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 HARYANA
 versus
ANAND KINDO & ANR. ETC.
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 337
2022 INSC 939
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH
 Sentence/Sentencing – Murder committed for greed of money by trusted employees of an aged couple while they were sleeping – Trial Court awarded the death sentence u/s.302 IPC to accused persons – High Court interfered with sentencing and imposed life sentence – On appeal, murder for gain and greed by somebody who was in a position of trust with the family – The two victims were aged people who engaged one of the convicts to look after them and paid appropriate emoluments – Battering two sleeping people beyond recognition who imposed trust in their
 Decision Date :
 08-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1797/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly 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.

SHAMBHU KHARWAR
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 156
2022 INSC 827
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Penal Code 1860: ss. 376, 375 – Punishment for rape – Necessary ingredients of s. 375 – On facts, accusation of rape by the second respondent-women against the appellant-man on the pretext of marriage – Application by appellant seeking quashing of criminal offence punishable u/s. 376 – Dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Relationship between the parties-appellant and the second respondent purely consensual in nature – They are both educated adults – Relationship of the second respondent with the appellant was in
 Decision Date :
 12-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1231/2022
 | 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.

VIJAY RAJMOHAN
 versus
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU
-
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 563
2022 INSC 1066
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1981 – s.19 – Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 – Whether an order of the Appointing of a public servant u/s.19 of the PC Act, would be rendered illegal on the ground of acting as per dictation if it consults the Central Vigilance Commission for its decision – Held: The position of law and the legal regime obtained by virtue of the five legislations, the Cr.P.C,
 Decision Date :
 11-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1746/2022
 | 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.

JARNAIL SINGH & ANR
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 196
2022 INSC 708
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, VIKRAM NATH
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 409/109, 420/109, 467/109, 471/109, 474/109, 477-A/109 and 120-B – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss. 13(i)(d) and 7 – Allegations against the General Manager of the State Roadways Depot, that in connivance with conductor and others was selling and on his own and sold through his own persons, who used to collect money for him, causing huge loss to the Depot – Registration of FIR – Conviction and sentence of the three conductors-appellants u/ss. 409/109, 420/ 109, 467/109, 471/109, 474/109, 477-A/109 and 120-B IPC and ss.
 Decision Date :
 12-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 634/2010
 | 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.

THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT & ORS. ETC.
 versus
K. CHANDRAN ETC.
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 287
2022 INSC 310
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Service Law – Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) – Kerala Service Rule – Rules 3 & 3A – Interpretation of – On conviction in a criminal case for violation of integrity norms in performance of official duties and an appeal pending before the High Court, whether entitled to the release of his DCRG – Held: Rule 3A cannot be read in isolation nor the latter part of it struck down – Rule 3, Note 2, Ruling 3, and Rule 3A have to be read in conjunction as they provide for the treatment of the DCRG in case of disciplinary or judicial proceedings
 Decision Date :
 15-03-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7437/2021
 | 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.

BARUN CHANDRA THAKUR
 versus
MASTER BHOLU & ANR.
-
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 595
2022 INSC 716
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, VIKRAM NATH
 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.15 – Proviso to s. 15(1) – Directory or Mandatory – Held: Well settled principle of interpretation that the word ‘may’ when used in a legislation by itself does not connote a directory meaning to the court that the intent of the legislature is to convey a statutory duty, then the use of the word “may” will not prevent the Court from giving it a mandatory colour – Looking to the purpose of the Act, 2015 and its legislative intent, particularly to ensure the
 Decision Date :
 13-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 950/2022
 | 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.

VEERENDRA
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 225
2022 INSC 565
Coram : A.M. KHANWILKAR
*
, DINESH MAHESHWARI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376A, 376 (2)(i), 302 – POCSO Act – s. 6 – Rape and murder of a minor girl – Prosecution case that appellant-accused had raped and throttled to cause death of victim, who was daughter of appellant’s cousin sister – While in custody statement and thereafter, at his instance, the victim’s corpse concealed underneath gunny bags, was recovered – The post-mortem and the forensic science laboratory (FSL) reports revealed commission of rape in a diabolically and gruesome manner and causing of death by throttling
 Decision Date :
 13-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly 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.

