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.

VINOD KATARA
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 836
2022 INSC 949
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: ss. 3, 7A, 16, 20 – Applicability of the 2000 Act – Plea of juvenility at belated stage – Determination of juvenility – On facts, writ applicant while undergoing sentence of life imprisonment subjected to medical examination by the State in pursuant of the judgment by the High Court wherein the High Court directed the Juvenile Justice Boards to hold an enquiry for determination of the age of prisoners languishing in jails who claimed to have been juveniles in conflict with the law
 Decision Date :
 12-09-2022
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 121/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

 |  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 STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR
 versus
UMESH
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 574
2022 INSC 322
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, SURYA KANT
 Service Law: Disciplinary Enquiry – Respondent working as a village accountant was charged for demanding bribery – Criminal complaint registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – Special Judge granted benefit of doubt to all charges – However, disciplinary authority held that the misconduct was proved and imposed penalty of compulsory retirement – Tribunal upheld the order of compulsory retirement – High Court, however, u/Art.226 set aside compulsory retirement – On appeal, held: While
 Decision Date :
 22-03-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 1763/2022
 | 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 WEST BENGAL
 versus
RAKESH SINGH @ RAKESH KUMAR SINGH
-
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 538
2022 INSC 691
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.27A, 37, and 21(b)/29 – Rigours of provisions of s.37 relating to grant of bail – Inapplicability – Cocaine, a contraband drug, recovered from a motorcar with three occupants – Respondent accused – Accusation against respondent pertaining to offence u/s. 27A that he along with other co-accused hatched criminal conspiracy to implicate two occupants of the motorcar under the NDPS Act out of personal grudge – Prosecution alleged that respondent got the contraband
 Decision Date :
 11-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 923/2022
 | 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.

SUBRAMANYA
 versus
 STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 828
2022 INSC 1083
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 COURT REPORTS [2022] 14 S.C.R. [2022] 14 S.C.R. 828 828 SUBRAMANYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2022) OCTOBER 13, 2022 [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI AND J.B. PARDIWALA, J.] Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Evidence Act – ss. 8, 27 & 30 – Motive – cattle shed, the deceased was hit on her head and neck with a hard object like a club – Later, they alleged to have removed the gold chain, a pair of ear studs and one gold ring from the body of the deceased – Later, A-3 is alleged to have helped the appellant and A-2 in wrapping the
 Decision Date :
 13-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 242/2022
 | 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.

MANOJ PRATAP SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
-
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 743
2022 INSC 652
Coram : A.M. KHANWILKAR
*
, DINESH MAHESHWARI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Sentence / Sentencing – Death Sentence – Rarest of Rare case – Kidnapping, rape and murder of a seven-and-a-half-year old mentally and physically challenged girl – Case of circumstantial evidence – Trial Court found appellant-accused guilty and imposed IPC – High Court found it to be a ‘rarest of rare case’ and upheld the conviction and death sentence – Appeal before the Supreme Court on two issues – First, whether concurrent findings of fact required interference – Second, whether death sentence be
 Decision Date :
 24-06-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 910/2022
 | 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.

LUCKOSE ZACHARIAH @ ZAK NEDUMCHIRA LUKE AND OTHERS
 versus
JOSEPH JOSEPH AND OTHERS
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 917
2022 INSC 205
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, SURYA KANT
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.173(2), 173(8), 173(3), 173(6) – Initial Report and Supplementary Report – Duty of Magistrate – As per the law laid down in Vinay Tyagi v Irshad Ali whenever a supplementary police report is filed after the original police has to consider both the reports conjointly and should not place reliance only upon the supplementary police report – Both the reports have to be assessed conjointly so as to find out whether there existed grounds to presume that the accused has committed the offence. Disposing of the
 Decision Date :
 18-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 256/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  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.

