Judgement Gallery
Home – Judgement Gallery
Confessions recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC in the presence of a police officer cannot be said to be voluntary and cannot be relied upon as substantive admissible evidence for recording conviction against the accused.
That question is whether in a criminal case if the counsel
for the accused does not appear, for whatever reasons, should
the case be decided in the absence of the counsel against the MD. SUKUR ALI v. STATE OF ASSAM 211
accused, or the Court should appoint an amicus curiae to
defend the accused ?
Supreme Court acquits Co-Convicts in Murder Case, holds joint recovery & “Last Seen” alone insufficient.
The Supreme Court ruled that constitutional courts can grant bail to an accused charged under the stringent UAPA despite statutory restrictions, if the accused has undergone prolonged incarceration and the trial is unlikely to be completed soon.
*Held that the plea Zigortu baten barkamen eskaera ezin da ukatu delituaren gorrotoagatik bakarrik; horren ordez, barkamenaren erabakia presoaren eskubideen ebaluazio holistikoan oinarritu behar da. and reasonable criteria,.
Observing that the evidence of hostile witnesses can be used not only for conviction but also to discredit the prosecution case and support acquittal, the Supreme Court has acquitted a man accused of killing a man belonging to a SC/ST category.
Sift and Weigh Evidence: The Judge has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
* Not a Mere Post Office: The Judge is not a mere “post office” or a “mouthpiece” of the prosecution but must exercise judicial mind to consider the broad probabilities of the case.
* Grave Suspicion vs. Simple Suspicion: A charge can be framed if there is “grave suspicion” against the accused; however, if two views are possible and the evidence only gives rise to “some suspicion” (not grave), the accused must be discharged.
The Apex court Observing that the right to speedy trial can’t be infringed regardless of the seriousness of the crime, the Supreme Court on Monday (May 4) granted bail to an undertrial accused of murder, noting his prolonged incarceration and no reasonable prospects of the trial being completed in the near future.
SC has observed that Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked at the first instance to seek direction for registration of an FIR.
“If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being conducted, then the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while setting aside the Bombay High Court’s direction to the Police to record complainant’s statements and proceed for FIR registration.
In Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto vs State of Bihar (2026), the Supreme Court ruled that mere abuse or insults, without a clear, stated intent to humiliate a person specifically because they belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, does not attract the penal provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court highlighted that caste-based humiliation must be the driving force behind the act, not simply a personal dispute or heat.
The Supreme Court, while granting anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera in May 2026, established that the cherished fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be jeopardised lightly, especially through criminal proceedings that appear to be coloured by political rivalry. The Court emphasized that the power of arrest must be exercised with objectivity and circumspection, clarifying that custodial interrogation is not warranted when a case primarily rests on documentary evidence or carries clear political overtones. Overturning the High Court’s denial of relief, the Bench noted that finding an accused guilty or shifting the burden of proof onto them at the bail stage is erroneous. Consequently, the Court laid down a set of mandatory guidelines for such cases: the accused must cooperate fully with the investigation, appear before authorities when summoned, refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and must not leave the country without prior judicial permission. These observations serve as a critical precedent for balancing state interests in fair investigation with the protection of an individual’s fundamental rights against potentially motivated prosecutions.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 8) observed that where sentences imposed for different offences are directed to run concurrently, a fine cannot be imposed separately for each offence.
The Supreme Court, in the case involving Rajesh Bus Service, ruled that if an accused is fully cooperating with the investigation, their arrest is not mandatory. The Bench emphasized that protecting an individual’s liberty under Article 21 is a priority for the court, clarifying that a person cannot be sent directly to jail merely because an FIR has been registered. The court further stated that any arrest made without solid justification or a genuine need for custodial interrogation is unjustified. In its final directive, the court stayed the arrest and instructed the investigative agency to strictly follow due legal process.
