Appellant-accused was sentenced to death for murder and rape of the victim under section 302, 376 and 397 of the IPC - Faulty Investigation - i. identity of accused could not be sufficiently protected leading to its disclosure before the TIP; ii. 9-day delay in TIP is unexplained; iii. Lack of coordination between investigating agencies and not arraying person having direct link...
Appellant-accused was sentenced to death for murder and rape of the victim under section 302, 376 and 397 of the IPC - Faulty Investigation - i. identity of accused could not be sufficiently protected leading to its disclosure before the TIP; ii. 9-day delay in TIP is unexplained; iii. Lack of coordination between investigating agencies and not arraying person having direct link to deceased person as witness; iv. Care requisite not taken regarding DNA evidence and large gaps in chain of custody of DNA evidence is unexplained; v. Post mortem of deceased was conducted at the spot of crime without due regard to contamination - Chain of circumstantial evidence does not point towards guilt of accused, ruling out his innocence – Held, Appellant-accused was acquitted and judgement of High Court was set aside. Appeal allowed. [Relied on Hanumant v. State of M.P. (1952) 2 SCC 71; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116; Para 11, 38, 42, 45] Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2025 INSC 845
Burden of Proof - Circumstantial Evidence – Murder - Acquittal Reversal – Held, a conviction for murder can solely rest on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is complete and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused - When an accused offers a false explanation regarding the cause of death that took place within the confines of his house, such falsity becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused - While the general burden of proof is on the prosecution, Section 106 applies to exceptional cases where it would be impossible or disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused - Supreme Court reverses acquittal of man for daughter-in-law's murder - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681; Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (1956) 1 SCC 337; State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar & Others (2000) 8 SCC 382; Paras 12-21] State of Madhya Pradesh v. Janved Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1003 : 2025 INSC 1229
Child Rape and Murder – Death Penalty – DNA Evidence – Held: Trial conducted in a flawed and irregular manner. Trial Judge erroneously permitted the investigating officer to narrate the accused's confessional statements during examination-in-chief and admitted them as evidence, violating admissibility rules. Non-examination of the scientific expert who conducted DNA profiling was fatal to the prosecution's case. Prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for forensic samples, with unsealed samples and unverified transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory, raising concerns of tampering. Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside. [Paras 40, 47, 50, 54, 55] Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 398 : 2025 INSC 444
Circumstantial Evidence and Motive - In murder trials relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that eliminates reasonable doubt, but proof of motive is not mandatory. A fact is considered proved when it excludes reasonable doubt based on reason and common sense, not trivial or fanciful doubts. Circumstantial evidence must form a cohesive chain, with each circumstance independently verified, consistently pointing to the accused's guilt and excluding alternative hypotheses. The Supreme Court upheld the accused's conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence, finding a clear pattern of evidence establishing guilt. The appeal was dismissed, reaffirming that the law requires elimination of reasonable doubt, not proof beyond all doubt. (Para 10) Chetan v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 657 : 2025 INSC 793 : (2025) 9 SCC 31
Circumstantial Evidence - Last seen theory - Supreme Court acquitted accused for rape-murder case, on following grounds - i. Prosecution failed to establish a clear and convincing motive; ii. Testimonies of the witnesses who claimed to have last seen the accused with the victim were unreliable due to significant delays in recording their statements and the fact that they did not see the victim with the accused; iii. The links in the chain of circumstances were broken; iv. There is strong inference of evidence planting; v. the DNA report, which was primary basis for conviction, was considered unreliable and inconsistent - Held that death penalty can only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases on unimpeachable evidence - Trial Court had not properly evaluated mitigating circumstances before awarding it and therefore, the conviction could not be sustained - Supreme Court set aside High Court's order - Appeal allowed. [Paras 10-12, 51- 56] Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 890 : 2025 INSC 1097
Circumstantial Evidence – Murder – Motive - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 302, 201 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 27, 65B – Held - Upheld conviction of appellant relying on - i. motive of appellant was proved by statement of her close friend who clearly stated that appellant confessed her unwillingness to marry the deceased; ii. Call Record Details (CDR) were proven to be admissible under Section 65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act (IEA) considering certificates furnished by Airtel and Reliance; iii. CDR proved communications between the accused persons during engagement ceremony of appellant, at the time of incident and even immediately after the incident; iv. Recovery of scooter and iron steel used for attacking the deceased was upheld and separate 'voluntary' statements of the two appellants were also recorded; v. delay in sending steel rod for FSL analysis was rejected as a ground to discard the evidence (Relying on State of M.P. v. Chhaakki Lal and anr. (2019) 12 SCC 326) vi. Absence of messages on phones, coupled with the failure of accused to offer a sufficient explanation for their exhaustive communications right before incident, would establish the offence under section 201 IPC - Held chain of circumstantial evidence was complete, leading to confirmation of conviction. Appeal dismissed. [Relied on Kishore Bhadke v. State of Maharashtra (2017) 3 SCC 760; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116; Paras 54, 56-59, 83-86, 96] Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 715 : 2025 INSC 830
Circumstantial Evidence - Rape and Murder – Acquittal – Held, prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances and pointed out several significant issues - i. DNA report was inconclusive and a supplementary report was inadmissible as the expert witness was not examined and the report was not presented to the accused under Section 313 CrPC; ii. 'Suspicious conduct' of the accused, cited by prosecution witnesses, was found to be a natural action for a labourer returning home from work and could not be considered an incriminating circumstance; iii. Recovery of a comb used, by the sniffer dog was deemed doubtful due to contradictory witness testimonies regarding its color - Procedure involving the dog squad was also not properly documented; iv. Recovery of the victim's underwear from the accused's field was found to be a 'planted recovery' as it was not mentioned in the original complaint filed by the victim's father- Present case is yet another classic example of lacklustre and shabby investigation and so also laconic trial procedure which has led to the failure of a case involving brutal rape and murder of an innocent girl child - The prosecution had 'fallen woefully short of proving the guilt of the accused-appellants by clinching evidence and acquitted them, giving them the benefit of doubt - Appeal allowed. [Paras 65 - 79] Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 841 : 2025 INSC 1042
Circumstantial Evidence - Recovery of Weapon – Held, conviction cannot be solely based on the recovery of a pistol and an FSL Report when the alleged eye-witnesses turn hostile, the motive is unproved, and the recovery is made from a place accessible to other family members; the prosecution must prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent material and evidence- For a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to be relevant, the information received from the accused must "relate distinctly to the fact thereby discovered” - The disclosure statement must make it clear that the recovered pistol was the one used in the commission of the offence - Mere recovery of a weapon, even with a supporting FSL report, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of other corroborative evidence connecting the accused to the crime - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1421; Paras 15-25] Govind v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1106 : 2025 INSC 1318