J. SEKAR @SEKAR REDDY
 versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 698
2022 INSC 519
Coram : VINEET SARAN, J.K. MAHESHWARI
 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: ss. 3 and 4 – On facts, seizure of large amount of currency notes and gold from the appellant – Registration of FIR against the appellant under the provisions of PMLA in addition to schedule offences under the Penal Code and Act – Petition seeking quashing of proceedings – Dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Chances to prove the allegations in the court are very bleak – CBI filed closure report in respect of the FIR registered with respect scheduled offence – Schedule
 Decision Date :
 05-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 738/2022
 | 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.

NAHAR SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 795
2022 INSC 314
Coram : VINEET SARAN
*
, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.164, 190(1)(b), 209, 319 – Power of Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report in terms of s.190 (1)(b) CrPC to issue summons to any person not arraigned as an accused in the police report and whose name also not featuring such report – Held: If there are materials before the Magistrate showing complicity of persons other than those arraigned as accused or named in column 2 of the police report in commission of an offence, the Magistrate at that stage can summon such persons as well, upon taking cognizance of
 Decision Date :
 16-03-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 443/2022
 | 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.

SHRI CHATRAPATI SHIVAJI GAUSHALA
 versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 1129
2022 INSC 1045
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HIMA KOHLI
 Cattle: Custody of property pending trial – A truck transporting 18 heads of cattle was intercepted – Driver of the truck was unable to provide satisfactory explanation about the relevant permits – Cattle were seized and FIR was registered 6 of the Maharashtra Act, 11(1)(d) of PCA Act and other allied provisions – Respondents filed an application u/ ss. 451 and 457 Cr.PC seeking interim custody of the cattle on ground that they were the owners of the cattle – Magistrate rejected the application – At the same
 Decision Date :
 30-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1719/2022
 | 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.

MALTI SAHU
 versus
RAHUL & ANR.
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 440
2022 INSC 702
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. MALTI SAHU v. RAHUL & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 2022) JULY 11, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ] Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 – Murder – Prosecution case that respondent committed murder of brother and sister – Complaint by the On appeal, held: Prosecution witness had seen the accused alongwith the deceased going to their house – Though he turned hostile but his evidence can be considered to that extent – Prosecution established and proved the motive as regards the accused – Recovery of the knife in
 Decision Date :
 11-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 471/2022
 | 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.

MATA PRASAD
 versus
THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 1052
2022 INSC 123
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Sentence / Sentencing – Remission of Sentence – Petitioner convicted by Sessions Judge u/ss. 302, 307, 323, 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Appeal of petitioner pending in High Court – Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued G.O / 161 of the Constitution for pre-mature release of prisoners on occasion of Republic Day every year – Petitioner filed writ petition u/Art.32 of the Constitution – His case, that despite having satisfied all terms and conditions for pre-mature release under the said policy, and his
 Decision Date :
 31-01-2022
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 256/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

WYETH LIMITED & ORS.
 versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
-
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1132
2022 INSC 1316
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing of FIR/complaint – When – Held: Complaint is to be quashed when no offence is made out by a careful reading of the complaint – On facts, respondent no. 2 filed private complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C, which was referred 156(3) to the police for registration of FIR against the appellants u/ss. 406, 420, 408, 460, 471, 384, 311, 193, 196/120-B IPC – Reading of the complaint, shows that none of the ingredients of any of the offences complained against the appellants made out, thus, it cannot be said that
 Decision Date :
 11-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1224/2022
 | 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.

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
 versus
MANISH SISODIA & ORS
-
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 820
2022 INSC 1104
Coram : S. ABDUL NAZEER
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : ss. 199(2), 199(4) & 199(6) – Prosecution for defamation – Complaint u/s. 200 CrP.C. filed by respondent-Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi against six individuals alleging commission of the offences u/s. 499 and 500 r/w. ss. 34 and 35 IPC accused no.1-appellant held a press conference making false and defamatory statements as though the respondent was involved in corruption to the tune of Rs. 2000 crores, in the matter of award of contracts for building classrooms in Delhi Government Schools; that accused no. 2 to 4 shared
 Decision Date :
 17-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1791/2022
 | 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.

KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM & ORS.
 versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 558
2022 INSC 163
Coram : S. ABDUL NAZEER
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Penal Code, 1860: s.498-A – Purpose of enactment of s.498- A and misuse of the said section – Discussed. Penal Code, 1860: s.498-A – Complaint against in-laws – Complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and her pregnancy’ – No specific and distinct allegations made against either of the accused i.e., none of the appellants were attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them – Allegations were, therefore, general and omnibus and can
 Decision Date :
 08-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 195/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

THE STATE OF GUJARAT
 versus
SANDIP OMPRAKASH GUPTA
-
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 765
2022 INSC 1288
Coram : S. ABDUL NAZEER
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015: s.2(1)(c) – Whether an FIR under the 2015 Act is maintainable in law or can be registered if there is no FIR registered against the accused after the promulgation of the 2015 Act for any offence under the IPC or any other term, ‘organised crime’ indicates that there has to be an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken as singly or jointly as a member of organised crime syndicate or on behalf
 Decision Date :
 15-12-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2291/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  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.

PURAN MAL
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 859
2022 INSC 297
Coram : VINEET SARAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Bail – Respondent no.2 was accused of offence u/s.302, IPC – Bail denied by Trial Court – Granted by High Court – On appeal by complainant, held: When the Trial Court has dismissed the bail application (in the present taking a view different from the Trial Court ought to give some cogent and valid reasons for grant of bail – Nature of offence in the present case is very grave – Fact that the son (accused no.1) of the respondent no.2 had stabbed the deceased in his presence is prima facie clear
 Decision Date :
 10-03-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 398/2022
 | 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.

NOOR MOHAMMED
 versus
KHURRAM PASHA
-
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 860
2022 INSC 779
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.143A – Mandate of – Failure to deposit interim compensation in terms of s.143A and its effect, if any, on the right of accused to cross-examine witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant – Cheque of Rs.7,00,000/- drawn of Respondent, dishonoured – Complaint case by Respondent u/s.138 – Trial court directed appellant to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation in terms of s.143(A) – No such deposit made by appellant – Application on behalf of appellant u/s.145(2) seeking
 Decision Date :
 02-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1123/2022
 | 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.

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
 versus
NIRMAL KAUR @ NIMMO AND OTHERS
-
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 369
2022 INSC 1121
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.2(xvii)(a) and (b) and s.15 – Conviction in relation to ‘poppy straw’ – ‘Poppy straw’ defined to mean all parts of ‘opium poppy’ except the seeds – ‘Opium poppy’ defined As per sub-clause (a) of Clause (xvii) of s.2 of the 1985 Act, ‘opium poppy’ means the plant of the species ‘papaver somniferum L’ – As per sub-clause (b) thereof, ‘opium poppy’ would also mean the plant of any other species of ‘papaver’
 Decision Date :
 20-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 956/2012
 | 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 STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS
 versus
BUYAMAYUM ABDUL HANAN @ ANAND & ANR.
-
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 760
2022 INSC 1117
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Constitution of India – Art. 22(5) – Right to make representation – Preventive Detention – Non-supply of legible copies of documents relied upon by detaining authority – Denial of effective representation – Respondent no.1 was under 1988 Act – High Court set aside the order of detention passed on the premise that the appellants failed to supply the legible copies of documents relied upon while passing the order of detention – On appeal, held: Right to make representation is a fundamental right of the
 Decision Date :
 19-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1819/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  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.

SUKHPAL SINGH KHAIRA
 versus
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
-
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 156
2022 INSC 1252
Coram : S. ABDUL NAZEER
*
, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 319 – Power to summon additional accused under – When the trial with respect to other co- accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing Held: Power u/s. 319 has to be exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused – In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced – In case of conviction,
 Decision Date :
 05-12-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 885/2019

 |  Bench :
 5 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.