ABHAY JAIN
 versus
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ANR
-
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 693
2022 INSC 309
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, VINEET SARAN
 Judicial Service – Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 – rr.45 and 46 – Entitlement to protection u/Art.311 of the Constitution – Bail order dated 27.04.2015 passed by Appellant-judicial officer in favour an accused in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act taken against him – Departmental enquiry instituted against him u/r.16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 for acts amounting to misconduct and violation of rr.3 and 4 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct Rules), 1971 – Allegation leveled
 Decision Date :
 15-03-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 2029/2022
 | 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.

MAHENDRA SINGH AND ORS.
 versus
STATE OF M.P.
-
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 737
2022 INSC 637
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, HIMA KOHLI
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 r/w s.149, and s.148 – Murder – Conviction of accused-appellants on basis of sole testimony of PW6 – High Court found PW6 to be in the category of a witness who was “neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable”, and upheld conviction – Challenged, on ground that PW6 fell in the category of a “wholly unreliable” witness – Held: From evidence of PW3 and PW4 which was fully corroborated by evidence of DW3 and DW4, it was clear that PW6 could not have witnessed the incident – Evidence of PW6 would
 Decision Date :
 03-06-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 764/2021
 | 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.

SURENDRAN
 versus
STATE OF KERELA
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 675
2022 INSC 566
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, A.S. BOPANNA, HIMA KOHLI
 (Criminal Appeal No. 1080 of 2019) MAY 13, 2022 [N. V. RAMANA CJI, A. S. BOPANNA AND HIMA KOHLI. JJ.] Evidence Act, 1872: s. 32 – Dying declaration – Admissibility of – On facts, suicide attempt by the wife soon after marriage due to harassment and dowry demands of husband and of husband, his mother and two brothers u/ss. 304B and 498A – Appellate court acquitted the brothers but maintained the conviction of the husband and the mother – However, the High Court acquitted the husband and his mother u/s.304B while upheld their conviction u/s.498A and
 Decision Date :
 13-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1080/2019
 | 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.

SHARAFAT ALI
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 696
2022 INSC 173
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, SURYA KANT, VIKRAM NATH
 Premature release – Relevant considerations – Held: Application for premature release has to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when the petitioner was convicted of the offence history, his conduct and behavior in jail, and possible danger to the society on his release are to be adverted to – There has to be a considered application of mind to the facts of each case – On facts, petitioner convicted u/s. 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment,
 Decision Date :
 10-02-2022
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 439/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  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.

N. S. MADHANAGOPAL & ANR.
 versus
K. LALITHA
-
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 649
2022 INSC 1323
Coram : S. ABDUL NAZEER
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 341 – When not attracted – Verbal altercation between parties on excessive flow of waste water in the society – Complaint filed by respondent for offences u/ss.294(b), 341 – Application filed by appellants for quashing of criminal been averred in the complaint is that the appellant hurled unparliamentary words towards the complainant – s.294(b) talks about the obscene acts and songs – The test of obscenity u/s.294(b) is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those
 Decision Date :
 10-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1759/2022
 | 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.

MEENA DEVI
 versus
THE STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 23
2022 INSC 568
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, HIMA KOHLI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s 439 – Bail – Grant/ cancellation of – When – Held: Power of the High Court u/s. 439 is wide – Exercise of the said discretionary powers vested in the Court when considering grant of bail ought to be in a judicious manner and not as application of mind or in contravention of directions of this court, it would be susceptible to interference – When it comes to assessing an application seeking cancellation of bail, the appellate court looks out for, amongst others, supervening circumstances or any violation of the
 Decision Date :
 13-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 808/2022
 | 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.

SWAMINATHAN KUNCHU ACHARYA
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
-
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 727
2022 INSC 639
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Custody – Of minor child – 5 year old child lost his parents in the Covid-19 pandemic – Appellant is paternal grandfather of the child, and he and his wife– paternal grandparents sought custody of the child – Writ petition seeking writ of habeas corpus filed by the child – High Court handed over custody to respondent No.4 – Held: On facts and circumstances, High Court erred in not handing over and/or continuing the custody of the corpus–grandson to appellant / paternal grandparents – Income and/or the age and/or the bigger family
 Decision Date :
 09-06-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 898/2022
 | 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
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.