Expert Witness (Medical Evidence) - is examined for their specialized knowledge to prove the contents of reports like a post-mortem report - Evidence provided by an expert is advisory in nature, and its credibility depends on the reasons and underlying data supporting their conclusions - An accused cannot be convicted of murder solely based on medical evidence. [Paras 27, 28] Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 771 : 2025 INSC 927
Forensic Evidence - Incriminating evidence, including the recovery of the murder weapon (gun and pellets) linked to the deceased's injuries through forensic and ballistic analysis, bolstered the prosecution's case. The accused's silence and failure to explain the recovery of the weapon further strengthened the prosecution's case. (Para 10) Chetan v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 657 : 2025 INSC 793 : (2025) 9 SCC 31
Honour Killing - Police Misconduct - Evidence Fabrication - Whether the convictions of police officers for fabricating evidence and neglecting duties along with nine others were justified. Held, Police officers delayed FIR registration despite knowledge of the murders, used caste-based abuses against the family, violating Section 154 CrPC and the Lalita Kumari judgment. Inspector fabricated an extra-judicial confession, falsely implicating four Dalits and four Vanniyars in the FIR to shield the real culprits from the Vanniyar community. The case gained media attention, leading to the FIR being filed nine days after the crime. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions for neglecting duties, disobeying the law, and fabricating evidence to falsely implicate Dalits. The Court identified the primary orchestrator of the false FIR, deliberately protecting Vanniyar culprits and targeting innocent Dalits in an offence punishable by death. The convictions of nine others for the honour killing were also upheld. The Court emphasized the mandatory duty to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC and condemned caste-based abuses and evidence manipulation targeting the Dalit community. (Para 74) K.P. Tamilmaran v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 493 : 2025 INSC 576 : AIR 2025 SC 2545
Issue of juvenility and the failure of the judicial machinery to recognize and act upon the constitutional mandate regarding juvenile justice. The appellant was convicted of culpable homicide amounting to murder in 1994 and sentenced to death. Throughout the legal proceedings, he consistently claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the offense, but his plea was ignored by the trial court, High Court, and even the Supreme Court in earlier rounds of litigation. Held, a plea of juvenility, which was not properly considered by Courts as per due procedure, cannot be treated as final. Therefore, a fresh plea of juvenility can be raised when the plea of juvenility was improperly adjudicated upon in the previous rounds. The Court emphasized the paramount duty of the judiciary to unearth the truth and ensure justice, particularly in cases involving juveniles. Procedural and substantive laws should not obstruct the discovery of truth, especially in social welfare legislations like the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court reiterated that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of a case, and must be adjudicated upon in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court found that the appellant was indeed 14 years old at the time of the offense, as evidenced by school certificates and medical reports. The Court criticized the lower courts for ignoring crucial documents and failing to follow the procedural mandates of the Juvenile Justice Act. The appellant's incarceration for over 25 years was a grave injustice, and directed his immediate release, while maintaining his conviction. The Court also ordered the State Legal Services Authority to assist in his rehabilitation and reintegration into society. This judgment underscores the importance of the judiciary's role in ensuring justice for juveniles and the need for courts to actively seek the truth, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals. The Court's decision to allow the plea of juvenility even after final disposal of the case sets a significant precedent for future cases involving juvenile offenders. Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v State of Uttarakhand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 35
Modifying Murder Conviction - Whether Section 362 CrPC permits substantive modifications to a judgment, such as altering a conviction from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), or is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors. Held, Section 362 CrPC restricts courts to correcting only clerical or arithmetical errors in a signed judgment or final order. The Supreme Court disapproved the High Court's use of Section 362 CrPC to modify a criminal appeal judgment by converting a conviction under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and reducing the sentence. The Court, noting the clear language of the provision, held that such substantive changes to reasoning or conviction violate Section 362 CrPC. The High Court's order was set aside. (Para 19) Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 531 : AIR 2025 SC 2151 : 2025 INSC 544
Murder - Acquittal - Reversal by High Court - Deceased, married for two years, found dead with ligature mark on neck - Trial Court acquitted husband and in-laws, finding death to be suicide - High Court convicted husband under Section 302 IPC, citing failure to explain death under Section 106 and disbelief in alibi. Held, High Court erred in reversing acquittal without evidence of manifest illegality or perversity in Trial Court's findings - Medical evidence inconclusive on homicidal death - Prosecution failed to disprove husband's plausible alibi of being at work, supported by initial police intimation - Section 106 inapplicable absent prima facie evidence of guilt - No chain of circumstances established guilt unequivocally - Allegations under Sections 498A, 306 IPC unsubstantiated - Conviction set aside, Trial Court's acquittal restored - Appeal allowed. (Para 13 & 14) Jagdish Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 409 : 2025 INSC 460 : AIR 2025 SC 2423
Murder Convict – Claim of Juvenility - Supreme Court ordered release of the murder convict under the JJ Act, after finding he was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence in 1981 – Held, JJ Act is retrospective in operation, and applies to offences pre-dated the enforcement of the JJ Act - The plea of juvenility, which can be raised at any stage, is governed by Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000 - This section mandates that courts are under an obligation to consider the plea and grant appropriate relief if the convict was a juvenile on the date of the offence - The maximum period of detention for a juvenile under the JJ Act, 2000, is 3 years as per Section 15(1)(g) - Since the petitioner was a child at the time of the offence and had been behind bars for more than 3 years, his liberty was curtailed "not in accordance with procedure established by law." Breach of the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution is "writ large," thereby extending the benefit of release from detention - The Court considered the respondent's contentions regarding the heinous nature of the offence (murder) and the petitioner's act of absconding and evading arrest from 2009 to 2022. However, the Court granted relief, noting that the petitioner had "suffered incarceration for more than the period permissible in law - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand 2005 3 SCC 551; Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2010 5 SCC 344; Para 4, 5, 12-14] Hansraj v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 993 : 2025 INSC 1211
