Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC495NonReportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2132 OF2011Thatireddigari Maheswara Reddy Appellant versus State of Andhra Pradesh ... Respondent JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTUAL ASPECTS1 The appellantaccused no.2 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC). There were eleven accused who were charged with the murder of one Shiva Prasad Reddy (for short, the deceased) by hacking him with hunting sickles. The accused were charged with offences punishable under Sections 120B, 148 and 302 of the IPC. Accused nos.5 and 9 died during the pendency of the trial. The Trial Court found that the charge under Section 120B of the IPC has not been proved against any accused. The Trial Court also found that accused nos.6, 7 and 8 were not guilty Criminal Appeal No.2132 of 2011 Page 1 of 7 of any offence and were acquitted. The Trial Court convicted accused nos....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC476NonReportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7210 OF2024X Appellant versus Y Respondent JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTUAL ASPECTS1 This is an unfortunate case in which the appellant husband and respondentwife, notwithstanding continuous separation at least from 2008, have not been able to settle their matrimonial dispute. For the sake of privacy, we have masked their names.2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 25th March 1999. Two children were born from the marriage. Both of them are adults. The matrimonial dispute led to multiple litigations. The matrimonial discord started in 2006, which led to the appellant filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, HM Act) for restitution of conjugal rights. The petition was filed on Civil Appeal No.7210 of 2024 Page 1 of 12 17th December 2008. By the judgment and decree dated 15th May 2013, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC473NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.32 OF2013JOY DEVARAJ APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF KERALA RESPONDENT JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA J.1. This criminal appeal, by special leave, calls in question the judgment and order dated 28th September, 2011 of the Kerala High Court1 dismissing the appellants appeal2 under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned judgment upheld the conviction of the appellant by the Sessions Court, Thalassery3 under sections 143, 147, 148, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, hereafter) and, inter alia, the sentence of imprisonment for life together with fine.2. Bare reading of the impugned judgment reveals that the appellant, who was part of an unlawful assembly, murdered Bobby4 in the evening of 26th December, 1999 due to a dispute which arose on 24th December, 1999 1 High Court, hereafter 2 Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2007 3 Sessions Court, hereafter 4 victim, hereafter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2024INSC474IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1473 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.2756 OF2019 P. SASIKUMAR APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.1. The appellant before us has challenged the order dated 12.01.2017 of the High Court of Madras which has upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) as well as under Section(s) 449, 404 and 201 r/w 302 IPC. He has been, inter alia, sentenced for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.2. It was a brutal murder of a 14-year-old girl committed inside her house on the night of 13.11.2014, allegedly by two 2 accused, one of them being the present appellant before this Court. There is no direct evidence of the crime although there is both ocular as well as forensic evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the murder of the 14-year-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC464Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.1751 of 2017 Naresh Kumar Appellant Versus State of Delhi Respondent JUDGMENT C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.1. Births of crimes and culprits concerned, occur together. Yet, under the criminal justice delivery system only on concluding findings on commission of the crime concerned in the affirmative, the question whether the accused is its culprit would arise. Culpability can be fixed, if at all it is to be fixed, on the accused upon conclusive proof of the same established by the prosecution only after following various procedural Crl. Appeal No.1751 of 2017 Page 1 of 32 safeguards recognizing certain rights of an accused. Failure to comply with such mandatory procedures may even vitiate the very trial, subject to the satisfaction of conditions, therefor. Foremost among one such right is embedded in Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr.PC). Though questioning und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2024INSC483IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1943 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) No.6006 OF2019 THE STATE OF PUNJAB APPELLANT Versus PARTAP SINGH VERKA RESPONDENT JUDGMENT SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.1. The State of Punjab is in appeal here against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2018, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana setting aside the order dated 20.05.2017 of the Trial Court which had summoned respondent Pratap Singh Verka under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) to face the trial for the offences under sections 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as P.C Act). 22. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.04.2016, an FIR u/s 7/13 (2) of the P.C Act was lodged against Respondent- Dr. Partap Singh Verka and another co-accused i.e. Vikas, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar. It was disclosed in the FIR that the present respondent was wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC467IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8829 OF2010HAR NARAYAN TEWARI (D) THR. LRS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CANTONMENT BOARD, RAMGARH CANTONMENT & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PANKAJ MITHAL, J.1. Shri Manoj Goel, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Shri Manoj Swarup, learned senior counsel for the respondents were heard.2. The Title Suit No.9/89 of the plaintiff-appellant (Har Narayan Tewari) was decreed on 16.03.2000 by the court of first instance. In an appeal by the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh, the said decree was reversed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 28.06.2006; basically on the ground that the suit was hit by principle of res judicata in view of the decision in the earlier Title Suit No.8/64 instituted by Maharani Lalita 1 Rajya Lakshmi1 (wife of Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narayan Singh2) wherein the plaintiff-appellant was defendant No.32 and the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh was the main contesting ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC466IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7906 OF2010MAHESH CHAND BARETH & ANR. APPELLANT(s) VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. RESPONDENT(s) With Civil Appeal No._____ of 2024 [@SLP(C) No.34742/2013]. Civil Appeal Nos. 8656-8668/2011 Civil Appeal No.9618/2011 Civil Appeal No.10709/2011 Civil Appeal No.10712/2011 Civil Appeal No.10711/2011 Civil Appeal No.10710/2011 Civil Appeal No.6898/2012 Civil Appeal No.1668/2012 Civil Appeal No.1038/2012 Civil Appeal No.11332/2011 Civil Appeal No.11442/2011 Civil Appeal No.11407/2011 Civil Appeal No.4559/2012 Civil Appeal Nos.6096-6104/2012 Civil Appeal No.8661/2012 Civil Appeal No.______ of 2024 [SLP(C) No.34663/2013]. Civil Appeal No.322/2013 Civil Appeal Nos.9328-9331/2010 1 Civil Appeal No.10281/2010 Civil Appeal Nos. 2800-2802/2011 Civil Appeal Nos. 2806-2808/2011 Civil Appeal No.2803/2011 Civil Appeal Nos.2804-2805/2011 Civil Appeal No.2980/2011 Civil Appeal No.2978/2011 Civil Appeal No.297...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC472Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2807 OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6769 of 2017) Sardar Ravi Inder Singh & Anr. Appellants versus State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... Respondents JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. Leave granted. FACTUAL ASPECTS2 In substance, the appellants' prayer in this appeal is to quash the criminal proceedings of a complaint filed by the second respondent, Ganesh Kumar Agiwal. The present appellants are the trustees of Sardar Bahadur Sir Inder Singh (Personal Estate) Trust (for short, the Trust). The present appellants and one Gurdev Singh, as the trustees of the said Trust, entered into two separate agreements for sale dated 29th January 2001 (for short the agreements) in favour of the second respondent and one Uma Shankar Agiwal. In the agreements, the second respondent and Uma Shankar were described as the partners of Sri Mahakaleshwar Enterprises Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC478REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7247 OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.16451 of 2023) Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited Appellant versus Samir Narain Bhojwani Respondent with CIVIL APPEAL NO.7248 OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.20359 of 2023) and CIVIL APPEAL NO.7249 OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.14238 of 2024) (Diary No.40494 of 2023) JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. The application for permission to file special leave petition is allowed. Leave granted. FACTUAL ASPECTS2 These appeals take exception to the same judgment and order dated 7th July 2023 passed by the High Court of Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16451 of 2023, etc. Page 1 of 35 Judicature at Bombay. Therefore, the same are being decided together. We are setting out a few factual aspects necessary for deciding the appeals.3. On 31st March 1993, the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development...
Tag this Judgment!