SRI BISWANATH BANIK & ANR.
 versus
SMT. SULANGA BOSE & ORS.
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 302
2022 INSC 300
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or.VII r.11 – Rejection of plaint – Suit of declaration and permanent injunction – Defendants seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit for a of TPA would not be maintainable – Trial court refused to reject plaint under Or.VII r.11 – However, on revision, High Court allowed Or.VII r.11 application – On appeal, held: Rejection of a plaint under Or.VII r.11(d) by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring the
 Decision Date :
 14-03-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 1848/2022
 | 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.

SRI NARENDRA KUMAR A. BALDOTA
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 969
2022 INSC 301
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, J.K. MAHESHWARI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing of proceedings – M Company of which appellant is the Chairman and Managing Director, imported a car for which customs duty and road tax was paid – Thereafter, differential motor vehicle tax was demanded in respect of the same was paid, and no Dues Certificate was also issued – FIR filed against appellant that he conspired with Regional Transport Officer to evade payment of road tax– Petition seeking quashing of proceedings– Dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Criminal law cannot
 Decision Date :
 14-03-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 429/2022
 | 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.

AJMAL
 versus
THE STATE OF KERALA
-
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 503
2022 INSC 709
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, VIKRAM NATH
 Penal Code, 1860: ss.34, 149, 302, 304 Part II– Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Deceased along with other friends were stopped by ten accused persons – Verbal altercation took place – Deceased was beaten by accused no. 1 and 2 and as a result, deceased fell on and caused them simple and grievous hurt – Charges framed u/ss.143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 427 and 302 r/w s.149 – Trial Court acquitted accused nos.4, 5, 7 and 10 – High Court acquitted three other accused namely accused nos.6, 8 and 9 of all the charges – Conviction
 Decision Date :
 12-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1838/2019
 | 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.

SADHNA CHAUDHARY
 versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 239
2022 INSC 712
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, VIKRAM NATH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 438 – Anticipatory Bail – Cancellation of – Accused-Station House officer on the fateful day, exploited the victim – Exploitation continued for two years on account of threats of making public, the videos and photographs of her in if she did not continue to accede to his demands and commands – Thereafter, registration of FIR against SHO for the offences punishable u/ss. 376, 323, 341, 354 and 379 IPC by the victim – Application for anticipatory bail by the SHO – Allowed by the High Court – On
 Decision Date :
 12-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 936/2022
 | 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
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.

SUMITHA PRADEEP
 versus
ARUN KUMAR C.K & ANR.
-
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 1012
2022 INSC 1133
Coram : SURYA KANT, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Anticipatory bail: Case filed against respondent no.1 under ss.354(1)(i), (ii) and (iv), 354A(2) and 354A(3) IPC /w ss.7, 8, 9 and 11 of POCSO Act – Allegation against respondent no.1 was that he sexually assaulted his 12 years old niece – He asked the victim to sit on his lap her and kissed her on the cheeks and tried to kiss her on her lips – He further attempted to disrobe her and made lewd comments – The incident traumatized the victim to an extent that she slumped down in her course and performance although she was an excellent student giving good
 Decision Date :
 21-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1834/2022
 | 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.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
 versus
AKHIL SHARDA & ORS.
-
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 772
2022 INSC 705
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Sustainability of – On facts, FIRs u/ss. 406 and 420 IPC – Allegations relating to disappearance of trucks loaded with beer from highways – High Court quashed the criminal proceedings FIR including the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Agency as well as the summoning order passed by the trial court – On appeal, held: High Court virtually conducted a mini trial, which was not permissible at this stage – At the stage of deciding the application u/s. 482, the
 Decision Date :
 11-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 840/2022
 | 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.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
 versus
MAJOR R. METRI NO. 08585N
-
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 581
2022 INSC 384
Coram : L. NAGESWARA RAO
*
, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
 Service Law: Armed Force service – Interference by Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) – Scope of – Respondent-officer was posted as the Recruitment Medical Officer– Case against him was that he helped certain candidates in clearing Army Recruitment Rallies by declaring them (GCM) found him guilty u/s.7 of the PC Act, 1988 r/w s.69 of the Army Act, 1950 and sentenced him to be cashiered from service and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year – In appeal, AFT set aside the order of GCM and convicted him u/s.63 of the Army Act and sentenced him to
 Decision Date :
 04-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2196/2017
 | 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.

