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.

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
 versus
P.S. JAYAPRAKASH ETC. ETC.
-
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 635
2022 INSC 1243
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Anticipatory bail: High Court granted anticipatory bail to private respondents – Accusation against private respondents was that during relevant time, they were officials either with the Kerala Police or with the Intelligence Bureau and were involved in filing false against scientists of ISRO – Writ petition filed by one of the scientist seeking appropriate action against the police officers – Matter travelled upto Supreme Court – The Supreme Court constituted a committee headed by former judge of Supreme Court to take appropriate steps
 Decision Date :
 02-12-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2147/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 | Direction Issue :
 Appeals allowed and matters remitted to High Court.

 |  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.

MD. ANOWAR HUSSAIN
 versus
STATE OF ASSAM
-
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 721
2022 INSC 1079
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI
*
, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Circumstantial Evidence – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Appellant was held guilty of the offence u/s.302 for murder of his wife and was awarded the punishment of imprisonment for life – On appeal, held: Victim was none other than the to when did he part with the company of his wife was within the knowledge of the appellant alone however, he explained nothing in that regard – When the appellant’s wife was found killed with the dead body carrying several injuries and the cause of death having been asphyxia due to
 Decision Date :
 13-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 414/2019
 | 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.

VIJAY KUMAR GHAI & ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 884
2022 INSC 326
Coram : S. ABDUL NAZEER
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing of complaint – Appellant No. 1 is the Managing Director of the Public Limited Company and Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the Directors of the said Company –The company itself has been arrayed In January 2008, Respondent No. 2, an authorized representative of SMC Global Securities Ltd, Delhi desired to make an investment on its behalf with the appellants –It was mutually decided between the parties that Respondent No. 2 will invest an amount of Rs. 2.5 crore with the company
 Decision Date :
 22-03-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 463/2022
 | 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.

MR. VINAY PRAKASH SINGH
 versus
SAMEER GEHLAUT & ORS. IN THE MATTER OF:- SHIVINDER MOHAN SINGH
-
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 660
2022 INSC 1202
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.428 – Period of off against the sentence or imprisonment – When – Applicant was found guilty of contempt by order dtd.15.11.19, was sentenced for 6 months imprisonment by order dtd.22.09.22 – Present application seeks clarification w.r.t the date of commencement of the term of imprisonment,
 Decision Date :
 14-11-2022
 | Case No :
 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1902/2022
 | 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.

T.P. GOPALAKRISHNAN
 versus
STATE OF KERALA
-
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 478
2022 INSC 1262
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Constitution of India: Art.20(2) – Protection against double jeopardy – Code of Criminal Procedure – s.300 – ‘Same offence’ meaning of – Appellant-accused worked as Agricultural officer for the period 31.05.1991 to 31.05.1994 – that he committed criminal breach of trust and misappropriated certain amount in his official position as a public servant, by not remitting the same to the sub-treasury – Accusations related to time period from 27.04.1992 to 25.08.1992 and 01.03.1993 to 12.04.1994 – Trial Court
 Decision Date :
 08-12-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 187/2017
 | 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.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
 versus
DR. MAROTI S/O KASHINATH PIMPALKAR
-
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 821
2022 INSC 1152
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing of F.I.R. and charge sheet – Non Reporting of Sexual Assault – FIR registered against unidentified person(s) on the accusation of commission of sexual offences against minor tribal girls who were residing – Respondent is the medical practitioner who was appointed for treatment of the girls in the said girl’s hostel – He was arraigned as the sixth accused thereunder, essentially for the failure to report the commission of the offence under the POCSO Act, punishable u/s.21 (1) the
 Decision Date :
 02-11-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1874/2022
 | 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.

RAJESH PRASAD
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC.
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 1046
2022 INSC 19
Coram : L. NAGESWARA RAO
*
, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302/34, 120B – Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – ss. 3, 4 – In the instant case, the accused-respondent committed offence u/s 302 r/w 34 and 120B IPC by causing death of father of appellant-informant, and other deceased victim substance (bomb) and thereby was also charged u/s 3/ 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – On trial, the accused was convicted and along with the term of imprisonment was also awarded death sentence – High Court acquitted him of all charges on the ground that there were flaws in
 Decision Date :
 07-01-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 111/2015
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
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.