Murder - Reversal of Acquittal - The appellants were acquitted by the trial court in a murder case. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellants, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appellants challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the reversal of acquittal into conviction was in violation of the statutory bar under Section 401(3) CrPC, which prohibits the conversion of an acquittal into a conviction in revisional jurisdiction. Additionally, the appellants contended that they were not given an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice and their constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellants in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC, despite the statutory bar under Section 401(3) CrPC ? Whether the High Court violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the appellants an opportunity to be heard before reversing the acquittal ? Whether the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which grants victims the right to appeal against acquittals, is retrospective in operation and applicable to the case ? Whether the appellants are entitled to compensation for unlawful detention and violation of their fundamental rights? Held, the High Court committed a grave error in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellants in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Section 401(3) CrPC expressly prohibits the conversion of an acquittal into a conviction in revisional proceedings. The High Court's action was in direct violation of this statutory bar. The Court further held that the High Court violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the appellants an opportunity to be heard before reversing the acquittal. The appellants' constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) were infringed, as they were not given a fair chance to defend themselves. The proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which grants victims the right to appeal against acquittals, is not retrospective in operation. Since the revision petition was filed in 2006, before the proviso was introduced in 2009, the victim had no statutory right to appeal at the time. The Court awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to each of the appellants for the unlawful detention and violation of their fundamental rights. The State Government was directed to pay the compensation within four weeks. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and acquitted the appellants. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limitations on revisional jurisdiction and upholding the principles of natural justice. The State Government was held responsible for the violation of the appellants' rights and was ordered to pay compensation. Section 401(3) CrPC prohibits the High Court from converting an acquittal into a conviction in revisional jurisdiction. Natural Justice requires that the accused be given an opportunity to be heard before any adverse order is passed. Proviso to Section 372 CrPC is not retrospective and does not apply to cases filed before its introduction in 2009. Compensation can be awarded for unlawful detention and violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the State Government was directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to each appellant within four weeks. Mahabir v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 121 : 2025 INSC 120
Penal Code, 1860, Sections 147, 149, 302, 304 Part II, 323, 325, 452 – Incident of 1989 – Accused assaulted multiple persons, including deceased, over a dispute – Trial Court convicted under Section 302/149 IPC with life imprisonment – High Court converted conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, reduced sentence to time served (76 days) with fine, citing advanced age of accused (70–80 years) and 28-year delay –Medical evidence inconclusive on cause of death (asphyxia, 15 days post-assault) – No intent to murder established – Long lapse of time and age of accused justified leniency –Appeal dismissed. (Para 13 & 14) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : 2025 INSC 377 : AIR 2025 SC 1818 : (2025) 4 SCC 616
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302, 498 and 306 r/w. 34 - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - Murder - Acquittal - Reversal by High Court - Deceased, married for two years, found dead with ligature mark on neck - Trial Court acquitted husband and in-laws, finding death to be suicide - High Court convicted husband under Section 302 IPC, citing failure to explain death under Section 106 and disbelief in alibi. Held, High Court erred in reversing acquittal without evidence of manifest illegality or perversity in Trial Court's findings - Medical evidence inconclusive on homicidal death - Prosecution failed to disprove husband's plausible alibi of being at work, supported by initial police intimation - Section 106 inapplicable absent prima facie evidence of guilt - No chain of circumstances established guilt unequivocally -Allegations under Sections 498A, 306 IPC unsubstantiated - Conviction set aside, Trial Court's acquittal restored - Appeal allowed. (Para 13 & 14) Jagdish Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 409 : AIR 2025 SC 2423 : 2025 INSC 460
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - Plea of Alibi - Last Seen Theory - Prosecution must disprove accused's plea of alibi before convicting based on 'last seen' theory. Mere fact that the husband and wife were last seen together in their shared home does not, by itself, justify convicting the husband for the alleged murder if he raises a plea of alibi and the prosecution fails to effectively disprove it. The High Court wrongly placed the burden on the accused to prove his alibi, despite his early claim of absence in an intimation to the police and the police's failure to investigate the same. While a husband's failure to explain his wife's death in their shared home can be a strong incriminating circumstance, it cannot alone establish guilt, especially when he has raised a plausible plea of alibi offering an explanation about his absence at the place of incident. (Para 13 & 14) Jagdish Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 409 : AIR 2025 SC 2423 : 2025 INSC 460
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder - Extra-Judicial Confession - Circumstantial Evidence - Credibility - Extra-judicial confessions are inherently weak evidence and require rigorous scrutiny. They must be voluntary, truthful, and inspire confidence. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. Extra-judicial confessions require corroboration by other evidence. (Para 16 – 19 & 24) Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : 2025 INSC 147 : AIR 2025 SC 961 : 2025 Cri LJ 1471
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder - Extra-Judicial Confession - Circumstantial Evidence - Credibility - Extra-judicial confessions are inherently weak evidence and require rigorous scrutiny. They must be voluntary, truthful, and inspire confidence. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. Extra-judicial confessions require corroboration by other evidence. (Para 16 – 19 & 24) Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : 2025 INSC 147 : AIR 2025 SC 961 : 2025 Cri LJ 1471 : (2025) 3 SCC 565
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder - Extra judicial confession - Held, the High Court erred in relying on the extra-judicial confession made to the Village Police Patil even while rightly holding that the same was admissible in evidence as Village Police Patil cannot be said to be a Police Officer. The Court emphasized the need for clear and unambiguous evidence of the confession, which was lacking in this case. Further, the Court found the evidence regarding the discovery of the alleged murder weapon, an iron rod, to be insufficient, as the panch witnesses turned hostile and the Investigating Officer's testimony did not adequately prove the contents of the discovery panchnama. While acknowledging the circumstantial nature of the case and the principle that the accused, especially in domestic murder cases, should offer an explanation, the Court stressed that the initial burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. The prosecution must establish foundational facts before invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof to the accused. In this case, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish these foundational facts, rendering the reliance on Section 106 improper. The Court reiterated the importance of evaluating extra-judicial confessions with great care and caution, especially when surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the prosecution's case rested on weak and unreliable evidence, insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : 2025 INSC 93 : (2025) 4 SCC 275
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder - Extra judicial confession - Held, the High Court erred in relying on the extra-judicial confession made to the Village Police Patil even while rightly holding that the same was admissible in evidence as Village Police Patil cannot be said to be a Police Officer. The Court emphasized the need for clear and unambiguous evidence of the confession, which was lacking in this case. Further, the Court found the evidence regarding the discovery of the alleged murder weapon, an iron rod, to be insufficient, as the panch witnesses turned hostile and the Investigating Officer's testimony did not adequately prove the contents of the discovery panchnama. While acknowledging the circumstantial nature of the case and the principle that the accused, especially in domestic murder cases, should offer an explanation, the Court stressed that the initial burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. The prosecution must establish foundational facts before invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof to the accused. In this case, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish these foundational facts, rendering the reliance on Section 106 improper. The Court reiterated the importance of evaluating extra-judicial confessions with great care and caution, especially when surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the prosecution's case rested on weak and unreliable evidence, insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : 2025 INSC 93 : (2025) 4 SCC 275
