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.

ROOPWANTI
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 30
2023 INSC 157
Coram : KRISHNA MURARI
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Decision Date :
 24-02-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1904/2014
 | 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
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.

KEKHRIESATUO TEP ETC.
 versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 523
2023 INSC 362
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss. 39, 40, 43D(5) – Bail under –Special Judge found that appellants had not voluntary succumbed to the demands of the organization and investigating agency admitted that accused persons were cooperating in investigation –Bail Special Judge – However, High Court reversed the order of the Special Judge – Before the Supreme Court, appellants contended that they were forced to make payments – Held: There are twin requirement under sub-section (5) of s. 43D – First one being that the public
 Decision Date :
 12-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 415/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SANJAY RAGHUNATH AGARWAL
 versus
THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
-
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 461
2023 INSC 408
Coram : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
*
, PANKAJ MITHAL
 Bail – A criminal complaint u/ss. 406, 407, 415 to 420, 120B r/w s.34 IPC was filed against six persons, including the appellant – Complaint was, that Farmax India Ltd. availed the services of the accused in raising Global Depository Receipts (GDRs), to the tune of INR the accused raised the said amount, they transferred to Farmax only a sum of INR 2.20 crores – According to the Enforcement Directorate, the appellant and the others had committed the offence of money-laundering – Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was lodged –
 Decision Date :
 20-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1198/2023
 | 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.

STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
 versus
HEMENDHRA REDDY & ANOTHER. ETC.
-
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 134
2023 INSC 460
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 169, 173(2), 173(8) – Further Investigation – Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the entire prosecution instituted by the CBI against the accused persons for on the ground that the CBI could not have undertaken further investigation under sub- section (8) of s.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and filed a charge-sheet having once already submitted a final report under sub-section (2) of the s.173 of the CrPC (closure report) – Held:
 Decision Date :
 28-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1300/2023
 | 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.

HARENDRA RAI
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 403
2023 INSC 738
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH
 HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: In a double murder case, wherein it was alleged that accused no.1-respondent no.2 had opened fi re from his rifl e resulting in injury to three persons, out of which two died, and the trial court had acquitted accused-respondent nos. 2 to 8 of all the charges, High Court in criminal revision, the issues before this Court were: (i) Whether the Supreme Court, in appeal against acquittal, could consider the High Court’s judgment dated 13.03.2007 passed in a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition (fi led pursuant to abduction of CW1, mother of one of the
 Decision Date :
 18-08-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1726/2015

 | Direction Issue :
 Acquittal of main accused reversed and matter listed for hearing on sentence.

 |  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.

RANVIR SINGH ETC. ETC.
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 841
2023 INSC 25
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 148, 302/149, 324/149, 304 Part-II – Acquittal under – Appellants-accused persons were charged of having committed an offence u/ss. 148, 302/149, 324/149 – Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-28) was recorded as an FIR, in pursuance of the information given by person ‘H’, in which he stated that he along with the other two persons (K and PW-12) was attacked by the appellants – The Statement of the H was recorded at the place of occurrence by PW-20 (Investigating officer) and later H died at the hospital – Trial Court
 Decision Date :
 12-01-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1384/2009
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
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.

KASHIBAI & ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 175
2023 INSC 722
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 306 r/w 34 – Appellants-accused were convicted u/ss.498A, 306 r/w 34 and sentenced – Held: Deceased was subjected to harassment at the instance of appellants – Prosecution has successfully brought home the charges levelled against them for the However, it failed to adduce any clinching evidence to conclude that the appellants abetted the deceased to commit suicide – Mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for the court to raise the presumption u/s.113A, Evidence Act, and to hold the accused
 Decision Date :
 28-02-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 627/2023
 | 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
 नेपाली - Nepali
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.