CENTRUM FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
 versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
-
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 19
2022 INSC 115
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, SANJIV KHANNA
 Bail –Non-consideration of relevant factors– Penal Code, 1860 – ss.409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B –Commercial transaction – Respondent no.2-accused granted bail by High Court– Correctness of – On appeal, held:While releasing Respondent no.2 on bail, the all considered the relevant factors including the nature and gravity of accusation;serious allegations of siphoning off the huge amount, the modus operandi and the manner in which the offences were committed through shell companies and creating false/forged documents and/or misusing documents of
 Decision Date :
 28-01-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 94/2022
 | 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 & ORS
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 452
2022 INSC 606
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Sentence / Sentencing – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 397 – Triple murder, in course of robbery – Three accused – Trial Court convicted the accused-appellants u/s. 302 IPC and imposed death penalty on them – High Court confirmed the conviction – trial Court and High Court failed to provide an effective sentencing hearing to the accused at the relevant stage which is a right u/s 235(2) CrPC – The crime that the appellants were held guilty of, was heinous, and its execution was vicious and cruel – The repeated stabbings of two
 Decision Date :
 20-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 248/2015
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

DHANANJAY RAI @ GUDDU RAI
 versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 763
2022 INSC 723
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.374(2) – Appellant convicted u/ss.302 and 120B of IPC and s.27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 – He preferred appeal – High Court of Patna admitted the appeal for hearing – Meanwhile, appellant went absconding – High Court dismissed – Whether an appeal against conviction filed by an accused u/sub-section (2) of s.374 CrPC can be dismissed on ground that the accused was absconding – Held: The law does not envisage dismissal of appeal for default or non- prosecution but only contemplates disposal on merits
 Decision Date :
 14-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 803/2017

 | Direction Issue :
 Matter remanded to High Court.

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

M N G BHARATEESH REDDY
 versus
RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND ANOTHER
-
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1097
2022 INSC 847
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 120A, 405, 415, 420, 499, 500 – In the instant case the first respondent was employed as a Consultant Neurosurgeon by BGS Apollo Hospital – Consultancy Agreement was entered into between the first respondent and the hospital containing his terms of engagement the engagement was that either party may terminate the agreement, with or without cause, by giving a prior notice of thirty days – Differences arose between the first respondent and the management of the hospital – First respondent wrote a letter to the General Manager of the
 Decision Date :
 18-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1273/2022
 | 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.

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
 versus
GURBACHAN SINGH & OTHERS
-
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 73
2022 INSC 1260
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA
*
, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Penal Code, 1860 – Murder – Common intention – Dispute w.r.t partition of land– Victim was beaten resulting in his death, PW1 (his brother) also suffered injuries – Respondent convicted along with 5 others – Respondent’s appeal partly allowed by High death of deceased as he only inflicted wounds on his feet with a ‘lathi’, was directed to be released having suffered the maximum punishment provided for the offence – Conviction of other 3 co- convicts (‘DS’, ‘BS’, ‘MS’), not challenged
 Decision Date :
 07-12-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2201/2011
 | 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.

KALICHARAN & ORS
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 56
2022 INSC 1277
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, ABHAY S. OKA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.213, 313 – Failure to comply with the requirements of s.213 and s.313 – The Fast track Court convicted accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 for offences punishable u/s. 302, 307 of the IPC along with other sections – Allegation that accused with sharp edged weapons and accused no.2 with pistol – It was also alleged that accused no. 2 murdered deceased (‘H’) by firing bullets from his pistol – Held: In cross-examination PW-1 stated that he was not aware whether bullets hit victim (‘H’) or not
 Decision Date :
 14-12-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 122/2021
 | 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.

