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.

NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
 versus
MOHIT AGGARWAL
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 600
2022 INSC 730
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI
 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss. 8, 22, 29, 37 and 67 – Post-arrest bail – Not granted – Respondent made statement u/s. 67 NDPS Act and disclosed that he was illegally selling and purchasing the illegal drugs from ‘PJ’ – was conducted by NCB at the premise of co-accused-‘PJ’ and drugs covered under NDPS were recovered in huge quantities – Respondent was taken into custody – Respondent made application for bail before Special Judge, NDPS which was rejected – High Court granted
 Decision Date :
 19-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1001/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
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.

RAMJHAN GANI PALANI
 versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY AND ANR
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1050
2022 INSC 482
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI
 Bail: Regular bail – Denial of – Matter pertaining to seizure of huge quantity of Narcotics drug, Heroin near Port in Gujarat in a joint operation by the Indian Coast Guard and – Prosecution case that on receiving intelligence input, the DRI intercepted a Pakistani boat in the Indian territorial waters which was trying to escape – Seizure of bags containing narcotic substance, and the Captain of the boat admitted dumping some bags into the sea along
 Decision Date :
 27-04-2022
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CRIMINAL)... No. 8942/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MAJOR SINGH
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
-
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 800
2022 INSC 1306
Coram : A.S. BOPANNA, VIKRAM NATH
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.304 Part II – Distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Held: There is a subtle distinction of degree of intention and knowledge involved in both the crimes – Intention is pivotal to decide has committed culpable homicide amounting to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Along with intention, knowledge and the degree of crime, i.e. how the deceased was killed, plays an important role in deciding – In the present case, the accused-appellant had no
 Decision Date :
 16-06-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2405/2014
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

JASWINDER SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
 versus
NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU & ORS.
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 725
2022 INSC 603
Coram : A.M. KHANWILKAR
*
, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
 Sentence/Sentencing: Enhancement of sentence – Incident pertaining to a dispute of right of way – Respondent No. 1-accused inflicted fist blows to a 65 years old man, resulting in his death – High Court convicted the accused u/s. 304 Part II IPC – However, in Court held that out of all the fist blows of the respondent, only one of them landed on the head of the deceased, that there was uncertainty regarding the cause of death, that no weapon used nor there was past enmity, thus, respondent not held guilty of death but of causing voluntary hurt to the
 Decision Date :
 19-05-2022
 | Case No :
 REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 477/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

DESH DEEPAK KUMAR VIHANGAM@ DEEPAK KUMAR
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 886
2022 INSC 278
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 364A and 120B – Kidnapping for ranson and abduction – On facts, a doctor kidnapped for ransom and abducted along with his driver – Six persons convicted u/ss. 364A and 120 B, and sentenced to life imprisonment, and ordered to pay fine held: Four of the accused were found present at the house and were involved in the kidnapping – They along with DK, on whose disclosure the amount was recovered from his tenanted premises, were identified by the victims – In view thereof, and the appreciation of evidence, findings and
 Decision Date :
 08-03-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 673/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

GALI JANARDHAN REDDY
 versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
-
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 656
2022 INSC 1059
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Bail – Applicant sought modification of condition of bail – Directions issued – Applicant is accused for the offences u/s 120(B), 420, 379, 409, 468, 411, 427 and 447 of IPC, s.2 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, r.21 r/w. Rules of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Appellant was arrested by the CBI on 05.09.2011 – Bail was granted by Supreme Court on 20.01.2015, subject to some conditions – One of them was a condition (c) which read as “he shall not visit the Districts
 Decision Date :
 10-10-2022
 | Case No :
 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 528/2020
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL
 versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.
-
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 351
2022 INSC 690
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Bail – Grant of – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 41, 41A, 88, 170, 204 and 209 – Constitution of India – Arts. 21 & 22 – Applications have been filed seeking certain directions/ clarifications, to deal with the aspects governing the grant of of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bail – While considering the application for enlargement on bail, Courts will have to satisfy themselves on the due compliance of sec. 41 of CrPC – Any
 Decision Date :
 11-07-2022
 | Case No :
 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1849/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