SOUNDARAJAN
 versus
STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE ANTICORRUPTION DINDIGUL
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 133
2023 INSC 377
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 : ss. 7, 13(1)(d), r/w 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Appellant-Sub-Registrar demanded gratification of Rs.500/- from the complainant-PW 2, for handing over the registered sale deed – Complaint filed – Trap laid witness PW-3, the appellant caught red-handed while accepting the bribe – However, complainant did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile – Trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable u/s 7 and s. 13(2) r/w s. 13(1)(d) – Upheld
 Decision Date :
 17-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1592/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

AJAI ALIAS AJJU ETC. ETC
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 930
2023 INSC 127
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, VIKRAM NATH
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/149, 307 – Arms Act, 1959 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 161, 164 – The case of prosecution was that the accused persons, entered into the house of the PW-1 and her sister and had caused the death their family members – In the course of committing the offence, the accused persons also inflicted the injuries upon the PW-1 and her sister – Presuming them to be dead, the accused persons left the house – Thereafter, the PW-1 and her sister came out of the house shouting and
 Decision Date :
 15-02-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 598/2013
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

বাংলা - Bengali
हिन्दी - Hindi
कोंकणी - Konkani
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.

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
 versus
VIKAS MISHRA @ VIKASH MISHRA
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 321
2023 INSC 345
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – Application for default bail – Frustration of judicial process by conduct – Respondent was accused of having committed offence u/s 409/120B of IPC – On 16.04.2021, the respondent-accused was arrested by the CBI and was custody for a period of seven days i.e., till 22.04.2021 – However, during the said period the respondent-accused was admitted in the hospital and thus could not be interrogated by the CBI – Thereafter, he obtained interim bail on 21.04.2021 which came to be extended till 08.12.2021
 Decision Date :
 10-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 957/2023
 | 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.

HARVINDER SINGH @ BACHHU
 versus
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
-
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1157
2023 INSC 907
Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in setting aside the order of acquittal and convicting the appellant for murder and attempt to rape relying on the testimony of the prosecution witness despite contradictions, only because he was educated and a god fearing ss. 302, 376, 511, 454, 380 r/w s.34 – Murder and attempt to rape – High Court convicted the appellant for murder and attempt to rape, setting aside the order of acquittal by the trial court – Correctness: Held: Trial court gave substantial reasons for arriving at its
 Decision Date :
 13-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 266/2015
 | 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

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.

JAVED SHAUKAT ALI QURESHI
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 220
2023 INSC 829
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Assault by mob, Seven accused were convicted, including the present appellant-accused no.6, for the off ences punishable u/s. 396 r/w. s.149, s.395 r/w. s.149, s.307 r/w. s.149, s.435 r/w. s.149 and s.201 r/w. s.149 of the IPC. Accused nos. 1, 5 and 13 were conviction of appellant-accused no.6 justifi ed; (b) Whether conviction of accused no. 2, 3, 4 was justifi ed, when role ascribed to them was that they were part of mob. Evidence – Conviction of appellant-accused no.6 based on sole testimony of PW-2 – Propriety: Held: Considering
 Decision Date :
 13-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1012/2022
 | 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
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.

QAMAR GHANI USMANI
 versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 824
2023 INSC 337
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – Default bail – Appellant-accused was arrested on 29.01.2022 – 90 days period u/s. 167 was to expire on 29.04.2022 – On 22.04.2022, IO prayed for extension of time to complete the investigation, to investigate by 30 days in absence of accused – The accused came to be informed about the extension on 23.04.2022 itself – On 22.05.2022, the IO again prayed for further extension, the same was allowed by 30 days – Second Extension was granted in the presence of the accused
 Decision Date :
 10-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1045/2023
 | 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
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 ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR
 versus
VIJAYANAGARAM CHINNA REDDAPPA
-
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 485
2023 INSC 726
Coram : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, PANKAJ MITHAL
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.426(2)(b), 427(2) – Interplay between – Held: While s.426 covers the case of an escaped convict, clause (b) of sub-section (2) thereof creates a conundrum in respect of life convicts – But s.427, though does not deal convict, provides enough room for finding out how a sentence imposed on a subsequent conviction, in respect of a life convict, should be handled – Application of s.427(2) by the High Court to the case on hand is perfectly in order – Detenu to be set at liberty –
 Decision Date :
 28-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1313/2023
 | 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.