Held that a civil court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to dismiss a suit as infructuous when subsequent events render the original cause of action non-existent. The Court observed that it is the duty of the court to terminate infructuous litigation, and it cannot retain such suits merely to preserve interim orders or on speculative future claims.
This judgment is a landmark for 2026 as it limits the ability of defaulting companies to use “document disputes”.
It is equally well settled that while bail is not to be refused mechanically, it must not be granted on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring material evidence. Where an order granting bail is founded on an incorrect appreciation of facts or suffers from material omissions or where it results in miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to interfere. In the present case, the grant of bail by the High Court is vitiated by material misdirection and non-consideration of relevant factors rendering the same manifestly perverse.”, the court added.
When a person is added as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that person is ultimately arrested and prays for bail, the relevant consideration at the end of the court while considering his plea for bail should be the strong and cogent evidence than mere probability of his complicity,” the Court observed.
The Supreme Court of India recently directed all trial courts handling criminal cases to add tabulated charts summarizing witnesses, exhibited documents, and material objects (muddamal) at the end of their judgments for clarity, uniformity, and easier appellate review, a mandate issued in the case of Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat to improve transparency and efficiency in the justice system.
Supreme Court acquits man in murder case over doubtful sole eyewitness.
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Anjani Singh, holding that the testimony of the sole eyewitness (PW-1) was unreliable and lacked corroboration. The Court noted contradictions in his testimony, absence of light during the incident, and forensic mismatches, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime”, the Bench said. The Bench was ruling on a petition filed by Dham challenging the order passed by the Delhi High Court on August 19, 2025 rejecting his bail. Dham is a former promoter and non-executive Chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd.
Supreme Court reverses Delhi HC, allows single FIR in mass cheating case if offences part of same transaction.
Leading Questions: The Court found that the prosecutor had asked “leading questions” during the trial—questions that suggest the answer to the witness. The Court ruled this was illegal and made the trial unfair.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajay Kumar Sharma (2016) 15 SCC 289 is a significant Supreme Court of India judgment concerning the appointment and renewal of District Government Counsels (DGCs) in UP, emphasizing that such appointments are professional engagements, not permanent posts, and require integrity and adherence to the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual (LR Manual) for fair dispensation of criminal justice. The case addressed High Court directives for renewal, stressing the State’s discretion but also the need for non-political, competent counsel, impacting later jurisprudence on judicial discipline and binding precedents.
Supreme Court frees man after 13 years, slams botched probe in child rape case.
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to a broken chain of circumstantial evidence, serious investigative lapses, unreliable witnesses, and material omissions in the FIR. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court on Monday (December 8) set aside the conviction of a man in a murder case, observing that the prosecution’s case failed to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to a crucial omission in the FIR, where the informant, despite knowing the accused’s identity, failed to name him in the FIR.
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that a “mini-trial” is not permissible when considering quashing an FIR. The Court reiterated that the power to quash an FIR should be used sparingly and only when the allegations do not prima facie constitute a cognizable offense.
The Supreme Court of India recently held that bail cannot be cancelled merely because an accused failed to report to a police station at periodic intervals, especially after the investigation is complete and the trial has begun.
Police/investigating agencies are empowered to freeze the bank account of a person under Section 102 Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita)., against whom a proceeding is initiated under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”).
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 55057/2024
N. ESWARANATHAN Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
APRIL 17, 2025
“Apology Not Enough? SC Imposes Costs on Advocate for Vexatious Litigation”Advocate Muthukrishnan was fined ₹1 lakh for filing a second SLP despite the first being dismissed.
The Court emphasized:– Strict compliance with Supreme Court Rules, 2013, is mandatory. Repetitive petitions are discouraged.
– Misleading the Court or suppression of facts invites contempt proceedings under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
– Precedents like Mohit Chaudhary and Bhagwan Singh highlight zero tolerance for fraud on the Court.
