Filter by Date
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

MD. SAJJAD @ RAJU @ SALIM Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Appeal (Crl.), 1953 of 2010, Judgment Date: Jan 06, 2017

The identification parade itself was held 25 days after the arrest. Their chance meeting was also in the night without there being any special occasion for them to notice the features of any of the accused which would then register in their minds so as to enable them to identify them on a future date. The chance meeting was also for few Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

AJAY SINGH AND ANR AND ETC. Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR

Appeal (Crl.), 32-33 of 2017, Judgment Date: Jan 06, 2017

Performance of judicial duty in the manner prescribed by law is fundamental to the concept of rule of law in a democratic State. It has been quite often said and, rightly so, that the judiciary is the protector and preserver of rule of law. Effective functioning of the said sacrosanct duty has been entrusted to the judiciary and that entrustment expects the courts to conduct Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

H.D. SIKAND (D) TH:LRS. Vs. C.B.I.& ANR.

Appeal (Crl.), 729 of 2011, Judgment Date: Dec 15, 2016

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Appeal (Crl.), 1135 of 2016, Judgment Date: Dec 02, 2016

There is thus neither any proximate nor remote acts of omission or commission on the part of the appellant and his family members that can be irrefutably construed to be a direct or indirect cause or factor compelling Surjit and her daughters to take the extreme step of self-elimination. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

GURPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Appeal (Crl.), 1145 of 2016, Judgment Date: Dec 02, 2016

Further, having regard to the root cause of the incident and the events that sequentially unfolded thereafter, we are of the comprehension that the appellant was overpowered by an uncontrollable fit of anger somuch so that he was deprived of his power of self-control and being drawn in a web of action reflexes, fired at the deceased and the injured, who were within his sight. The facts do not commend to Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

ANJAN DAS GUPTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Appeal (Crl.), 298 of 2006, Judgment Date: Nov 25, 2016

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

K.V. PRAKASH BABU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Appeal (Crl.), 1138-1139 of 2016, Judgment Date: Nov 22, 2016

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

BAIJNATH AND ORS Vs. STATE OF M P

Appeal (Crl.), 1097 of 2016, Judgment Date: Nov 18, 2016

(38) A cumulative consideration of the overall evidence on the facet of dowry, leaves us unconvinced about the truthfulness of the charge qua the accused persons. The prosecution in our estimate, has failed to prove this indispensable component of the two offences beyond reasonable doubt. The factum of unnatural death in the matrimonial home and that too within seven years of marriage therefore is thus ipso facto not sufficient to Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

KALA @ CHANDRAKALA Vs. STATE TR.INSP.OF POLICE

Appeal (Crl.), 1791 of 2010, Judgment Date: Aug 12, 2016

The prosecution has not been able to complete the chain of circumstances so as to fasten the guilt and to prove the commission of offence by the appellant beyond periphery of doubt. The appellant is acquitted giving her the benefit of doubt. Full Judgment

Delhi High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

MANOJ V/s UOI & ORS.

W.P.(C), 11979 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jul 15, 2016

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAYRAJBHAI PUNJABHAI VARU - Murder

Appeal (Crl.), 1236 of 2010, Judgment Date: Jul 11, 2016

10) The courts below have to be extremely careful when they deal with a dying declaration as the maker thereof is not available for the cross- examination which poses a great difficulty to the accused person. A mechanical approach in relying upon a dying declaration just because it is there is extremely dangerous. The court has to examine a dying Full Judgment

Delhi High Court (Single Judge)

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) V/s PRATAP SINGH @ KRISHNA

CRL.A., 254 of 2016, Judgment Date: May 25, 2016

Full Judgment

Tags Acquittal
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

R.RACHAIAH Vs. HOME SECRETARY, BANGALORE

Appeal (Crl.), 2375 of 2009, Judgment Date: May 05, 2016

The bare reading of Section 216 reveals that though it is permissible for any Court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced, certain safeguards, looking into the interest of the accused person who is charged with the additional charge or with the alteration of the additional charge, are also provided specifically under sub-sections (3) and 4 of Section 216 of the Code. Sub-section(3), in no Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MOHINUDDIN JAMAL ALVI & ANR.

Appeal (Crl.), 2464-2466 of 2014, Judgment Date: May 04, 2016

Full Judgment

Tags Acquittal
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

NOORAHAMMAD AND ORS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Appeal (Crl.), 412 of 2006, Judgment Date: Feb 02, 2016

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE THR. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Vs. YUSUF @ ASIF & ORS.

Appeal (Crl.), 1219 of 2009, Judgment Date: Jan 18, 2016

It is trite law that while reversing the Judgment the reasons given by the trial court ought to have been taken into consideration along with the entire evidence in that regard. Same has not been done by the High Court. As such without commenting on the merits of the case we find the judgment and order of the High Court to be unsustainable. Full Judgment

Tags Acquittal
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

KRISHAN CHANDER Vs. STATE OF DELHI

Appeal (Crl.), 14 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 06, 2016

it is clear that the High Court has recorded the concurrent findings on the charges framed against the Appellant in the impugned judgment and order. It has also failed to re-appreciate the evidence on record properly and consider the law on the relevant aspect of the case. Therefore, the said findings are not only erroneous in law but also suffer from error in law. Hence, the same is Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HEMANT KAWADU CHAURIWAL ETC

Appeal (Crl.), 1828-1829 of 2013, Judgment Date: Dec 16, 2015

It is a settled law that dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction and it does not require any corroboration. But it is equally true that dying declaration goes against the cardinal principle of law that 'evidence must be direct'. Thus, dying declaration must be judged and appreciated in light of the surrounding circumstances Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

MANGU Vs. DHARMENDRA & ANR.

Appeal (Crl.), 2230 of 2011, Judgment Date: Dec 16, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

BALU @ BAL SUBRAMANIAM & ANR. Vs. STATE (U.T. OF PONDICHERRY)

Appeal (Crl.), 502 of 2007, Judgment Date: Oct 16, 2015

To invoke Section 34 IPC, it must be established that the criminal act was done by more than one person in furtherance of common intention of all. It must, therefore, be proved that:- (i) there was common intention on the part of several persons to commit a particular crime and (ii) the crime was actually committed by Full Judgment