PARANAGOUDA AND ANOTHER
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
-
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 923
2023 INSC 933
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, ARAVIND KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the courts below were justifi ed in convicting and sentencing the accused for the off ences punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B read with s. 34 IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; whether the conviction of the accused u/s. be sustainable; and whether accused can be convicted for the off ence punishable u/s. 306 IPC though not charged for said off ence. Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 498A, 304B rw s. 34, 306 – Cruelty against married women – Abetment of suicide - Accused-husband and in-laws subjected the
 Decision Date :
 19-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3274/2023
 | 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.

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 266
2023 INSC 991
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Writ petition in the nature of public interest sought expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. Constitution of India – Art. 32 of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies – Directions issued: Held: (i) Learned Chief Justices of the High Courts shall register a suo-motu case with the title, “In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs” to monitor early disposal of
 Decision Date :
 09-11-2023
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 699/2016
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
 versus
KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC
-
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 1133
2023 INSC 1090
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to application fi led by the appellant seeking clarifi cation of the judgment dated 27.03.2023 passed by this Court in Crl App Enforcement Directorate, Government of India v. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. Etc. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – Judgment/order as regards grant of default bail – Clarifi cation of – Application by the appellant seeking clarifi cation of the judgment dated
 Decision Date :
 24-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 701/2020
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ADITI ALIAS MITHI
 versus
JITESH SHARMA
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 247
2023 INSC 981
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The appellant-minor daughter of the respondent-father is aggrieved of the order passed by the High Court by which the maintenance for the appellant ₹ 20,000/- per month, was reduced to ₹7,500/- per month by the High Court. Maintenance – The High Court of maintenance from ₹20,000/- to ₹7,500/- – Propriety: Held: The manner in which maintenance payable u/s. 24 of the Hindu Mariage Act, 1955 or s.125 Cr.P.C. is to be assessed, was considered by the Supreme Court in its celebrated judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, [2020] 13 SCR
 Decision Date :
 06-11-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3446/2023
 | 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.

SAURAV DAS
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 731
2023 INSC 76
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:ss. 173, 207 – Report of police officer on completion of investigation – Writ Petition u/Art. 32 seeking direction to all the States to upload all chargesheets on public domain/websites – Held: Relief sought is contrary to scheme of CrPC – as victim and/or even the investigating agency – Putting the FIR on the website cannot be equated with putting the chargesheets along with the relevant documents on the public domain and on the websites of the State Governments – Chargesheet are not public documents u/s. 73 of the
 Decision Date :
 20-01-2023
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1126/2022
 | 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

 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.

LOK PRAHARI
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
-
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 357
2023 INSC 302
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 – Rule 39-AA – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss. 59, 94 and 128(1), amended by Act of 2003 – Challenge to r. 39-AA – Petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of rule 39-AA on the ground that the said Art.14 of the Constitution and is also contrary to s.123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Held: The Constitution Bench in Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India held that after the amendment, voting to the Council of States has undergone a material change and that the norm of
 Decision Date :
 27-03-2023
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1141/2020
 | 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
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.

GUNA MAHTO
 versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND
-
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 782
2023 INSC 240
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302, 201 – Murder – Prosecution case that husband murdered his wife and dumped her dead body in well to cause disappearance of evidence and later lodged missing report with the police – Conviction u/ss. 302 and 201 by the courts below – On appeal, Officer has, in the attending circumstances rendered the prosecution case to be doubtful if not false – Offence u/s. 201 could not have been proven without his examination – Courts below presumptively, proceeded with the acquired assumption of the guilt of the accused for the
 Decision Date :
 16-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 108/2012
 | 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.