– However, genuine remorse may be considered a mitigating factor, as per Justice Sharma’s remarks.The judgment reiterates the ethical obligations of advocates and the importance of transparency while litigating in the Apex Court.
Click here to obtain said Judgment
-
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 55057/2024
N. ESWARANATHAN Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
APRIL 17, 2025
“Apology Not Enough? SC Imposes Costs on Advocate for Vexatious Litigation”
Advocate Muthukrishnan was fined ₹1 lakh for filing a second SLP despite the first being dismissed.
The Court emphasized: – Strict compliance with Supreme Court Rules, 2013, is mandatory. Repetitive petitions are discouraged. – Misleading the Court or suppression of facts invites contempt proceedings under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. – Precedents like Mohit Chaudhary and Bhagwan Singh highlight zero tolerance for fraud on the Court. – However, genuine remorse may be considered a mitigating factor, as per Justice Sharma’s remarks. The judgment reiterates the ethical obligations of advocates and the importance of transparency while litigating in the Apex Court.
Click here to obtain said Judgment
-
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4171 OF 2024
ASHOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
APRIL 02, 2025
Reaffirmed that once the drawer admits to signing the cheque, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) cannot be rebutted merely by questioning the complainant’s debt-giving capacity, especially when such a defence was not raised in the reply notice by the accused.
“The onus is not on the complainant at the threshold to prove his capacity/financial wherewithal to make the payment in discharge of which the cheque is alleged to have been issued in his favour. Only if an objection is raised that the complainant was not in a financial position to pay the amount so claimed by him to have been given as a loan to the accused, only then the complainant would have to bring before the Court cogent material to indicate that he had the financial capacity and had actually advanced the amount in question by way of loan.”, the court observed.
Click here to obtain said Judgment
-
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIJAY PAL YADAV
VERSUS
MAMTA SINGH AND ORS. & ORS
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20330/2023
Date : 26-03-2025
Issued a stern warning to the police personnel of all States and Union Territories against the violation of the norms regarding arrest. The Court warned that officers who flout the arrest guidelines will face strict action.
A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra made these observations while dealing with a case, where the petitioner alleged that he was arrested by the Haryana police in violation of the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and was subjected to physical abuse both at the spot as well as later in the Police Station.
Click here to obtain said Judgment
-
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1184 OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (Crl.) NO. 6320 OF 2024)
JAMIN & ANR.
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
6th March, 2025.
Quashes Summoning of Accused 13 Years After Trial Conclusion,
Trial Court Became ‘Functus Officio,’ Cannot Summon Accused Post-Conviction
Click here to obtain said Judgment
-
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Landmark Judgement on Fraud and Fraudsters
Click here to obtain said Judgment
Landmark judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding fraud and fraudsters, whereby the Apex Court laid down specific guidelines in handling cases involving fraud.
-
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 438 OF 2018
S.C. GARG
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
APRIL 16, 2025
Click here to obtain said Judgment
Join our Legal Updates WhatsApp Group
Join our Facebook Group for Discussions
Supreme Court Upholds Res Judicata in Criminal Matters, Quashes Fraud Case Against S.C. Garg, Highlights the binding precedent from Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1956 SC 415) and Sambasivam v. Public Prosecutor (1950 AC 458), reaffirming its applicability over later two-judge bench decisions like Devendra v. State of U.P (2009) 7 SCC 495. Act: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act)
- “HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 8 April 2025
Pronounced on: 15 April 2025
FAO(OS) (COMM) 41/2025, CAV 106/2025, CM APPL.16177/2025, CM APPL. 16178/2025 & CM APPL. 16179/2025
AZURE HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED v. PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED
Phonographic Performance Limited cannot be permitted to issue or grant licences for the sound recordings in its repertoire without registering itself as a copyright society or becoming a member of any registered copyright society. “We, therefore, are unable to accept the principle that PPL was entitled, without either registering itself as a copyright society or becoming a member of any registered copyright society, to issue licenses in respect of the sound recordings assigned to it under Section 18(1) of the Copyright Act,” a division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul said.”