MD. JABBAR ALI & ORS.
 versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM
-
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 773
2022 INSC 1096
Coram : AJAY RASTOGI
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 r/w 149, 148,123 and 447 – Trial court convicted accused persons under different provisions of IPC including ss. 302 r/w 149, 148,123 and 447 – Prosecution had examined ten witnesses before trial court – High Court upheld the judgment and sentence passed challenged on the ground that inter alia, witnesses PW- 1 to PW-6 were related to each other – Prosecution failed to examine any independent and impartial witness and there were material contradictions in the depositions made by the witnesses – Held: Court in appeal may reassess the
 Decision Date :
 17-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1105/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

VEENA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR
 versus
THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR/ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (F/R) AND ANOTHER
-
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 736
2022 INSC 544
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, A.S. BOPANNA, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Registration Act, 1908: ss. 35, 72, 73, 74 – Execution and registration of sale deed – Agreement to sell certain land between the appellant and the second respondent – Execution of sale deed by of second respondent, however, during registration of said sale deed, the appellant denied its execution – However, no denial on the part of the appellant in signing the sale deed and having placed her thumb impressions/fingerprints on the documents – Appellant also asserted
 Decision Date :
 10-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 2929/2022
 | 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.

EX. CT. MAHADEV
 versus
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BOARDER SECURITY FORCE & ORS.
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 1136
2022 INSC 644
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, HIMA KOHLI
 Border Security Force Act, 1968 – s.46 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.96-100 & s.302, Exception 2 to s.300 and s.304 – Plea of self defence – When available – Appellant, serving in BSF was convicted for an offence committed for murder u/s.302, IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment – Statutory appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed – Order upheld by High Court – Held: Whether a person has legitimately acted in exercise of the right of defence would depend on the nuance of each case
 Decision Date :
 14-06-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 2606/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SHRADDHA GUPTA
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
-
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 622
2022 INSC 481
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – ss. 2 & 3 – A case u/s 147, 304, 504, 323, 506, 120-B IPC was registered against the six accused persons – On further investigation and on the basis of the the co-accused, the names of the appellant was added as accused in the case – Thereafter, a gang chart was prepared against the appellant and sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act has been lodged/ registered against the appellant – The appellant approached the High Court u/s 482 of CrPC
 Decision Date :
 26-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 569/2022
 | 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.

MEHMOOD PRACHA
 versus
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 20
2022 INSC 813
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 – ss. 14, 17 – The Contempt of Courts (C.A.T) Rules, 1992 – rr. 13, 15 – Contempt Proceedings – Denial of right to trial by Tribunal – Appellant made certain submissions in his capacity as the counsel for the party before the to be contemptuous by the Tribunal – Charges were framed – Appellant denied charges – However, appellant was convicted by the CAT u/s. 14 of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 – Appellant urged that the Tribunal had erred in denying the appellant the right to be tried
 Decision Date :
 10-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 892/2020
 | 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.

RAJARAM
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS
-
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 99
2022 INSC 1296
Coram : S. RAVINDRA BHAT
*
, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 32 – Inconsistencies between Multiple dying declaration – Prosecution case that victim-deceased was brought to hospital by her husband (appellant) in burnt condition – Her first dying declaration (Ex. P-11) was recorded in which appellant was not by the police before she succumbed to the injuries in which she named her husband – The trial Court convicted one accused u/s.302 IPC and the appellant & other accused for the offences u/s 498A of IPC – Appellant and other accused challenged their conviction and sentence,
 Decision Date :
 16-12-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2311/2022
 | 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.

A.G. PERARIVALAN
 versus
STATE, THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CBI/SIT/ MMDA, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU AND ANR.
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 1048
2022 INSC 588
Coram : L. NAGESWARA RAO
*
, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, A.S. BOPANNA
 Constitution of India: Art. 161 – Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases – Appellant, one of the accused former Prime Minister of India-Shri Rajeev Gandhi – Convicted and sentenced to death – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment – As regards, remission of the sentence of the appellant, reference made by the Governor to the President of India on 25.01.2021, without taking a
 Decision Date :
 18-05-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 833/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA
 versus
IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 207
2022 INSC 706
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Contempt of Court – Tendering of affidavits and undertaking containing false statement, if amounts to criminal contempt – On facts, custody of child given to the father, Kenyan citizen with Indian origin, with visitations rights given to the mother – courts in his affidavits and undertook to honour and comply with the orders of the Court – However, did not comply and inspite of several summons and orders, did not appear before Court nor brought the son to India; and also obtained orders of this Court by practising fraud upon the Court
 Decision Date :
 11-07-2022
 | Case No :
 SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 3/2021

 | Direction Issue :
 Matter further listed.

 |  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.