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder - Reversal of Acquittal - The appellants were acquitted by the trial court in a murder case. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellants, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appellants challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the reversal of acquittal into conviction was in violation of the statutory bar under Section 401(3) CrPC, which prohibits the conversion of an acquittal into a conviction in revisional jurisdiction. Additionally, the appellants contended that they were not given an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice and their constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellants in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC, despite the statutory bar under Section 401(3) CrPC ? Whether the High Court violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the appellants an opportunity to be heard before reversing the acquittal ? Whether the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which grants victims the right to appeal against acquittals, is retrospective in operation and applicable to the case ? Whether the appellants are entitled to compensation for unlawful detention and violation of their fundamental rights? Held, the High Court committed a grave error in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellants in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Section 401(3) CrPC expressly prohibits the conversion of an acquittal into a conviction in revisional proceedings. The High Court's action was in direct violation of this statutory bar. The Court further held that the High Court violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the appellants an opportunity to be heard before reversing the acquittal. The appellants' constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) were infringed, as they were not given a fair chance to defend themselves. The proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which grants victims the right to appeal against acquittals, is not retrospective in operation. Since the revision petition was filed in 2006, before the proviso was introduced in 2009, the victim had no statutory right to appeal at the time. The Court awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to each of the appellants for the unlawful detention and violation of their fundamental rights. The State Government was directed to pay the compensation within four weeks. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and acquitted the appellants. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limitations on revisional jurisdiction and upholding the principles of natural justice. The State Government was held responsible for the violation of the appellants' rights and was ordered to pay compensation. Section 401(3) CrPC prohibits the High Court from converting an acquittal into a conviction in revisional jurisdiction. Natural Justice requires that the accused be given an opportunity to be heard before any adverse order is passed. Proviso to Section 372 CrPC is not retrospective and does not apply to cases filed before its introduction in 2009. Compensation can be awarded for unlawful detention and violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the State Government was directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to each appellant within four weeks. Mahabir v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 121 : 2025 INSC 120
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder - Reversal of Acquittal - The appellants were acquitted by the trial court in a murder case. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellants, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appellants challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the reversal of acquittal into conviction was in violation of the statutory bar under Section 401(3) CrPC, which prohibits the conversion of an acquittal into a conviction in revisional jurisdiction. Additionally, the appellants contended that they were not given an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice and their constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellants in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC, despite the statutory bar under Section 401(3) CrPC ? Whether the High Court violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the appellants an opportunity to be heard before reversing the acquittal ? Whether the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which grants victims the right to appeal against acquittals, is retrospective in operation and applicable to the case ? Whether the appellants are entitled to compensation for unlawful detention and violation of their fundamental rights? Held, the High Court committed a grave error in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellants in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Section 401(3) CrPC expressly prohibits the conversion of an acquittal into a conviction in revisional proceedings. The High Court's action was in direct violation of this statutory bar. The Court further held that the High Court violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the appellants an opportunity to be heard before reversing the acquittal. The appellants' constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) were infringed, as they were not given a fair chance to defend themselves. The proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which grants victims the right to appeal against acquittals, is not retrospective in operation. Since the revision petition was filed in 2006, before the proviso was introduced in 2009, the victim had no statutory right to appeal at the time. The Court awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to each of the appellants for the unlawful detention and violation of their fundamental rights. The State Government was directed to pay the compensation within four weeks. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and acquitted the appellants. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limitations on revisional jurisdiction and upholding the principles of natural justice. The State Government was held responsible for the violation of the appellants' rights and was ordered to pay compensation. Section 401(3) CrPC prohibits the High Court from converting an acquittal into a conviction in revisional jurisdiction. Natural Justice requires that the accused be given an opportunity to be heard before any adverse order is passed. Proviso to Section 372 CrPC is not retrospective and does not apply to cases filed before its introduction in 2009. Compensation can be awarded for unlawful detention and violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the State Government was directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to each appellant within four weeks. Mahabir v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 121 : 2025 INSC 120
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 – Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - In cases involving circumstantial evidence, it is crucial to ensure that the facts leading to the conclusion of guilt are fully established and that all the established facts point irrefutably towards the accused person's guilt. The chain of incriminating circumstances must be conclusive and should exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. (Para 14) Thammaraya v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 157 : 2025 INSC 108 : (2025) 3 SCC 590
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 - Murder - Conviction and Appeal - The Court reiterated the principle that concurrent findings of fact by two courts should not be interfered with unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice or manifest illegality. The recovery of weapons (axe and iron pipe) and the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case, even though some witnesses turned hostile. While the Court upheld the appellants' involvement in the assault, it found that the intent to kill was not conclusively established. The death resulted from cumulative injuries, and the appellants did not have a clear motive or premeditation. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and sentenced the appellants to the time already served, with a fine imposed for the benefit of the deceased's family. Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 50 : 2025 INSC 47 : 2025 Cri.L.J. 3148 : (2025) 3 SCC 378
