Filter by Date
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

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

RAM SUNDER SEN Vs. NARENDRA @ BODE SINGH PATEL & ANR.

Appeal (Crl.), 1793-1794 with 1795-1796 of 2011, Judgment Date: Oct 15, 2015

It is a settled law that when prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, the following tests to be clearly established: (i) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogent Full Judgment

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

N.SUNKANNA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

Appeal (Crl.), 1355 of 2015, Judgment Date: Oct 14, 2015

The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was demanded by the accused and also when the money was allegedly handed-over to the accused by the complainant. The complainant himself had disowned his complaint and has turned hostile and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand. In short there is no Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. F.NATARAJ

Appeal (Crl.), 1439 of 2011, Judgment Date: Oct 07, 2015

In the present case, the gaps in the evidences of the prosecutrix and the medical officer make it highly improbable that sexual intercourse took place. It would be erroneous to rely upon such discrepant testimonies and convict the accused. It can thus be stated with certitude that the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, in absence of any corroboration by the medical evidence, is not of such quality which can be Full Judgment

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

INTERNL.ADV.RES.CEN.FOR P.M.& N.M.& ORS. Vs. NIMRA CERGLASS (P) LTD.& ANR.

Appeal (Crl.), 2128 of 2011, Judgment Date: Sep 22, 2015

The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is, as to whether uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint establish the offence. The High Court being superior court of the State should refrain from analyzing the materials which are yet to be adduced and seen in their true perspective. The Full Judgment

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

STATE OF M.P. Vs. MUNNA @ SHAMBHOO NATH

Appeal (Crl.), 658 of 2011, Judgment Date: Sep 18, 2015

In view of the evidence on record and the rationale in the aforementioned cases, we are of a considered view that the prosecution has totally failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the girl was less than 16 years of age at the time of the incident. Therefore, it can be held that the girl was more than 16 years of age and she was competent to give her consent Full Judgment

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

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. CHAND BASHA

Appeal (Crl.), 1547 of 2011, Judgment Date: Sep 18, 2015

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

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

P. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs THE DIST. INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR.

Appeal (Crl.), 31 of 2009, Judgment Date: Sep 14, 2015

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

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

NIZAM & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Appeal (Crl.), 413 of 2007, Judgment Date: Sep 04, 2015

Case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt Full Judgment

Delhi High Court (Single Judge)

CBI Vs SRIOM DALAL

CRL.REV.P., 196 of 2012, Judgment Date: Aug 28, 2015

Full Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Lekh Ram

CR.A, 220 of 2010, Judgment Date: Aug 17, 2015

Full Judgment

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

RAM NARAIN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Appeal (Crl.), 7526 of 2015, Judgment Date: Aug 07, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India

HITEN PRASAN DALAL Vs. C.B.I.

Appeal (Crl.), 369 of 1999, Judgment Date: Jul 23, 2015

Full Judgment

Tags Acquittal
Allahabad High Court (Single Judge)

VrajPal Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Another

APPLICATION U/s 482, 13876 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jul 06, 2015

Full Judgment

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

STATE OF U.P. Vs. SATVEER & ORS.

Appeal (Crl.), 623-24 of 2008, Judgment Date: Jul 01, 2015

Full Judgment

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

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SATEESH & OR.

Appeal (Crl.), 1611 of 2009, Judgment Date: Jul 01, 2015

Full Judgment

Tags Acquittal