Click here to obtain said Judgment
- “The Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of A6 in Coir Mat Dispute Murder Case, Relies on State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999)” Highlights the court’s scrutiny of evidence despite suspect investigation, following the precedent set in State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715.
Act: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.)”
Click here to obtain said Judgment
50 Landmark Rulings: Supreme
Court’s defining verdicts of 202
Click here
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.201 OF 2020
WAHID
VERSUS
STATE
Emphasizing the need for meticulous examination in cases involving unidentified accused, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of two individuals in a case for bus robbery, citing major flaws in the police investigation and unreliable eyewitness identification.“In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the accused. In such type of cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the involvement of the accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which the accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the accused was identified.”, the court observed.
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7712 OF 2022)
RAVI Vs THE STATEThe Supreme Court Acquits Ravi in Wife’s Murder Case Due to Insufficient Evidence
In the case of Ravi vs. The State of Punjab, the appellant was convicted for the murder of his first wife, Jamni, by strangulation. The prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the post-mortem report suggesting asphyxia due to hanging. However, key witnesses turned hostile, and the doctor’s testimony raised doubts about the cause of death, mentioning chronic tuberculosis as a possibility. The prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Applying principles of circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and ordered the appellant’s release from custody after over ten years of imprisonment.
Mens rea and strict liability under BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
https://chat.whatsapp.com/Lt26F78K3AW8aJPFEp6mUr
https://www.facebook.com/groups/565147614732324/?ref=share
Introduction
To decide upon any criminal liability, it is imperative to look at whether concepts of mens rea, mistake of fact, and strict liability are applicable in the case or not. These rules help us to have a glimpse into the offender’s state of mind at the time of offence. In this article, we’ll study these legal principles in light of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), checking how they work and when there are exceptions under these concepts.
Mistake of Fact:
Section 14 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita deals with the “Mistake of Fact.” It states that an act committed by a person in a state of intoxication or by mistake of fact, believing himself to be justified by law, is not an offense unless the act would be an offense if the person were not intoxicated and aware of the real facts. This section acknowledges that genuine mistakes, induced by factors like intoxication or misapprehension, may mitigate criminal liability, hence we can see that mens rea and presence of guilt mind is a key issue here as mistake of fact signifies lower level of mens rea.
It should be noted that the BNS distinguishes between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. While a mistake in doing a lawful act may not incur criminal liability, a clear wrongdoing, even under a mistaken apprehension, may result in criminal charges.
Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat:
The maxim “Ignorantia juris non excusat” emphasizes that ignorance of the law does not excuse one from legal consequences. Mistake of law, even when the party has full knowledge of the facts, is not a defense in criminal cases.
Mens Rea:
The doctrine of mens rea, denoting a guilty intention, is a crucial element in criminal laws across the world. The BNS incorporates mens rea through specific terms such as “intentionally,” “knowingly,” “voluntarily,” “fraudulently,” and “dishonestly.” The state of mind required extends to all aspects of an act, including the act or omission, circumstances, and consequences.
Application of Mens Rea in Statutory Crimes:
Halsbury’s Laws of England and legal authorities highlight that mens rea is presumed to be an essential element in every offense unless displaced by the words of the statute or the subject matter it deals with.
Various sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deal with the concept of Mens Area:
https://chat.whatsapp.com/Lt26F78K3AW8aJPFEp6mUrhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/565147614732324/?ref=share
1. Section 100 BNS – Culpable Homicide:
This section outlines culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It requires the accused to have the mens rea, indicating an intention to cause death or bodily harm likely to cause death.
2. Section 101 BNS – Murder:
Section 101 of BNS defines murder and specifies the circumstances under which culpable homicide becomes murder. It distinguishes between murder and culpable homicide, largely based on mens rea.