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 – Murder - Test Identification Parade (TIP) - Material omission on part of the Investigating Officer in not conducting a TIP of the recovered articles, more particularly when the case of prosecution is based solely upon recoveries of these articles, has created holes in the fabric of the prosecution story, which are impossible to mend. Every piece of relevant fact needs to be sewn via the golden thread of duly proved circumstances, in order to ultimately formulate the fabric of guilt. (Para 24 & 25) Thammaraya v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 157 : 2025 INSC 108 : (2025) 3 SCC 590
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - The accused was convicted of murdering his livein partner. The conviction was primarily based on extra-judicial confessions to witnesses. The accused's mental state was questioned, and there was a lack of corroborating physical evidence. Material omissions were noted in witness statements. Therefore, the conviction was overturned. (Para 25) Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : 2025 INSC 147 : AIR 2025 SC 961 : 2025 Cri LJ 1471
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - The accused was convicted of murdering his live-in partner. The conviction was primarily based on extra-judicial confessions to witnesses. The accused's mental state was questioned, and there was a lack of corroborating physical evidence. Material omissions were noted in witness statements. Therefore, the conviction was overturned. (Para 25) Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : 2025 INSC 147 : AIR 2025 SC 961 : 2025 Cri LJ 1471 : (2025) 3 SCC 565
Penal Code, 1860; Section 304 Part I and 201 - The appellant, along with friends, encountered the deceased in an inebriated condition beneath a bridge. An altercation ensued, during which the appellant struck the deceased with a cement brick, causing fatal head injuries. The appellant subsequently set the deceased's body on fire to destroy evidence. Both Trial Court and High Court held the appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, citing grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment for Section 304 Part I and 2 years for Section 201 IPC. Held, the Court examined the applicability of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, which requires the provocation to be both grave and sudden, depriving the accused of self-control. The Court noted that the incident was not premeditated and occurred in the heat of the moment, with the appellant using a nearby cement brick, not a weapon. However, the Court found that the provocation (a slap and verbal abuse) was not sufficiently grave to fully justify the reduction of the crime from murder to culpable homicide. While upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (4 years), considering the appellant's time served and the circumstances of the case. Appeal partly allowed; conviction upheld but sentence reduced to time already served. Vijay @ Vijayakumar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 94 : 2025 INSC 90
Penal Code, 1860; Section 304 Part II - Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder - Accidental Death due to Electrocution - Absence of Intention or Knowledge - Appeal against rejection of discharge applications - Where two employees, engaged in decorating a shop, died due to electrocution and a fall from a height while working on a signboard using an iron ladder, and the appellants, who were the contractor and store operation manager, were charged under Section 304 Part II IPC for not providing safety equipment, held, no prima facie case of culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC was made out. There was no intention to cause death or knowledge that the act would likely cause death. The absence of intention and knowledge, crucial ingredients of Section 304 Part II IPC, warranted the discharge of the appellants under Section 227 CrPC. At the stage of discharge, the focus is on whether there are sufficient grounds to initiate a criminal trial, not on a threadbare analysis of evidence. Consequently, the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court rejecting the discharge applications were set aside, and the appellants were discharged. (Para 16 - 18) Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 304 : AIR 2025 SC 1515 : 2025 INSC 338
Penal Code, 1860; Section 307 - Attempt to Murder - Quashing Based on Settlement - The mere inclusion of Section 307 IPC in an FIR or charge-sheet does not bar the High Court from quashing criminal proceedings based on a settlement between parties, provided the allegations do not substantiate the offence. Factors such as the nature of the offence, severity of injuries, conduct of the accused, and societal impact are crucial in deciding whether a non-compoundable offence can be quashed on compromise. In this case, the invocation of Section 307 IPC was unjustified due to vague allegations, minor injuries, and the death of the primary accused, with the offence, at most, aligning with Section 326 IPC. Given the settlement, the nature of the injuries, and minimal societal harm, the Court quashed the proceedings, deeming further trial futile and an abuse of process. The appeal was allowed, and the criminal proceedings were quashed. (Para 9 -12) Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 190 : 2025 INSC 182 : AIR 2025 SC 1035 : (2025) 4 SCC 78
Penal Code, 1860; Sections 84 & 302 - Murder - Plea of Insanity - Absence of Motive - The Supreme Court reduced the conviction of a mother, who killed her daughters (aged 3 and 5), from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, imposing a maximum sentence of 10 years. The appellant's claim of acting under an "invisible influence," coupled with her behavior—shouting during the act, crying afterward, and not fleeing—suggested an impaired mental state, possibly temporary insanity. Although the insanity defense under Section 84 IPC was not fully accepted due to insufficient medical evidence, the absence of motive in such a grave offense supported the plea, raising doubts about mens rea. Noting the appellant had served 9 years and 10 months, the Court ordered her release. Trial courts were directed to proactively seek truth under Section 165 of the Evidence Act in cases involving bizarre, inexplicable acts or claims of mental instability, especially when temporary unsoundness of mind is suggested. Courts must consider that rural, less-educated individuals may not articulate mental disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) precisely, and such pleas should not be dismissed summarily. Lack of motive and erratic behavior may cast reasonable doubt on intent, warranting careful evaluation to ensure justice in grave offenses. (Para 33, 36, 39, 50, 58, 64) Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 497 : 2025 INSC 577 : AIR 2025 SC 2370
Penal Code, 1860; Sections 84 & 302 - Murder - Plea of Insanity - Absence of Motive - The Supreme Court reduced the conviction of a mother, who killed her daughters (aged 3 and 5), from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, imposing a maximum sentence of 10 years. The appellant's claim of acting under an "invisible influence," coupled with her behavior—shouting during the act, crying afterward, and not fleeing— suggested an impaired mental state, possibly temporary insanity. Although the insanity defense under Section 84 IPC was not fully accepted due to insufficient medical evidence, the absence of motive in such a grave offense supported the plea, raising doubts about mens rea. Noting the appellant had served 9 years and 10 months, the Court ordered her release. Trial courts were directed to proactively seek truth under Section 165 of the Evidence Act in cases involving bizarre, inexplicable acts or claims of mental instability, especially when temporary unsoundness of mind is suggested. Courts must consider that rural, less-educated individuals may not articulate mental disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) precisely, and such pleas should not be dismissed summarily. Lack of motive and erratic behavior may cast reasonable doubt on intent, warranting careful evaluation to ensure justice in grave offenses. (Para 33, 36, 39, 50, 58, 64) Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 497 : 2025 INSC 577 : AIR 2025 SC 2370
Penal Code, Section 363, 376(2), 302 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3 - Rape and Murder of a Three-Year-Old Girl - The prosecution's case, relying on an alleged extra-judicial confession and last seen evidence, was found deficient. The extra-judicial confession, based on the accused's statement of being “tensed up,” lacked corroboration and was omitted from the witness's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, rendering it unreliable. Witness testimonies on last seen circumstances were inconsistent, delayed, and tainted by ulterior motives and trial-stage improvements. Gross negligence by Investigating Officers, including delayed recording of witness statements despite early identification in the spot panchnama and withholding of critical FSL reports comparing samples from other suspects, warranted an adverse inference. The prosecution's evidence, based on conjectures, failed to meet the burden of proof. Emphasizing the weak nature of extra-judicial confessions and the need for robust investigations in heinous crimes, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitting the accused after nearly 12 years of incarceration, including 6 years under a death sentence. (Paras 59, 60, 75 & 76) Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 596 : AIR 2025 SC 3186 : 2025 Cri.L.J. 3027 : 2025 INSC 702