ANBAZHAGAN
 versus
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1091
2023 INSC 632
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Penal Code, 1860 – Alteration of conviction from s. 304-I to s.304-II of IPC – Single injury – Prosecution case that appellant and deceased picked up verbal altercation in regard to the pathway and the appellant had inflicted one blow with a “Hoe”-a of which the victim fell unconscious and later died – Trial Court held appellant guilty for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder u/s. 304-I of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years – High Court dismissed the appeal
 Decision Date :
 20-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2043/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

THANESAR SINGH SODHI (D) THR. LRS.
 versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
-
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 777
2023 INSC 997
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Detention order passed under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 subsequently revoked/withdrawn, proceedings under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) become non est and untenable, as claimed. Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 – s.2(2)(b) and its proviso – Application – Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – ss.3, 9, 12 –
 Decision Date :
 09-11-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 5500/2011
 | 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.

YAMAL MANOJBHAI
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 916
2023 INSC 498
Coram : KRISHNA MURARI
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Customs Act, 1962 – ss.123, 127B – Seized goods specified u/s.123, remedy of settlement u/s.127B if available – Held: Per Krishna Murari, J. In cases of seizure within the customs area, s.123 cannot apply and the accused is entitled to the remedy of by the Bombay High Court in Suresh Raheja case states the correct position of law – Per Sanjay Karol, J. Proviso to s.127B(1) specifies certain categories of goods that are barred from the jurisdiction of the settlement commission including goods mentioned u/s.123 and goods relating to NDPS
 Decision Date :
 04-05-2023
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 55/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Matter referred to larger bench

 | Direction Issue :
 Matter to be placed before Hon’ble CJI.

 |  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.

SANDEEP KUMAR
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR
-
[2023] 9 S.C.R. 1210
2023 INSC 654
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – The appellant- informant (PW-9) moved an application u/s. 319 before the Trial Court to summon three additional accused persons, R, K and P, who were named in FIR but not in the charge-sheet by the appellant as assailants in his examination-in-chief during trial – The trial Court allowed the application and summoned the three accused persons – However, the High Court set aside the said order in revision – The revision was allowed for the reasons that R was
 Decision Date :
 28-07-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2195/2023
 | 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
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.

NAIM AHAMED
 versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
-
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 1061
2023 INSC 85
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.375, 376 – Conviction u/s.376, when not justified – Plea of the respondents was that the prosecutrix gave her consent for sexual relationship under the misconception of fact, as the accused had given a false promise to marry her but subsequently he did not was no consent in the eye of law and the case fell under the Clause- Secondly of s.375 – Held: In the present case, the prosecutrix who herself was a married woman having three children, could not be said to have acted under the alleged false promise given by the appellant- accused or under
 Decision Date :
 30-01-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 257/2023
 | 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
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.

B V SESHAIAH
 versus
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 293
2023 INSC 93
Coram : KRISHNA MURARI
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Conviction of the Appellants – Revision filed before High Court – Meanwhile, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to settle the dispute, in terms thereof Respondent No.2 was bound to file a compromise Court, however he failed to do so – Revision dismissed by High Court, conviction of the Appellants confirmed – On appeal, held: This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation –
 Decision Date :
 01-02-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 284/2023
 | 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.

MANISH SISODIA
 versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
-
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 480
2023 INSC 956
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA
*
, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The two appeals are fi led by the appellant- former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi seeking bail in the prosecutions arising from a case registered by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Penal Code, 1860; and enforcement the Directorate of Enforcement, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 – Requirement for grant of bail under: Held: Referring to s.45 of the PML Act, in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary it was held that provision does not require
 Decision Date :
 30-10-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3352/2023
 | 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
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.

