Judgments - Supreme Court of India
STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. CHAND BASHA
The prosecution story relies upon the ‘last seen together’ theory, which resulted into the death of Ganesh. This Court has time and again laid down the ingredients to be made out by the prosecution to prove the ‘last seen together’ theory. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or not, may Full Judgment
MITHUSINH PANNASINH CHAUHAN Vs. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. & ANR
KOSHA INVESTMENTS LTD. Vs. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BD OF INDIA & ANR.
BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Vs. PRAMILA SANFUI AND ORS.
RAM NIRANJAN KAJARIA Vs. SHEO PRAKASH KAJARIA & ORS.
Kiran Chander Asri Vs State of Haryana
COMMITTEE FOR C.R.OF C.A.P. & ORS Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST Vs. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR.
STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) Vs. NITIN GUNWANT SHAH
This Court has time and again laid down the ingredients to be made out by the prosecution to prove criminal conspiracy. It is now, however, well settled that a conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said Full Judgment
JITENDRA VORA Vs. BHAVANA Y.SHAH & ORS.
EDARA HARIBABU Vs. TULLURI VENKATA NARASIMHAM AND ORS
BHANUBEN AND ANR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section 498A IPC, it does not follow that on the same evidence, he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the women concerned under 306 IPC. Therefore, the conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Full Judgment
M/S PERIYAR & PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD. Vs. STATE OF KERALA
P. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs THE DIST. INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR.
In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj (supra) in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act. It has been propounded Full Judgment