3. Section 3 BNS – Acts Done by Several Persons in Furtherance of Common Intention:
This section deals with cases where several persons act together to commit an offense. It emphasizes the shared intention or mens rea among the individuals involved.
4. Section 61 BNS- Criminal Conspiracy:
Section 61 addresses criminal conspiracy, requiring an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offense. The agreement implies a shared mens rea to engage in unlawful activities.
Strict Liability and Exceptions:
The concept of strict liability involves offenses where mens rea is not an essential element. This includes offenses related to public health, safety, and social welfare. Specific sections in the BNS, such as 147 BNS and 137 BNS establish strict liability. If the offence has traces of strict liability, the offenders may be penalized even without a guilty mind.
Section 106 of BNS – Causing Death by Negligence:
Section 106 of the BNS is an example of strict liability. It deals with causing death by negligence, and the focus is on the negligent act itself rather than the intention behind it. Even without a mens rea to cause death, if death results from a negligent act, the offender can be held criminally liable.
Section 138 of NI Act – Offenses Related to Negotiable Instruments:
In the context of strict liability, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deals with offenses related to dishonor of a cheque for insufficiency of funds. The emphasis is on the act itself, and the accused can be held liable irrespective of the intention behind issuing the cheque.
In the cases of Ravula Hariprasada Rao v. The State and State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, Supreme Court held that unless a statute explicitly rules out mens rea, a person should not be found guilty without a guilty mind.
FAQs on mens rea and strict liability under BNS:
https://chat.whatsapp.com/Lt26F78K3AW8aJPFEp6mUrhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/565147614732324/?ref=share
1. What is Mens Rea, and how is it incorporated in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)?
Mens Rea, denoting a guilty intention, is crucial in criminal law. BNS incorporates mens rea through terms like “intentionally,” “knowingly,” “voluntarily,” “fraudulently,” and “dishonestly” across various sections, emphasizing the state of mind in all aspects of an act.
2. How is Mens Rea applied in specific crimes under BNS?
Sections like 100 (Culpable Homicide), 101 (Murder), 3 (Acts Done by Several Persons), and 61 (Criminal Conspiracy) of BNS outline the application of mens rea in different offenses, requiring an intentional state of mind.
3. What is Strict Liability, and are there exceptions in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)?
Strict liability in BNS involves offenses where mens rea is not essential. Sections like 147, 152A, and 137 establish strict liability, especially in cases related to public health, safety, and social welfare.
4. Can you provide examples of Strict Liability under BNS?
Sections 106 (Causing Death by Negligence) and 138 (Offenses Related to Negotiable Instruments) illustrate strict liability under BNS, where the focus is on the act itself, regardless of the intention behind it.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6898 of 2023)
SUNEETI TOTEJA
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER
FEBRUARY 25, 2025.
https://chat.whatsapp.com/Lt26F78K3AW8aJPFEp6mUrhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/565147614732324/?ref=share
While quashing a case against the public servant due to lack of prior sanction, the Supreme Court observed that the failure of the sanctioning authority to provide sanction within the stipulated time would not make the sanction a ‘deemed sanction’ because such a concept doesn’t exist under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
“Section 197 of CrPC does not envisage a concept of deemed sanction,” the bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed
- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1834 OF 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11042 of 2022)
PUNIT BERIWALA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
April 28, 2025;
Supreme Court revives FIR in Rs 28 Crore property fraud case, reinstates criminal proceedings against HUF members for cheating and forgery.
Decision:
The Supreme Court revived the FIR for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the allegations in the complaint/FIR, if believed, disclose cognizable offences and warrant investigation. The matter was remanded for investigation to proceed against all accused. The Court emphasized that mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing an FIR in cases involving cognizable offences and that delay in lodging the FIR, in this context, is not sufficient to quash the proceedings.