RAJESWARI CHANDRASEKAR GANESH
 versus
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
-
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 232
2022 INSC 721
Coram : A.M. KHANWILKAR
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA
 Constitution of India – Art.32 – Writ of Habeas Corpus – Object and scope of – Custody of minor children – Parties having two minor children have been residing in the USA – As per the petitioner-mother, the respondent no.2-father picked up for Michigan, USA, from Cleveland, Ohio, without informing her – A shared parenting plan was arrived at between the parties by the order passed by the Court at Ohio – Case of the petitioner is that the respondent no.2 clandestinely and with a view to remove the children from the USA
 Decision Date :
 14-07-2022
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 402/2021
 | 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.

IMRAN
 versus
MR. MOHAMMED BHAVA & ANR
-
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 1093
2022 INSC 467
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI
 1093 1093 IMRAN v. MR. MOHAMMED BHAVA & ANR (Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 2022) APRIL 22, 2022 [N. V. RAMANA, CJI, KRISHNA MURARI AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ] Bail: Cancellation of Bail – In the instant case, accused persons 1 to 10 were accused of having committed the offence u/ ss.114, 109, session which were rejected but both the bail applications were allowed by the High Court – Subsequently on appeal the High Court cancelled the bails granted to Accused 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 which was upheld by Supreme Court and the regular bail of accused no 1 was also cancelled –
 Decision Date :
 22-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 658/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

DAXABEN
 versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 295
2022 INSC 771
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing of FIR – FIR u/s.306 for abetment to commit suicide, entailing punishment of imprisonment of ten years – Quashed by the High Court on the basis of a settlement between the complainant and the accused named in the FIR – On is lodged and a criminal case is started by the State, it becomes a matter between the State and the accused – State has a duty to ensure that law and order is maintained in society and the offender is prosecuted – An informant has no right in law to withdraw the complaint of a non-
 Decision Date :
 29-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1061/2022
 | 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.

RATNAMBAR KAUSHIK
 versus
UNION OF INDIA
-
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 326
2022 INSC 1254
Coram : A.S. BOPANNA
*
, HIMA KOHLI
*
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 439 – Grant of bail – Application under, by petitioner against alleged offence u/s. 132(1)(a),(h),(k) and (l) rw s. 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Petitioner had clandestinely transported by 7 trucks weighing 90,520 kgs for manufacture and supply of zarda without payment of leviable duties and taxes – Held: Petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2022 and while in custody, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed – For the alleged evasion of
 Decision Date :
 05-12-2022
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CRIMINAL)... No. 10319/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MOHD. FIROZ
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 168
2022 INSC 429
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 302, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m), 363, 366, 376A – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) – ss. 5 (i), 5 (m), 6 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 106 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 304, sexual assault on the young child-victim – Appellant-accused along with one another accused person was convicted for death sentence and life imprisonment, respectively, by the trial court for the offences u/ ss. 302, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m), 363, 366 IPC r/w. s. 5(i) r/w. s. 6 and s.5(m) r/w.
 Decision Date :
 19-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 612/2019
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

UTTAM
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 863
2022 INSC 634
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, HIMA KOHLI
 Evidence Act, 1872 – Multiple dying declarations – Admissibility, evidentiary value of – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Appellant convicted u/s.302 for having murdered his wife by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire, by relying on two dying declarations of the and PW-14 (IO) and the other two being oral and communicated by the deceased to PW-2 (her father) and PW- 12 (mediator who had arranged the marriage of the parties) – Appeal filed by appellant, dismissed by High Court discarding the written dying declarations but giving credence to the
 Decision Date :
 02-06-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 485/2012
 | 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.