SANJAY DUBEY
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 939
2023 INSC 519
Coram : KRISHNA MURARI
*
, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
 Constitution of India – Articles 226, 227 – Power of High Court to issue additional directions/orders in bail pleas – FIR was filed against accused u/ss.376, 506, IPC; POCSO Act, SCST Act and IT Act –FSL Report was forwarded to the appellant- Inspectorwith a note that guidelines be undertaken however, the DNA examination was not carried out – In the meantime, the accused filed his bail plea – High Courtcalled for the case-diary, but the FSL Report was not included therewith – Appellant was found guilty of dereliction of dutyand direction
 Decision Date :
 11-05-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1466/2023
 | 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.

AMEENA BEGUM
 versus
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
-
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 958
2023 INSC 788
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, DIPANKAR DATTA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: An order of detention dated 24.03.2023 was passed by the Commissioner of Police against appellant’s husband. Whether the alleged acts of commission for which the Detenu has been kept under detention are prejudicial to ‘public order’ and whether factors weighed in the mind of the detaining authority leading to the conclusion that the Detenu is a habitual off ender and for prevention of further crimes by him, he ought to be detained. Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Off enders, Goondas, Immoral
 Decision Date :
 04-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2706/2023
 | 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.

ANSAR AHMAD
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 577
2023 INSC 725
Coram : SURYA KANT, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Bail – Bail applications filed by two respondents herein in a case crime u/ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B and 34 IPC and ss. 3 & 4 of Explosive Substances Act before the High Court was granted – It was alleged that appellant’s son was killed in a contract killing – one of the respondents was allegedly present at the spot at the time of occurrence, the other respondent was a part of the conspiracy hatched to eliminate victim-deceased – On appeal, held: The offences were serious in nature and the respondents were allegedly involved in a contract
 Decision Date :
 18-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1168/2023
 | 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
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.

NARENDRASINH KESHUBHAI ZALA
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 746
2023 INSC 241
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 25(1) A, 27(2) – Acquittal of accused – Appellant was accused of having committed the murder of the victim-deceased by shooting at him while he was sitting on a Nala with PW-3 – FIR charge-sheet was filed and the appellant was put on trial – Trial Court convicted the appellant on the testimony of the sole eye-witness (PW-3) and such conviction was upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: In the case of a sole eye witness, the witness has to be reliable,
 Decision Date :
 16-03-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1179/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN & ANR
 versus
U P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS IN THE MATTER OF: STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 682
2023 INSC 860
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The State of Haryana sought a direction that it should be permitted to conduct the entire selection process of recruiting judicial offi Service Commission and the order dated 12.02.2009 should be modifi ed to facilitate this exercise. Judicial Service – Selection process – State Government sought selection process of recruiting judicial offi cers to be done through the Public Service Commission – State
 Decision Date :
 26-09-2023
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 1867/2006
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 | Direction Issue :
 IA No. 53466 of 2022. IA dismissed.

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

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

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MAKKELLA NAGAIAH
 versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
-
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 250
2023 INSC 800
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANJAY KUMAR
 HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Claim of petitioner for juvenility after conviction u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Petitioner and other co-accused convicted u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC imprisonment for life – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence – SLP also dismissed – Petitioner claimed juvenility – The Sessions Judge was directed to conduct an enquiry and to submit the report: Held: The Additional Sessions Judge submitted the report after
 Decision Date :
 05-09-2023
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 429/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
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.

JITENDRA KUMAR RODE
 versus
UNION OF INDIA
-
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 512
2023 INSC 419
Coram : KRISHNA MURARI
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974: s. 385 – Procedure for hearing appeals not dismissed summarily – Conviction and sentence of the appellant-Assistant Commercial Manager, Northern Railway u/s. 7 of PC Act by the trial court – In appeal before the High Court though the record record of the matter before trial court has been lost and is not traceable and the documents sent as reconstructed documents do not constitute the relevant trial court record, the High Court upheld the conviction despite going into the merits – Legality of – Held : Accused, in appeal,
 Decision Date :
 24-04-2023
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1269/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

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

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.