Act(s) Involved:
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 467 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 420
Riot and Affray under BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
*This article will focus on the legal implications of rioting and affray under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), detailing on their definitions, essentials, and punishments
Section 191 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) defines rioting as the use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly in pursuit of a common unlawful objective. To establish an offence under this section, it is important to prove the existence of an unlawful assembly, the use of force or violence, and the commission of an offence.
Essentials of Rioting:
The core elements of rioting under Section 191(1) of BNS include the formation of an unlawful assembly with five or more members, a shared unlawful objective, the use of force or violence, and the connection between force used and the common objective.
Punishment for Committing Riot with Deadly Weapon:
Section 191(3) of BNS also talks about aggravated form of rioting when a deadly weapon is involved. It mandates enhanced punishment for individuals armed with deadly weapons during rioting. This is a key distinction between Section 191(1) of BNS and Section 191(3) of BNS
Provoking Riot:
Section 192 of BNS deals with provocation leading to rioting. It penalizes individuals who, through illegal acts, provoke others to commit rioting. The section considers both the occurrence and non-occurrence of rioting, prescribing different punishments accordingly.
Constructive Liability:
Section 193 of BNS addresses the constructive liability of landowners or occupiers when an unlawful assembly or riot takes place on their premises.
– Affray: Involves two or more individuals engaged in a fight
– Riot: Mandates a common unlawful object shared by the members of the unlawful assembly, as defined in Section 189 of the BNS.
– Affray: Focuses on the disturbance of public peace resulting from the physical altercation between the individuals, with no requirement for a shared common objec
– Riot: Generally involves premeditated actions, with the members of the unlawful assembly planning and executing their common objective.
– Affray: Can be sudden and unpremeditated, occurring spontaneously in a public place without prior planning.
– Riot: Implies a coordinated effort by the members of the unlawful assembly to use force or violence in pursuit of their common objective.
- In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court explained the tests to determine if there was a manufacturing process involved.
The courts have observed that the court proceedings ought not to be permitted to de-generate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. The courts must quash the proceedings in such cases at the earliest particularly when our subordinate courts are under extremely heavy pressure of workload.
- The courts must always keep in view that courts exist for advancement of justice. If any attempt is made to abuse or that authority, so as to produce injustice, the Court must have the power to prevent that abuse. The courts exist only to promote justice and to prevent injustice.
Know more about Common High Court for Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura.Previsus
(1) On and from the appointed day,—
(a) the High Court of Assam and Nagaland shall cease to function and is hereby abolished;
(b) there shall be a common High Court for the States of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura to be called the Gauhati High Court (the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura);
(c) the Judges of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland holding office immediately before that day shall, unless they have elected otherwise, become on that day the Judges of the common High Court:
1 [Provided that on and from the commencement of the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012, the common High Court shall be the High Court for the States of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland and shall cease to have its jurisdiction, powers and authority for the States of Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura.]
(2) Nothing in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall prejudice or affect the continued operation of any notice served, injunction issued, direction given or proceedings taken before the appointed day by the High Court of Assam and Nagaland under the powers then conferred upon that Court.1. The proviso ins. by Act 26 of 2012, s. 3 (w.e.f. 23-3-2013)
He held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The learned Judge held that this case was falling under the category of rarest of the rare cases and proceeded to award capital punishment.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. __ / 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C.) No. 28062 / 2024)
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited
versus
Inox India Limited and Others
DATED: 15.04.2025
“Landmark IP Ruling: SC Sets Two-Pronged Test for Copyright vs. Design Protection, Citing Bharat Glass and Star Athletica”*
- Emphasizes the new two-pronged test (paragraph 60) and references Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. (2008) 10 SCC 657 and Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands Inc (2017) for functional utility and conceptual separability.