Plea of Alibi - Last Seen Theory - Prosecution must disprove accused's plea of alibi before convicting based on 'last seen' theory. Mere fact that the husband and wife were last seen together in their shared home does not, by itself, justify convicting the husband for the alleged murder if he raises a plea of alibi and the prosecution fails to effectively disprove it. The High Court wrongly placed the burden on the accused to prove his alibi, despite his early claim of absence in an intimation to the police and the police's failure to investigate the same. While a husband's failure to explain his wife's death in their shared home can be a strong incriminating circumstance, it cannot alone establish guilt, especially when he has raised a plausible plea of alibi offering an explanation about his absence at the place of incident. (Para 13 & 14) Jagdish Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 409 : 2025 INSC 460 : AIR 2025 SC 2423
Section 106 IEA - Held, the accused's failure to explain the circumstances of his wife's death, which occurred within their home with only their daughter present, was a significant factor. The Supreme Court overturned the acquittal of a man accused of murdering his wife, relying heavily on the credible testimony of their seven-year-old daughter. (Para 59) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 243 : 2025 INSC 261 : (2025) 8 SCC 545
Section 299, 300 and 307 IPC - Causation and proximate cause in homicide - Is offence of murder made out when death occurs days after fatal injury - Supreme Court reaffirmed that, to establish culpability for murder under Sections 299 and 300 IPC, death must be a direct consequence of the injuries inflicted, even if delayed by complications such as septicemia or pneumonia - Mere lapse of time or intervening medical conditions do not disrupt the casual chain unless they constitute an independent supervening cause removing the connection between injury and death - Held that the adequacy or efficiency of medical treatment offered to the victim is wholly irrelevant in determining criminal liability under Section 302 IPC, as per explanation 2 to Section 299 IPC - If the injuries are dangerous in nature, the penetrator is responsible for ensuing fatal complications, regardless of potential recovery through optimal medical care - Delay in death due to medical complications or protracted treatment does not diminish the offender's liability from murder to culpable homicide - Conviction under Section 307 IPC requires proof of intention or knowledge as defined under Section 300 IPC - Even if the injuries are not fatal, intention inferred from weapon used, body part targeted and persistent assault is decisive - High Court erred in downgrading the conviction from murder to attempt to murder solely based on the prolonged survival of victim and alleged lack of proper treatment - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 25-27, 30, 31, 40-49, 57, 59-61, 66, 67] Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 905 : 2025 INSC 1107
Section 299, 300 and 307 IPC - Supreme Court laid down following propositions to be followed by the Courts while dealing with cases where there was a delay in death resulting from an injury- i. If injury was fatal and intended to cause death, it is murder under Section 300 (1st part), even if death occurred later due to complications; ii. If injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course, it is murder under Section 300 (3rd part), despite delayed death; iii. If injuries were imminent dangerous to life, it is murder under Section 300 (4th limb), regardless of medical treatment or complications; iv. If complications flow from injury, the accused remains liable for death; v. if complication was remote, it may be culpable homicide, if inevitable, it is murder under Section 302; vi. Even if no single injury was sufficient, courts can infer intent to kill if injuries collectively were fatal; vii. Courts must see of injuries were naturally sufficient to cause death, intervening causes don't reduce liability unless too remote. [Para 69] Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 905 : 2025 INSC 1107
Section 301 IPC - Doctrine of Transfer of Malice (Transmigration of Motive) - Applicability - Section 301 IPC embodies the doctrine of transfer of malice, whereby if A intends to kill B but kills C (unintended victim) in the course of an act likely to cause death, the intent to kill is attributed to A. Even absent premeditated intent toward deceased, culpability under Section 302 follows unless Exception 4 mitigates to culpable homicide not amounting to murder in sudden fight scenarios. [Para 37, 42] Ashok Saxena v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 163 : 2025 INSC 148
Section 302, 304 Part I IPC - Right of private defence – Held, the right of private defence is a valuable right that serves a social purpose and should not be narrowly construed - it cannot be weighed in a 'golden scale' or with 'arithmetical precision' - a Court must view the situation from the perspective of a common and reasonable person, not with 'detached objectivity' or a 'hyper technical approach' - when an individual is faced with an imminent threat, such as being shot by an assailant, it is unreasonable to expect them to apply a 'rational mind in exercising his right of private defence' - the right of private defence can be exercised when there is a reasonable apprehension of an offence and it is not necessary for the offence to be actually committed- the force used should not be disproportionate, but a person in 'imminent and reasonable danger' of death or grievous injury cam inflict harm, even extending to death, on their assailant - Since the deceased was the initial aggressor and attacked the appellant with a pistol, the appellant's retaliation was a justified act of private defence - Appeal allowed. [Paras 6 - 8] Rakesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 892
Section 302/34 & Section 460 – Murder and House trespass – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 11 – Credibility of Eyewitness – Omission in FIR – Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant, holding that the omission of the accused's name in the FIR, despite the informant having received a detailed account from the sole eyewitness immediately after the incident, is a material lacuna that goes to the root of the matter - Supreme Court observed that the eyewitness (PW-2) provided minute details of the assault to the informant (PW-1) but omitted the name of the accused, who was her own brother-in-law and well-known to her - The subsequent explanation that she was "unwell" or that the accused's "mask fell off" during the incident was viewed as a "subsequently cooked up" story and a "clear manipulation" to implicate the appellant due to prior enmity - Held that if the eyewitness had actually identified the accused by name in her initial statement, there was no justification for conducting a TIP - The conduct of a TIP for a known person indicates that the witness could not identify the assailants at the time of the incident - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC 1026; Paras 41-48] Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1182 : 2025 INSC 1399
Section 302 and 376 IPC - Circumstantial Evidence - Principles explained - The Court found that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of incriminating circumstances, including the recovery of the victim's body from the accused's bathroom, forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime, and the presence of the accused's DNA on the victim's clothing. The Court upheld the conviction for the heinous crime of sexual assault and murder of a minor but noted deficiencies in the lower courts' evaluation of the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the death sentence awarded to the accused was rendered moot due to his demise. Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 61
Section 302 IPC - Accused sentenced to death for the alleged murder of six family members, including his four children and brother. Held, the prosecution failed to establish key incriminating circumstances, including motive, last-seen evidence, and reliable recovery of evidence, as the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report did not link the recovered weapons to the crime. The investigation was conducted negligently, with failures to examine independent witnesses near the crime scene and to ensure the safekeeping of recovered articles. The prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence and testimonies of interested witnesses, which were insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and allowed the appeal. (Paras 34, 36) Gambhir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 175 : 2025 INSC 164