DEVENDER SINGH & ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1037
2022 INSC 457
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, A.S. BOPANNA, HIMA KOHLI
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304B, 498A & 120B –Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 113B – Dowry death – Presumption of dowry death – On facts, complaint against appellants-husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the victim-wife that the victim was repeatedly harassed for unnatural death within six months of the marriage – Victim went missing from her matrimonial home and her body was subsequently found in the river after 10 days – Conviction and sentence of the appellants u/s. 498A, 304B and 120B by the High Court – On appeal, held: s. 304B r/w
 Decision Date :
 21-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 383/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

JIGAR @ JIMMY PRAVINCHANDRA ADATIYA
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 367
2022 INSC 1013
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, ABHAY S. OKA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2) – The Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 – s.20(2) – Proviso added by the 2015 Act to sub-section (2) of s.167, CrPC – Interpretation of. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2) – Crime Act, 2015 – s.20(2) – Order of extension passed in exercise of power under the proviso to sub-section (2) of s.20 of the 2015 Act – Legality of – Appellants are accused in FIR registered for offences under various provisions of the 2015 Act – Reports were
 Decision Date :
 23-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1656/2022
 | 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 GOEL
 versus
STATE OF U. P. & ANOTHER
-
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 102
2022 INSC 1212
Coram : KRISHNA MURARI
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 – ss. 138, 141, 142 – Whether a director of a company would be liable for prosecution u/s. 138 of NI Act without the company being arraigned as an accused – Held: If the complainant fails to make specific averments against the company in commission of an offence u/s. 138 of NI Act, the same cannot be rectified by taking recourse to general principles of criminal jurisprudence – The provisions of s.141 impose vicarious liability by deeming fiction which pre-supposes and requires the commission of the offence by the company
 Decision Date :
 17-11-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1999/2022
 | 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.

DIBAKER NUNIA & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM
-
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1151
2022 INSC 886
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 – Eye-witnesses, when not reliable – Person brutally assaulted, received multiple injuries on vital parts, died – Appellants convicted u/s.302/34 – On appeal, held: Findings in question are based essentially on the testimony of parents of they saw their son being assaulted by two persons with weapon – PW-2 allegedly fell unconscious after seeing the blood oozing from the body of his son – Thus, it is difficult to appreciate that they would go home, take meal and go to bed without bothering about the welfare of their
 Decision Date :
 30-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 962/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odia
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.

SABITRI SAMANTARAY
 versus
STATE OF ODISHA
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 276
2022 INSC 608
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 304(II) – Prosecution case that victim-deceased was strangulated to death by the appellants (husband and wife) along with their daughter in their house and an attempt was made to conceal identity of deceased by pouring acid over the dead convicted appellants and their daughter for the offence u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life – However, the High Court acquitted daughter of all the charges and upheld the conviction of the appellants – The conviction of the appellants was
 Decision Date :
 20-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 988/2017
 | 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.

STATE THROUGH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
 versus
R. SOUNDIRARASU ETC.
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 630
2022 INSC 915
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. STATE THROUGH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT Of POLICE v. R. SOUNDIRARASU ETC. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1452-1453 of 2022) SEPTEMBER 05, 2022 [DINESH MAHESHWARI AND J. B. PARDIWALA. JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.239, 397, 401 – Discharge of accused – of income and paying the income tax from 1990 onwards – FIR registered against Respondent No.1 for offences u/ s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) PC Act r/w s.109 IPC – During investigation, role of his wife i.e. Respondent No.2 surfaced as an abettor – Charge sheet filed in the Court of the
 Decision Date :
 05-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1452/2022
 | 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.

MUNIKRISHNA @ KRISHNA ETC.
 versus
STATE BY ULSOOR PS
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 415
2022 INSC 1322
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 – Constitution of India – Article 20(3) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.161 – Evidence Act – ss.25, 27 – Murder of old aged person – Circumstantial Evidence – Appellants were convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34 Order of conviction and sentence upheld by High Court – On appeal, held: In a case of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of evidence must be complete and the conclusions arrived after examining the chain of evidence must point towards the culpability of the accused and to no other
 Decision Date :
 30-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1597/2022
 | 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.