PRABHA TYAGI
 versus
KAMLESH DEVI
-
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 970
2022 INSC 563
Coram : M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: ss.12, 17, 19, 22 – Domestic violence – Allegations of, by the aggrieved person-wife – Death of the husband within one month of the marriage in a car accident – Birth of daughter within a year of marriage – After tortured and harassed by her mother-in-law and her matrimonial family, and was forced to leave her matrimonial home – She started working to support herself and her child – Issuance of notice to the respondents to return her stridhana but there was no response – Aggrieved person
 Decision Date :
 12-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 511/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE
 versus
PRABODH KUMAR TEWARI
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 72
2022 INSC 832
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 – ss. 138, 139 – Engagement of hand-writing expert to determine the details filled in the cheque – The respondent admits that he signed a blank cheque and handed over to the appellant – The High Court permitted the expert to determine whether the details that were filled in the cheque were in the handwriting of the respondent – Held: A drawer who signs a cheque and hands it over to the payee, is presumed to be liable unless the drawer adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque
 Decision Date :
 16-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1260/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ABHISHEK
 versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1128
2022 INSC 618
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 363, 364A, 384, 386, 387, 397 and 504 – Sanction order – Challenge to – FIR was registered against the appellant for offences u/s 363, 364A, 384, 386, 387, 397 and 504 IPC – The appellant having remained out of reach, a proclamation was issued r/w. s.20(3) of MCOCA, declaring him as an ‘absconder’ – ADGP and Commissioner of Police after examining the proposal of Assistant Commissioner of Police for according sanction in terms of s.23(2) of MCOCA, granted the sanction for prosecution of appellant under IPC, Arms Act
 Decision Date :
 20-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 869/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

 RAJBIR SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
-
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 80
2022 INSC 858
Coram : HEMANT GUPTA
*
, VIKRAM NATH
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Death by poisoning alleged – Circumstantial evidence – As per the prosecution, PW-1-informant’s wife died after consuming the milk brought from the appellant, residing in the neighbourhood and carrying on the business of dairy farm and u/s.302 – On appeal, held: In the present case, chain of evidence has many missing and weak links – None of the essential ingredients to record conviction in a case of circumstantial evidence and that of poisoning case are made out – Prosecution has not established the charge
 Decision Date :
 24-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2152/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

M/S KNIT PRO INTERNATIONAL
 versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 290
2022 INSC 621
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Copyright Act, 1957 – s.63 – Whether, the offence under s.63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable offence – Held: For offence u/s.63 of the Copyright Act, the maximum punishment which can be imposed would In that view of the matter considering Part II of the First Schedule of the CrPC, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and onwards but not more than seven years the offence is a cognizable offence – High Court committed grave error in holding that the offence
 Decision Date :
 20-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 807/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

VENKATESH @ CHANDRA & ANR. ETC
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 556
2022 INSC 1302
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Evidence Act, 1872: s.27 – Settled Legal Position – Going by the parameters of s.27 of the Evidence Act, only so much of information which relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered can be stated to have been proved of the statement which leads to the discovery of certain facts alone could be marked in evidence and not the entire of the statement – All the earlier facts narrated in the statement about past history which are in the nature of self-implication, would be inadmissible as amounting to a
 Decision Date :
 19-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1476/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAJESH YADAV & ANR
 versus
STATE OF U.P.
-
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 967
2022 INSC 148
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Penal Code 1860: ss. 302, 307 – Two persons were done to death by bullet firing by the accused – Previous dispute between the groups – Two eye-witness present on the spot – Recoveries made from all the accused – Trial court convicted and sentenced all the accused them for the offence charged u/s.307, with the confirmation of conviction and sentence u/s. 25 of the Arms Act – On appeal, held: PWs-1 & 2 have not contradicted between themselves being the eye-witnesses – Merely because they are related witnesses, in the absence of any
 Decision Date :
 04-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 339/2014
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SANJAY PURAN BAGDE & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 178
2022 INSC 766
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34 – Murder – Common intention – On the fateful night at about 3 a.m., the victim and his wife (eye witness) woke up and while the wife was doing preparations for cooking, the husband went to attend to the nature’s call – Wife when she ran to the site she saw two accused assaulting her husband with an axe whereas the appellants had caught hold of him – She found him bleeding, he also told her that four of them had caught hold of him and assaulted him by an axe – He was taken to hospital, was declared
 Decision Date :
 28-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 143/2020
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