Section 302 IPC - Brutal murder of wife and four minor daughters - Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment - Circumstantial Evidence - Mitigating Factors - Held, even in cases involving multiple murders, no death sentence could be imposed if the convicts display a reform potential supported by other mitigating factors such as age, lack of criminal antecedents, income, etc. The Court found the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's presence at the scene with a blood-stained axe, recovery of weapons, and postmortem reports, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. While confirming the conviction, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant's natural life. The case, though heinous, did not fall under the "rarest of rare" category warranting the death penalty, considering mitigating factors such as the appellant's lack of criminal antecedents, satisfactory conduct in prison, and potential for reformation. The prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's presence at the crime scene, recovery of incriminating weapons, and medical evidence corroborating the cause of death. The appellant's failure to provide a plausible explanation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act further strengthened the prosecution's case. Reports from the jail superintendent and probation officer indicated the possibility of reformation, leading the Court to opt for life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Deen Dayal Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 124
Section 302 IPC - Murder - Benefit of Doubt - Reliability of Witnesses - Appellant convicted by trial court and High Court under Section 302 IPC for stabbing deceased during an altercation - Held, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Eyewitness testimonies unreliable due to inconsistencies, absence of bloodstains on witnesses' clothes despite carrying bleeding deceased, failure to report incident to nearby police, and delayed recording of statements - Prior enmity between appellant and deceased raised possibility of false implication - Conviction unsustainable; appellant entitled to benefit of doubt – Judgments of trial court and High Court set aside - Appeal allowed. (Para 21 & 22) Aslam @ Imran v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 365 : 2025 INSC 403
Section 302 IPC - Murder - death sentence - Circumstantial Evidence - Eye-witness testimony – Recovery – Motive - Plea of Alibi - standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt - Allegation of murder of 4 persons upon appellant - High Court upheld order passed by Trial Court convicting accused and awarding death sentence citing 'rarest of rare cases' – Held that there are deficiencies in investigation including evidentiary value of recoveries (blood stained clothes, gandasi and bicycle) made two months after the incident without independent witnesses - Prosecution was also unable to establish motive and disprove the plea of alibi - That the standard of proof in criminal cases is an “absolutely strict one” and held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt- that in order to record conviction based on ocular evidence, testimonies have to be completely credible and trustworthy - there are different versions of same set of events which are being told by these witnesses at different points of time, which are not considered by Trial Court and High Court – Held - contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies are major ones and carve a gaping hole in prosecution story. Order of High Court set aside and appellant was acquitted. Appeals allowed. [Paras 3, 26, 31, 36, 42-44] Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 711 : 2025 INSC 856
Section 302 IPC - Murder - Extra-Judicial Confession - Circumstantial Evidence - Credibility - Extra-judicial confessions are inherently weak evidence and require rigorous scrutiny. They must be voluntary, truthful, and inspire confidence. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. Extra-judicial confessions require corroboration by other evidence. (Para 16 – 19 & 24) Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : 2025 INSC 147 : AIR 2025 SC 961 : 2025 Cri LJ 1471 : (2025) 3 SCC 565
Section 302 IPC - Murder - Extra-Judicial Confession - Credibility and Voluntariness - The credibility of the witnesses testifying to the confession is crucial. Confessions made in a doubtful mental state lack voluntariness and reliability. (Para 19) Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : 2025 INSC 147 : AIR 2025 SC 961 : 2025 Cri LJ 1471 : (2025) 3 SCC 565
Section 302 IPC - Murder - Extra judicial confession - Held, the High Court erred in relying on the extra-judicial confession made to the Village Police Patil even while rightly holding that the same was admissible in evidence as Village Police Patil cannot be said to be a Police Officer. The Court emphasized the need for clear and unambiguous evidence of the confession, which was lacking in this case. Further, the Court found the evidence regarding the discovery of the alleged murder weapon, an iron rod, to be insufficient, as the panch witnesses turned hostile and the Investigating Officer's testimony did not adequately prove the contents of the discovery panchnama. While acknowledging the circumstantial nature of the case and the principle that the accused, especially in domestic murder cases, should offer an explanation, the Court stressed that the initial burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. The prosecution must establish foundational facts before invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof to the accused. In this case, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish these foundational facts, rendering the reliance on Section 106 improper. The Court reiterated the importance of evaluating extra-judicial confessions with great care and caution, especially when surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the prosecution's case rested on weak and unreliable evidence, insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : 2025 INSC 93 : (2025) 4 SCC 275
Section 302 IPC - Murder - Material Omissions and Contradictions - Significant omissions in statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that contradict courtroom testimony, undermine credibility. Such omissions can be considered contradictions under the explanation to section 162 of the Cr.P.C. (Para 21 & 22) Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : 2025 INSC 147 : AIR 2025 SC 961 : 2025 Cri LJ 1471 : (2025) 3 SCC 565
Section 302 IPC - Murder - Motive - Circumstantial Evidence - Absence of motive is not a ground for acquittal in cases supported by strong circumstantial evidence establishing the accused's guilt beyond doubt. When circumstantial evidence forms an unbroken chain pointing solely to the accused's guilt, the lack of motive is inconsequential. Motive, while a significant link in circumstantial evidence cases, loses relevance when direct evidence or convincing eyewitness testimony exists. However, a strong motive alone cannot sustain a conviction without corroborative evidence. Upholding the conviction of a father for murdering his son, the Court found that gunshot residue on the accused's hand, his exclusive custody of the firearm, and false claims of suicide constituted compelling circumstantial evidence, despite no established motive. The Trial Court's life imprisonment sentence, affirmed by the High Court, was upheld. (Paras 6, 19, 20, 24 & 25) Subhash Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 443 : 2025 INSC 499 : (2025) 8 SCC 440
Section 302 IPC - Murder - Right of private defence - The appellant did not have a reasonable apprehension of imminent danger to justify the use of lethal force in self-defence or defence of property. The appellant's actions exceeded the necessary force required for private defence, as he continued to assault the deceased even after inflicting fatal injuries. The case did not fall under Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC, as the appellant's actions were not in good faith and were disproportionate to the threat faced. The case also did not fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, as the appellant used a deadly weapon against an unarmed deceased, indicating cruelty and undue advantage. The Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the conviction. Ratheeshkumar @ Babu v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 74
Section 302 IPC - Murder - Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for credible evidence. Convictions must be based on evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Para 24) Evidence Law - Benefit of Doubt - If the evidence is weak and lacks credibility, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Para 24 & 25) Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : 2025 INSC 147 : AIR 2025 SC 961 : 2025 Cri LJ 1471 : (2025) 3 SCC 565