Act Copyright Act, 1957; Designs Act, 2000; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Statement means something that someone says or writes
which gives information in a definite way on a particular
matter or issue. BNSS
Judicial Officers Acting In Official Capacity Cannot Be Prosecuted Unless Malafide Is Apparent click here to get Judgment
Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 22 April, 2025
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. __ / 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C.) No. 28062 / 2024)
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited
versus
Inox India Limited and Others
DATED: 15.04.2025
“Landmark IP Ruling: SC Sets Two-Pronged Test for Copyright vs. Design Protection, Citing Bharat Glass and Star Athletica”*
• Emphasizes the new two-pronged test (paragraph 60) and references Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. (2008) 10 SCC 657 and Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands Inc (2017) for functional utility and conceptual separability.
Act Copyright Act, 1957; Designs Act, 2000; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Reaffirming foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be invoked to fill material gaps in the prosecution case unless the foundational facts necessary to shift the onus are first firmly established.
An accused under the Arms Act, 1959 cannot seek default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 merely on the ground that the chargesheet filed against him in terms of Section 193(3) BNSS, lacks the sanction to prosecute.
Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is mandatory to prosecute a person for offences under Sections 25/ 27.
Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance Decree, Orders Additional Payment in Land Dispute.
The Supreme Court upheld the decree for specific performance of a 2001 land sale agreement, directing the plaintiffs to pay an additional ₹25,00,000/- to the seller. It declared subsequent sale deeds null and void due to fraud and collusion.
Act:
Specific Relief Act, 1963; Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Restores Ejectment Decree: Landlord Wins as “ND” Endorsement Doesn’t Invalidate Notice.
*The Supreme Court ruled that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, sent via registered post but returned with an “ND” (Not Delivered) endorsement, is deemed legally served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887. The Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Trial Court’s ejectment decree in favor of the landlord.*Click here to get Judgment
In any case, the circumstances established are so patent and most of them are even accepted by the accused, that latches of the investigation, if any, have little bearing on their proof. The truthfulness of the evidence leading to them cannot, therefore, be questioned for any such reason
Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes placed in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how.
In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See State of T.N. v. Rajendran [(1999) 8 SCC 679 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 40] (SCC para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal [(1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 642 : AIR 1992 SC 2045] (SCC para 39 : AIR para.
Supreme Court: Court Of Session Can Summon Person To Stand Trial Even If He Isn’t Charge-Sheeted & Whose Complexity In Crime Appears In Evidence On Record.
Court held that there is no indefeasible right with the accused to undergo a narcoanalysis test. The court has also held that, “The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narcoanalysis test at an appropriate stage”.
The complaints mostly alleged that the petitioner and his company misappropriated money advanced by the intending purchaser of flats/apartments promised to be constructed by the petitioner’s company. As per writ petition as many as 61 FIRs were filed in different police stations.7 Feb 2025.
Once the appellant surrenders and is taken in judicial custody, it shall be open for him to file a fresh regular bail application before the Court concerned and such bail application shall be decided strictly on its own merits and in accordance with law.
“Once it is clearly discernible from the allegations made in the complaint that the act of the accused falls within the General Exceptions, there is no need to wait for submission of proof on behalf of the accused so as to bring his case within the purview of General Exceptions”, held the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh while quashing a FIR against a group of revenue officials.
Police Has No Unbridled Power To Open History-Sheet On Likes Or Dislikes; Cogent Material Required For Reasonable Suspicion: Allahabad High Court
Thirdly, the filing of a First Information Report is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the power under Section 438. The imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be shown to exist even if an F.I.R. is not yet filed.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Held that Sessions Courts cannot ask accused seeking anticipatory bail to approach the police for relief under Section 41A of the CrPC/Section 35 BNSS
Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs State of UP” refers to a Supreme Court of India case where Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani challenged a summoning order issued by the High Court of Allahabad for an offense of rape under Section 376 of the IPC. Kesarwani argued that the complaint was an abuse of process, but the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, upholding the summoning order. The Court emphasized the distinction between rape and consensual sex, noting that a promise of marriage must be carefully examined to determine if it was a pretext to satisfy lust or if there was a genuine intent to