S.P. VELUMANI
 versus
ARAPPOR IYAKKAM AND ORS.
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 1067
2022 INSC 623
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI
 Investigation: Preliminary enquiry report of Superintendent of Police – Non-disclosure of – On facts, in a corruption case against the appellant-Cabinet Minister, the High Court ordered a preliminary enquiry by a Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance in turn submitted a final report – High Court obtained the report, however, without furnishing a copy thereof to the appellant, unceremoniously closed the writ petition – Held: When the State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the
 Decision Date :
 20-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 867/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
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.

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
 versus
SHAIKH ISTIYAQ AHMED & ORS.
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 679
2022 INSC 38
Coram : L. NAGESWARA RAO
*
, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
 Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 – ss.12, 13(6) – Adaptation of sentence, when permissible – Dangerous Drugs Act – ss.30(1)(f)(II), 47(2), 5(2) – Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1994 – s.21(b) – International Convention/Treaties – Mauritius – Article 8 – Continued enforcement of sentence – Respondent convicted by Supreme Court of Mauritius under Dangerous Drugs Act, sentenced to imprisonment for 26 years – Transferred to India under the 2003 Act – His representation u/ s.13(6), 2003 Act to
 Decision Date :
 11-01-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 71/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

AMRIK SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 451
2022 INSC 667
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Criminal Trial: Test Identification Parade-TIP – Non-conduct of – Effect of, on prosecution case – Appellant and two others allegedly committed robbery and murdered the victim during the course of the robbery – FIR by complainant-eye-witness – Conviction u/ss. 302 r/w On appeal, held: Prosecution failed to prove that the complainant and the deceased were carrying cash and it was looted by the accused persons – Conviction solely on the basis of the identification of the accused by the complainant-eye-witness for the first time in the court room –
 Decision Date :
 11-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 993/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

ISHWARJI NAGAJI MALI
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 694
2022 INSC 57
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, SANJIV KHANNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure – s.439 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 120B, 114 – Bail – Grant of, when not proper – FIR was lodged against unknown persons initially for offences punishable u/s.304A, IPC and ss.177, 184 & 134, Motor Vehicles Act considering the no.2 that his wife was accidentally hit by a speeding car when they were walking together – However, later it was revealed that he hatched a criminal conspiracy along with co-accused persons to kill his wife and treat the offence as an accident – Charged u/ss.302, 120(B), 114,
 Decision Date :
 18-01-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 70/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
اُردُو - Urdu

 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.

WAHEED-UR-REHMAN PARRA
 versus
UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 102
2022 INSC 240
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.173(6), 207 and 161 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.44 – Whether in the case of certain witnesses being declared as protected witnesses in the exercise of powers s.44 of UAPA by the trial court, can the defence seek recourse to the remedy u/ s.207 and s.161 CrPC for obtaining copies of redacted statements of these protected witnesses – Trial Court noted that the prosecution was duty bound to provide the copies of the statements of protected
 Decision Date :
 25-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 237/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

