGARH)
-
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 810
2023 INSC 895
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Case of the prosecution rested primarily on the testimonies of three witnesses, conviction of the appellants for off ence punishable u/ss.148, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, IPC and ss.4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, sentence imposed, if justifi ed. Evidence – Testimonies of eyewitnesses – Reliance upon: Held: Death of the deceased ‘C’ and his son ‘K’ is undisputed – Deceased ‘C’ having sustained multiple injuries upon vital parts of the body as a
 Decision Date :
 10-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1578/2012
 | 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
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.

ANOOP BARTARIA & ETC
 versus
DY. DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR.
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 531
2023 INSC 413
 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.3 – Offence of money laundering – Knowledge of dealing with the proceeds of crime, if sine qua non for– Held: No – Knowledge of the accused that he was dealing with proceeds of crime is not a condition precedent or to be shown by the prosecution for lodging the complaint under the Act – Apart from having knowledge, if a person who directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or is actually involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, is also guilty of the offence of
 Decision Date :
 21-04-2023
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2397/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 1 Judge
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.

ZUNAID
 versus
STATE OF UP. & ORS.
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 715
2023 INSC 778
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI, DIPANKAR DATTA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: CJM rejected the fi nal report submitted by the investigating offi cer and accepted the Protest Petition as the Complaint Case, whether the course opted by the CJM was just, legal and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Code of Criminal The Investigating Offi cer, after completing the investigation, submitted the Final Report – Appellant- complainant fi led a Protest Petition – The concerned CJM vide order dated 15.11.2018 rejected the Final Report of the Investigating Offi cer and directed that the Protest Petition
 Decision Date :
 29-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2628/2023
 | 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
ಕನ್ನಡ - Kannada
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.

SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH
 versus
MAHESH PS & ORS.
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 587
2023 INSC 272
Coram : KRISHNA MURARI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Bail – Adverse remarks – Expunction of – During the pendency of bail proceedings of respondent no.1, the High Court made adverse remarks against the appellants, who had no lis in the proceedings – Further, the High Court issued direction for seeking reports against Remarks made by High Court against appellant no.2 are unreasonable and without justification as appellant no.2 has no personal involvement in the case – No evidence against appellant no.2 has been analysed and no opportunity has been given to him to explain himself – Also,
 Decision Date :
 21-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 872/2023
 | 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
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.

VISHALAKSHI AMMA
 versus
STATE OF KERALA & ORS
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 1081
2023 INSC 255
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, MANOJ MISRA
 Wildlife (Protection Act), 1972: ss. 40, 40A – Time for declaration of custody or possession of any captive animal or animal article – Relaxation of – On facts, the appellant filed the application/ declaration on 25.05.2011 much beyond the prescribed period – Refusal of the of the deer horn found from the house of the appellant which was in custody and possession of the appellant on the ground of delay in the application/declaration – Writ petition by the appellant – Single Judge directed the Chief Wild Life Warden to consider whether time has been
 Decision Date :
 17-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 1720/2023
 | 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.

KAMALAKAR
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 787
2023 INSC 989
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant-accused u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 498A and s.306 – The prosecution alleges that after two years of marriage, all the three accused, i.e., started ill-treating and assaulting victim-deceased – Appellant brought victim back to her parents’ house – The appellant refused to take her back to his house and told the informant that he will be remarried – After two months, victim poured kerosene oil on her body
 Decision Date :
 12-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1485/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 | Direction Issue :
 Appeal 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
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.

EX-CONST/DVR MUKESH KUMAR RAIGAR
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 797
2023 INSC 42
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Service Law : Removal from service – Constable found guilty of gross misconduct and indiscipline – Suppression of pending criminal litigation in the verification form submitted at the time of appointment – Departmental inquiry – Order of removal Single Judge of the High Court set aside the dismissal order and directed the reinstatement of the constable – However, the Division Bench set aside the order – On appeal, held: Constable has committed gross misconduct – There was deliberate suppression of fact which was an
 Decision Date :
 16-01-2023
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 10499/2022
 | 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
தமிழ் - Tamil

 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.

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS
 versus
R. THAMARAISELVAM ETC. ETC.
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 851
2023 INSC 490
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Land Grabbing: Land grabbing matters – By a Government Order, the State of Tamil Nadu, constituted Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in Tamil Nadu for investigating the cases pertaining to land grabbing, however, without defining land grabbing cases – By the other grabbing cases were ordered to be transferred to the Special Courts constituted to exclusively deal with the land grabbing cases – Writ Petitions against the said G.Os – High Court set aside the G.Os on the ground that the same does not lay down any yardstick or guideline to pick and
 Decision Date :
 04-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 1580/2022
 | 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
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.

PRAKASH NAYI @ SEN
 versus
STATE OF GOA
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 823
2023 INSC 24
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and s.84 – Plea of Insanity – “Schizophrenia” – Accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced u/s. 302 IPC for having caused the death of the victim-deceased by attacking him at a store in which the deceased was working, with an iron of trial, the defence pleaded insanity – At one of the hospitals where the accused was undergoing the treatment before the date of incident, it was recorded that the accused was suffering from anxiety neurosis with reactive depression and has symptoms of acid peptic disease and mild
 Decision Date :
 12-01-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2010/2010
 | 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.

MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR.
 versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 313
2023 INSC 683
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In the instant case wherein FIR was registered u/ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC against the appellants, the questions which arose for consideration are whether the said case falls within the parameters laid down for quashing the FIR; whether the plain reading of of dacoity punishable u/s. 395 IPC; whether any case of criminal intimidation punishable u/ss. 504 and 506(2) IPC is made out; and whether the allegations levelled in the FIR inspire any confi dence considering the delay of one year in lodging the FIR. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.
 Decision Date :
 08-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2340/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.