SOM DUTT & ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 1
2022 INSC 385
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Probation – Release on probation – Appellants convicted by three courts below u/s.379 r/w s.34 IPC and sentenced to 3 months SI – Revision filed before High Court – Dismissed – Challenge to – Held: No interference warranted with concurrent findings of facts appellants granted benefit of release on probation of good conduct u/s.361 CrPC r/w ss.3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act having regard to the sentence imposed by courts below, and as the appellants had no criminal antecedents, and the Respondent (State) filed no objection to this –
 Decision Date :
 04-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 549/2022
 | 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.

MOHD. FIROZ
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 1027
2022 INSC 1129
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Review – Clarification sought on quantum of sentence – In judgment dated 19.04.2022 for which review is sought, the petitioner-accused was held guilty and punished for the offences was under ss.376(2)(i), 376(2)(m) and as also under s.5 (i) and s.5 (m) read with s.6 of the POCSO Act – In judgment dated 19.04.2022, the Court, while commuting the sentence of death for the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence punishable under s.302 of IPC, and while imposing sentence to undergo imprisonment for 20
 Decision Date :
 21-10-2022
 | Case No :
 REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 282/2022
 | 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.

HONNAIAH T.H.
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
-
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1108
2022 INSC 794
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 COURT REPORTS [2022] 6 S.C.R. HONNAIAH T.H. v STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (Criminal Appeal No. 1147 of 2022) AUGUST 04, 2022 [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND J B PARDIWALA, JJ] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.161. 397(2) – Prosecution csae was that FIR was registered on 26 the village of the appellant armed with knives and rods, and abused and assaulted some of the villagers – A few of the accused allegedly assaulted and stabbed the appellant, his elder brother and another villager with knives – The grievously injured persons were first taken to the
 Decision Date :
 04-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1147/2022
 | 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.

KRISHNAMURTHY @ GUNODU AND OTHERS
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 433
2022 INSC 190
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 and 34 – Murder – Common intention – Three accused – Conviction of appellants-accused (K, T, G) for murder of victim-deceased u/s. 302 r/w s.34 and for offences u/ss.447, 504, 506, 341 – Division Bench of High Court affirmed their conviction appeal – Held: The assault on victim-deceased by appellant-K was fearsome, brutal and cruel – He had pinned down and tromped the deceased using his legs and hands fracturing four ribs, contusing and injuring the spinal cord, the chest and neck of the deceased – The injuries were
 Decision Date :
 16-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 288/2022
 | 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.

GIREESAN NAIR & ORS. ETC.
 versus
STATE OF KERALA
-
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 599
2022 INSC 1199
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Evidence Act, 1872 : s. 9 – Test Identification Parade(TIP) – Legality and validity of – Prosecution case that accused persons to avenge the police atrocity hatched a conspiracy, abetted acts of rioting and destruction of public property – A-17 and A-19 alleged the death of a bus conductor – Accused convicted and sentenced for hatching conspiracy, murder of the bus conductor and destruction of roadways buses and other public properties – Findings of trial court and High Court on issue of conspiracy and murder attained finality – As
 Decision Date :
 11-11-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1864/2010
 | 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
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.

MAKHAN SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 357
2022 INSC 831
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Evidence – Two dying declarations – In first dying declaration recorded by DW-1, deceased exonerated appellant and his family – However, in the second dying declaration recorded by PW-6, deceased implicated appellant and his parents – Trial Court convicted appellant u/s. imprisonment – High Court reduced the sentence from 10 years to 7 years – On appeal, held: In the first dying declaration, PW1-doctor had examined deceased whether she was in fit state of mind and conscious to make statement – After certification, DW-1 also satisfied herself as
 Decision Date :
 16-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1290/2010
 | 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
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.

SUBHASH
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 258
2022 INSC 127
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, SURYA KANT, VIKRAM NATH
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.149 and s.148 – Murder – Informant was sitting with his brother, the deceased, on a cot when the six accused persons allegedly arrived at the scene – Allegation that A-3 and three other accused, who fired at the deceased, while one other accused ‘SD’, who was armed with an axe, and A-6, who was armed with knife, assaulted deceased on his neck – Sessions Judge convicted all six accused u/s.302 r/w 149 and 148 IPC – High Court confirmed the conviction – On
 Decision Date :
 01-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 158/2022
 | 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.