HAJABHAI RAJASHIBHAI ODEDARA
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 971
2022 INSC 704
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 307, 328 – Murder – Prosecution case that the accused and co-accused with the object of getting married, hatched a conspiracy and killed the mother and the uncle of co-accused by strangulation – Parties also tried to kill the brother of the co-accused On investigation recovery of pesticide bottle from the place of occurrence – Co-accused being minor, tried by Juvenile Court – Conviction of accused u/ss. 302, 307 and 328 by the courts below – Justification of – Held: Justified – Though there are some contradictions
 Decision Date :
 11-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 644/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
 versus
LALY @ MANIKANDAN & ANOTHER ETC
-
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 633
2022 INSC 1093
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Penal Code – ss. 302 & 34 – Conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness – The respondents-three accused were tried for having committed the murder of victim-deceased – The respondents were held guilty of the offences u/s 302 r/w. 34 of IPC by the the High Court did not find the testimony of PW1 credible and acquitted the accused – On appeal, held: PW1 was the eye witness to the occurrence at both places i.e. the first part was at the time when the victim, PW1 and one another were travelling in the car, where A1 caused injury on the
 Decision Date :
 14-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1750/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

MARIANO ANTO BRUNO & ANR.
 versus
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 889
2022 INSC 1073
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 498A, 306 and 107 – Marriage of Appellant No.1 (husband) & deceased was solemnized in 2005 – A male child was born out of wedlock in 2007 – Prosecution case that Appellant No.1 caused immense mental torture to deceased by compelling her to have with second pregnancy and that deceased was subjected to continuous cruelty which drove her to commit suicide – Trial court convicted appellant No.1 & mother-in-law of deceased u/s 498A & 306 IPC – High Court upheld the conviction of appellants – Held: To convict
 Decision Date :
 12-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1628/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
اُردُو - Urdu

 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.

GHULAM HASSAN BEIGH
 versus
MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL MAGREY & ORS.
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 34
2022 INSC 750
Coram : A.M. KHANWILKAR
*
, ABHAY S. OKA, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 226, 227 and 228 – Penal Code, 1860: 147, 302, 323, 354 & 451 – Accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and laid an assault on the appellant and his family members and during the assault wife of injuries inflicted on her by the accused persons – Cause of death of the deceased in the post mortem report was “cardio respiratory failure” – Charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence of murder along with other offences – Trial court discharged the
 Decision Date :
 26-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1041/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
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.

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
 versus
PHOOL SINGH
-
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 140
2022 INSC 902
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Service Law – Penal Code, 1860 – s.392 – Arms Act – ss.3/25 – Respondent-delinquent employee’s dismissal from service was quashed by High Court on the ground that he was acquitted by criminal court on the same set of facts and charges on which he faced reinstatement in service – Correctness of – Held: A departmental proceeding is different from a criminal proceeding – A delinquent employee after his dismissal from service, nevertheless, seeks reinstatement when he is acquitted by a criminal court on the same set of charges
 Decision Date :
 02-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 5930/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

PAPPU TIWARY
 versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND
-
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 121
2022 INSC 118
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.27 – Murder – Five people collectively inflicted knife injuries on the deceased after he was shot – Accused P fired at deceased and others inficted knife blows– Conviction and sentence u/s. 302/34, and P Upheld by the High Court, except for one who was a minor –In appeal before this Court by the two accused, held: As regards, accused L, on all the aspects, the accused failed to discharge the burden to establish the plea of alibi – It was not a case where opportunity was not
 Decision Date :
 31-01-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1492/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SHIV KUMAR
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 493
2022 INSC 933
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Penal Code, 1860: s.411 – Dishonestly receiving stolen property – Prosecution case was that the appellant-accused and co-accused received the articles looted from the truck knowing fully well that those are stolen property – Trial court convicted both the accused u/s.411 – that a person is dealing with stolen property, the ‘believe’ factor of the person is of stellar import – It is not enough for prosecution to prove that the accused was either negligent or that he had a cause to think that the property was stolen, or that he failed to make
 Decision Date :
 07-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1503/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

ASHOK KUMAR SINGH CHANDEL
 versus
STATE OF U.P.
-
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 1035
2022 INSC 1164
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 r/w s.149, s.307 r/w s.149 and s.148 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss.25 and 30 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.293 – Murder of five persons – Seven accused – The deceased belonged to or were associated with two of them were brothers, the third was their minor son and the other two were their close family friends – Trial Court acquitted all the accused – Appeal against acquittal – High Court reversed the findings of the trial court and convicted all the accused under ss.148, 302
 Decision Date :
 04-11-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 946/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
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.