VARSHA GARG
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 150
2022 INSC 807
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 91, 311 – Challenge to the dismissal of applications filed by the prosecution for the production of the decoding registers and for summoning of the witnesses of the cellular companies – Held: The decoding registers are evidence to establish the co-relationship between the location of the accused and the cell phone tower – Summons to produce a document or other thing u/s.91 can be issued where Court finds that production of the document or thing “is necessary or desirable for the purpose of any
 Decision Date :
 08-08-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1021/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
मराठी - Marathi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
 versus
MS. MADHURI MARUTI VIDHATE (SINCE AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. MADHURI SANTOSH KOLI)
-
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 251
2022 INSC 1057
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Married daughter, if entitled to – Father died in harness – Mother appointed on compassionate ground, also died while in service – Elder married daughter made application for seeking rejected – Thereafter, respondent-younger married daughter’s application for appointment on compassionate ground was also rejected – Tribunal directed appellants to appoint respondent on compassionate ground – Order confirmed by High Court – On appeal, held :
 Decision Date :
 30-09-2022
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6938/2022
 | 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.

GURMAIL SINGH & ANR
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 1011
2022 INSC 1097
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
 Penal Code, 1860: s.149 – Unlawful Assembly – In the instant case, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers of the victim-deceased – Land dispute arose between accused persons and deceased – On the fateful day, deceased got to know that accused nos. 1 and 2 were getting by deceased – When deceased asked them to stop, appellant along with eight others assaulted him in which he lost his life – Trial Court convicted all the accused persons including appellant u/ss.302/149, IPC – High Court confirmed conviction and sentence though seven of
 Decision Date :
 17-10-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 965/2018
 | 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.

SATYE SINGH & ANOTHER
 versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 1137
2022 INSC 185
Coram : SANJIV KHANNA
*
, BELA M. TRIVEDI
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 and 201 – Homicidal death – Circumstantial evidence – Dead body of married woman found in burnt condition in the Chhan (hut) of her husband – Father of the deceased gave written complaint implicating the husband, mother- in-law and Accused-appellants i.e. husband and mother-in-law of the deceased were convicted by the Sessions Court u/s 302 r/w ss.34 and 201 IPC – High Court upheld the conviction – Propriety – Held: Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the
 Decision Date :
 15-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2374/2014
 | 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.

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
 versus
SUBHASH @ PAPPU
-
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 832
2022 INSC 382
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Penal Code, 1860: ss.146, 148, 149,302, 304 – Prosecution case was that six (out of which three persons were unknown) persons came to a shop and attacked the servant (deceased) of the shop with knife and hockey for refusing to provide articles asked by them respondent-accused for offences u/ s.302 and 148, however, acquitted the other two known accused – High Court acquitted the respondent for offences u/s.302 as well as s.148 – Instant appeal filed by State – Held: From the medical evidence on record, it was established
 Decision Date :
 01-04-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 436/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SANDEEP ALIAS KALA
 versus
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
-
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 468
2022 INSC 835
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Supreme Court Rules, 1966 – Or. XXI, r.15–Supreme Court (2nd Amendment) Rules,1981 – Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules,1978 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or.XX, rr.5(1),21– Constitution of India – Article 134(1)(a), (b) – Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 – s.2(a)– Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.379 – Appeals u/Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or s.2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act, modalities to be followed –Acquittal of the petitioner of the charge of committing offences
 Decision Date :
 16-08-2022
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 143/2018
 | 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.

SHISHPAL @ SHISHU
 versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
-
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 275
2022 INSC 670
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, M.M. SUNDRESH
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 – Murder – Victim-deceased and PW4 were standing in the queue before the liquor store – A2 (not before the Supreme Court) attacked the victim by knife while appellants-accused caught hold of victim – All accused dragged the victim from of IPC – Trial Court held them guilty of the offence charged and the same was confirmed by the High Court – Out of three accused two (A1 and A3) have presented the appeal – Held: Both Courts below have made reliance upon the non-cooporation on the part of the accused to undergo
 Decision Date :
 11-07-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1053/2015
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
മലയാളം - Malayalam
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
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.

THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
 versus
SACHENDRA SINGH RAWAT
-
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 529
2022 INSC 153
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Penal Code, 1860: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Prosecution case was that an altercation took place between the victim-deceased and the respondent-accused at the place of marriage ceremony – Due to intervention of villagers, matter did not proceed further – After night, when victim-deceased was near his house, accused attacked him by giving blows on his head with the “Danda/Phakadiyat”, a rough piece of wood – Deceased ran towards his house for safety – Accused ran after him with “Phakadiyat” in his hand and gave
 Decision Date :
 04-02-2022
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 143/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.