RAVINDER SINGH @ KAKU
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 589
2022 INSC 505
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, VINEET SARAN
 Penal Code,1860: ss. 302 r/w 120B and 364 – Murder and kidnapping – Kidnapping and murder of two minor children – Conviction of the main accused and other co-accused including the mother of the children and imposed death sentence for offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w 120B and ten punishable u/s. 364 – However, the High Court acquitted the co-accused and sentenced the main accused to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years – On appeal, held – When conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, it is imperative that the chain of circumstances is
 Decision Date :
 04-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1307/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  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.

KARAN SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 473
2022 INSC 253
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.149; s.307 r/w s.149 and s.148 – Conviction of appellant along with other accused by trial court as well as by High Court under the aforesaid sections – Prosecution case was that there was dispute between the prime accused and the victim-deceased over for which the deceased stopped the prime accused from harvesting his crops – On the fateful day, six accused persons armed with rifles and guns came to the site of occurrence where the deceased had come to collect the price of buffalo – When the deceased asked for money, the prime
 Decision Date :
 02-03-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 327/2022
 | 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.

PRAHLAD
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 82
2022 INSC 753
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302,120B and 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss.25,27 – Acquittal under – Prosecution case was that victim- deceased had political enmity with three accused (A-1, A-2 and A- 3) – All three accused hatched a conspiracy to away with the victim – no.2 had used motorcycle of accused no.3 to arrive near a bus stand where a gun shot was fired at victim from a short distance – Victim died – Charge-sheet filed – Trial Court acquitted all the three accused – On appeal by the State, the High Court relying upon
 Decision Date :
 27-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2043/2009
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
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.

JAYABEN
 versus
TEJAS KANUBHAI ZALA & ANR
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 18
2022 INSC 28
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Appeal: Murder case – Complainant’s appeal against release of accused by High Court – Appellant-original complainant and her aunt and one another are the eye witnesses who have identified the accused in Test Identification Parade(TIP) – The entire incident CCTV footages and the mobile phone – During the course of the investigation, the punchnama of the place of the incident was prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded; test identification of the accused was carried out; CCTV footages and DVR from the place of incident were recovered
 Decision Date :
 10-01-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1655/2021
 | 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.

RATHISH BABU UNNIKRISHNAN
 versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 989
2022 INSC 480
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Scope of – Summoning order passed against appellant u/s.138 of NI Act – Petition u/s.438 for quashing summoning order – High Court opined that the grounds agitated by the appellant are “factual defences” which within the parameters of limited enquiry permissible in petition u/s.482 – According to the appellant, the concerned post-dated cheques drawn by him in favour of the complainant were contingent/security cheques for buyback of shares of appellant’s company held by the
 Decision Date :
 26-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 694/2022
 | 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.

BOHATTI DEVI
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 283
2022 INSC 1052
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 120B – Bail – Respondent no.2- accused granted bail by High Court – On appeal, held : No cogent reasons have been given by the High Court while releasing the respondent no.2 on bail, germane to the grant of bail and that too in a very serious have been ignored by the High Court while releasing the respondent no.2 on bail – Further, while considering the parity with co-accused, it did not consider the role attributed to the said co-accused and the allegations against respondent no.2 – Impugned judgment set aside –
 Decision Date :
 30-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1695/2022
 | 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.

STATE OF U.P.
 versus
VEERPAL & ANR.
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 1163
2022 INSC 133
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32 – Dying declaration – Appreciation of – Dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate in which deceased specifically stated that due to feud over demand of money, respondents-accused burnt her after pouring kerosene over her – On facts, no by the magistrate – Statements in the dying declaration consistent with medical evidence inasmuch as there were no injuries on the chest and injuries were found only on the head and backside – Such injuries on the head and backside could have been possible only if somebody have
 Decision Date :
 01-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 34/2022
 | 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.

SUSHANTA KUMAR BANIK
 versus
STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS.
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 484
2022 INSC 1053
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988: s. 3(1) – Power to make orders detaining certain persons – FIRs against the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss. 22(b)/22(C)/29 and 21(B) of illegal trafficking of the narcotic drugs and that he is a habitual offender – Detention order by the Government – Writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the detention order – Dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: There was delay in passing the
 Decision Date :
 30-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1708/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.