MOHD. ARIF @ ASHFAQ
 versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 792
2022 INSC 1156
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Review Petition – Death Penalty – In firing incident inside Lal Quila, three army jawans received fatal injuries and lost their lives – Review Petitioner was tried and was awarded death sentence was confirmed by High Court – Petitioner preferred appeal before Supreme Court – The challenge was negated and award of death to the petitioner was affirmed – Review petitions before Division Bench were dismissed – Curative petition filed by review petitioner also
 Decision Date :
 03-11-2022
 | Case No :
 REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 286/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 3 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.

ZAKIR ABDUL MIRAJKAR
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
-
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 150
2022 INSC 855
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, SURYA KANT
 Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,1999 – ss.2(1)(f), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5), 18, 23 and 427 – Penal Code 1860 – ss. 143, 147, 149, 395, 307, 353, 332, 155, 109, 324, 323 and 427 – Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act 1887 – s. 4 and Act 1949 – s.65(e) – Bombay Police Act 1951 – s. 37 – Interpretation of the provisions of s.18 MCOCA – Case of the prosecution was that the appellants are members of an organized crime syndicate which has engaged in systematic course of activities for cheating
 Decision Date :
 24-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1125/2022
 | 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 BY (NCB) BENGALURU
 versus
PALLULABID AHMAD ARIMUTTA & ANR.
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 422
2022 INSC 26
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI
 Bail – Cancellation of – Allegations of drug trafficking – Held: A confessional statement recorded u/s.67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in trial of an offence under the NDPS Act petitioner-NCB, on basis of confession/ voluntary statements of respondents-accused or the co-accused u/s.67, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.67. Bail – Cancellation of
 Decision Date :
 10-01-2022
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CRIMINAL)... No. 242/2022
 | 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

 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.

SHAHAJA @ SHAHAJAN ISMAIL MOHD. SHAIKH
 versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 196
2022 INSC 725
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Murder – Evidence – Ocular evidence – Discovery of fact in consequence of an information received from accused – Victim-deceased and appellant were working as labourers – Prosecution case that quarrel ensued between the victim on the night of 10.12.2006, which was witnessed by PW-1 and PW-8 – Appellant assaulted victim with a hammer on his head – Victim died – Trial Court relied upon the oral testimony of the PW-1,PW-8 and the evidence of discovery of weapon i.e. hammer and convicted appellant
 Decision Date :
 14-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 739/2017
 | 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.

SUNEETHA NARREDDY & ANOTHER
 versus
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS
-
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 745
2022 INSC 1238
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Transfer of Criminal Trial – Fair and Independent Trial – Petition pertaining to the mysterious death of uncle of the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh – Writ petition filed by the daughter and the wife of the deceased seeking transfer of trial for duly completing the investigation in time bound manner – Apprehension of petitioners that star witnesses/witnesses were having life threat perceptions and that some of the witnesses were already influenced and that justice will not be done and/or there shall not be a fair trial –
 Decision Date :
 29-11-2022
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 169/2022
 | 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.

PAWAN KUMAR
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 928
2022 INSC 499
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, SANJIV KHANNA
 Service Law: Railway Protection Forces Rules, 1987: rr. 52 and 67.2 – Discharge order – Sustainability of – On facts, appellant- recruit selected for the post of constable in Railway Protection Forces – However, while undergoing training, discharged from of submission of false declaration/suppression of relevant information in the verification form as regard his criminal antecedents – Said discharge order upheld by the High Court – On appeal: Held: Mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there
 Decision Date :
 02-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 3574/2022
 | 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.

MS.Y
 versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 27
2022 INSC 431
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 3 S.C.R. 27 27 MS.Y v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2022) APRIL 19, 2022 [N. V. RAMANA, CJI AND KRISHNA MURARI, J.] Bail – Necessity of reasoned bail orders, especially in matters involving serious offences – In the present case, respondent no.2 was accused factors for grant of bail and did not advert to the actual facts of the case – In fact, no reasoning is apparent from the order of High Court – Fact that respondent no.2 was a habitual offender and nearly twenty cases were registered against him was not even mentioned in the
 Decision Date :
 19-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 649/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.