ATBIR
 versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
-
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 1166
2022 INSC 492
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Delhi Prison Act, 2000 – s.2(h) – Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 – rr.1220-1225 – By order dtd.15.11.12 issued by the Hon’ble President of India on a mercy petition, the sentence of death awarded to the appellant was modified to imprisonment for life with the requirements for the whole of remainder of his natural life without parole and any remission in the term of imprisonment–Impugned order passed by the Director General of Prisons declined furlough to the appellant referring to the saidconditions of the order dtd. 15.11.12 – Challenged before High
 Decision Date :
 29-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 714/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

HIMANSHU KUMAR AND OTHERS
 versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS
-
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 724
2022 INSC 720
Coram : A.M. KHANWILKAR
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Criminal Law – Constitution of India – Article 32 – Petition seeking mandamus for re-investigation / further investigation – Two incidents of alleged brutal massacre of tribals in three villages in the State of Chhattisgarh – Case of the Chhattisgarh Police, Special Police Officers (SPOs), the activists of Salwa Judum (group of vigilantes sponsored by the Chhattisgarh Government) and the Paramilitary Forces consisting of the CRPF and the CoBRA Battalions were responsible for the alleged massacre – Whether any case was made
 Decision Date :
 14-07-2022
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 103/2009
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 | Direction Issue :
 Writ petition dismissed and Interlocutory application disposed of

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

B. A. UMESH
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 628
2022 INSC 1173
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Sentence/Sentencing : Death Sentence – Commutation of – Award of death sentence in a rape and murder case – Commutation sought on the grounds of delay in disposal of mercy petition and solitary confinement from the order till the disposal of mercy petition – Held: Undue long delay in execution of death sentence would entitle the condemned prisoner to pray for commuting the death sentence to that of life imprisonment – On facts, the alleged period is of two years and three months, starting
 Decision Date :
 04-11-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1892/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
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.

ANJU GARG & ANR
 versus
DEEPAK KUMAR GARG
-
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 909
2022 INSC 1033
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 125 – Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents – Basis purpose u/s. 125 – Held: Is to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable and the children – Husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds – On facts, the wife on account of harassment and cruelty by husband, was forced to leave her
 Decision Date :
 28-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1693/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

GANGADHAR NARAYAN NAYAK @ GANGADHAR HIREGUTTI
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 925
2022 INSC 318
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, J.K. MAHESHWARI
*
 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: s.23 – Applicability of s.155(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure Code to the investigation of an offence u/s.23 of POCSO Act – Per Indira Baneerjee, J. – Procedure under Cr.P.C is not required to u/s.23 of POCSO Act which has been committed, by disclosure of the identity of victim, necessitates expeditious investigation for compliance of sub-sections (5) and (6) of s.19 of POCSO – Per J.K Maheshwari, J. – Procedure of s.155(2) Cr.P.C is required to be followed in an
 Decision Date :
 21-03-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 451/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Matter referred to larger bench

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

RAMVEER UPADHYAY & ANR.
 versus
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 336
2022 INSC 455
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Saving of inherent powers of High Court – Political animosity between petitioner No.1 and Ex. MLA – Complaint u/s. 365/511 IPC and s. 3(1)(Dha) of the 1989 Act by respondent no. 2 against Judge took cognizance of the charges against the petitioners and issued summons – Application u/s. 482 by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings as well as the cognizance order – High Court dismissed the application – Petitioners case that this is a case of
 Decision Date :
 20-04-2022
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2953/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

SMT. REKHA JAIN AND ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 509
2022 INSC 141
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Criminal proceedings u/ss.406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC – Six accused including appellants-accused –Allegation in FIR that one co-accused had misappropriated complainant’s and other persons’ monies whereafter was attached in the year 1998-199 against the amounts due; and in the year 2019, the property was purchased by the appellants – High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings against the appellants – Justification of – Held: Not justified – Main allegations were
 Decision Date :
 03-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 136/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.