Section 302 IPC - Murder - The accused was convicted of murdering his live-in partner. The conviction was primarily based on extra-judicial confessions to witnesses. The accused's mental state was questioned, and there was a lack of corroborating physical evidence. Material omissions were noted in witness statements. Therefore, the conviction was overturned. (Para 25) Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : 2025 INSC 147 : AIR 2025 SC 961 : 2025 Cri LJ 1471 : (2025) 3 SCC 565
Section 302 IPC - The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by the Trial Court and the High Court for the murder of his two minor children. The murders were committed allegedly as a result of familial discord over the appellant's sister-in-law's relationship with a co-worker, which the appellant disapproved of. The appellant was also separately convicted for the murders of his sister-in-law and mother-in-law. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution relied on witness testimonies, SMS messages, and call records to establish the appellant's guilt. Whether the prosecution proved the homicidal death of the children beyond reasonable doubt? Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt? Whether the death sentence was appropriate, or should it be commuted to life imprisonment without remission? Held, the Court reiterated the principles governing the imposition of the death penalty, emphasizing that it should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases. While the circumstantial evidence in this case was strong, the absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating factors warranted commutation of the death sentence. The judgment also highlighted the importance of considering all mitigating circumstances, including the possibility of reformation, before imposing the death penalty. The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC for the murders of his children. However, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of remission, considering the following mitigating factors: (i) The appellant had no prior criminal antecedents. (ii) He had good relations with his family, as testified by prosecution witnesses. (iii) The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, and while the evidence was unimpeachable, the Court found that the death penalty was not the only appropriate punishment. The gravity of the crime, involving the murder of innocent children, was undeniable. However, the Trial Court had not adequately considered all mitigating circumstances, including the appellant's lack of criminal history and his behavior during the trial. The appeals were partly allowed. The conviction was upheld, but the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment without the possibility of remission. The appellant will remain in prison for the remainder of his natural life. (Para 16 & 17) Ramesh A. Naika v. Registrar General, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 281 : 2025 INSC 303
Section 302 IPC - Trial Court failed to follow the proper procedure for contradicting prosecution witnesses with their Section 161 CrPC statements. The portions of a witness's prior statement used for contradiction must be formally proved through the investigating officer and marked as evidence by the trial judge. Merely reproducing contradicted portions in brackets without proof is erroneous. Such portions should be marked (e.g., AA, BB) and cannot form part of the deposition unless duly proved. Consequently, the impugned judgments were quashed, and the appellant was acquitted. (Para 11) Vinod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 203 : 2025 INSC 209 : AIR 2025 SC 943 : 2025 Cri LJ 1268 : (2025) 3 SCC 680
Section 302 - Murder - Last Seen Theory - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Held, the "last seen" theory alone is insufficient for conviction absent corroborative evidence. The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances conclusively proving the appellant's guilt. The time gap between the last sighting and the deceased's death was not established, and no evidence showed the appellant's exclusive opportunity to commit the crime. The blood-stained stone near the body lacked forensic linkage to the deceased and was not recovered at the appellant's instance. The alleged motive of infidelity was unsubstantiated, given the absence of animosity between the appellant and the deceased, his cousin. The Court reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the "last seen" evidence is weak without corroboration. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. (Paras 20 - 23) Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 613 : 2025 INSC 751
Section 302 - Murder – Recovery of Weapon - Mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon matching the victim's blood group does not suffice to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC without a complete chain of circumstantial evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal of the respondent, noting the prosecution's failure to provide conclusive evidence, including vague evidence of motive and reliance on an inconclusive FSL report. The Court reiterated that interference with an acquittal is justified only when the evidence unequivocally establishes the accused's guilt and excludes all possibilities of innocence. Appeal dismissed. [Para 6 - 9] State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 691
Section 302 r/w. 149 IPC – Murder - Identification of Accused – Eyewitness Testimony – Dock identification mandatory when accused previously known – Failure Fatal to Prosecution Case – Where eyewitnesses to a murder were already acquainted with the accused prior to the incident, their failure to physically identify the accused in the dock during trial, despite naming them in depositions, renders the testimony insufficient to establish the identity of the perpetrators beyond reasonable doubt. Mere naming in examination-in-chief without corresponding in-court identification by ascribing specific roles (e.g., wielding particular weapons or holding the victim) fails to link the accused in the dock to the crime, violating essential principles of evidence under CrPC. Material omissions in police statements under S. 161 CrPC, when proved as contradictions via S. 162 CrPC, further erode witness credibility. Relying solely on such defective ocular evidence, without corroboration, cannot sustain convictions under Ss. 302 r/w 149 IPC for murder and unlawful assembly. Convictions of nine accused by Trial Court and High Court set aside; appeals allowed and accused acquitted, as prosecution failed to prove identity and guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 21 - 23) Tukesh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 566 : 2025 INSC 683
Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC - Disclosure statements and subsequent recoveries - The Investigating Officer failed to provide the exact words of the accused, neglected to exhibit the statements or recovery memorandums, and did not establish a clear connection between the accused and the recovered articles. Procedural irregularities, such as the absence of sealing or test identification, further weaken the evidentiary value of the recoveries. (Para 20 & 21) Thammaraya v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 157 : 2025 INSC 108 : (2025) 3 SCC 590
Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - In cases involving circumstantial evidence, it is crucial to ensure that the facts leading to the conclusion of guilt are fully established and that all the established facts point irrefutably towards the accused person's guilt. The chain of incriminating circumstances must be conclusive and should exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. (Para 14) Thammaraya v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 157 : 2025 INSC 108 : (2025) 3 SCC 590
Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC - Murder - Conviction and Appeal - The Court reiterated the principle that concurrent findings of fact by two courts should not be interfered with unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice or manifest illegality. The recovery of weapons (axe and iron pipe) and the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case, even though some witnesses turned hostile. While the Court upheld the appellants' involvement in the assault, it found that the intent to kill was not conclusively established. The death resulted from cumulative injuries, and the appellants did not have a clear motive or premeditation. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and sentenced the appellants to the time already served, with a fine imposed for the benefit of the deceased's family. Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 50 : 2025 INSC 47 : 2025 Cri.L.J. 3148 : (2025) 3 SCC 378
Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC - Murder - Reversal of Acquittal - Reliability of Related Witnesses - Medical Evidence - The prosecution alleged that the accused attacked the deceased with sticks, causing fatal head injuries. The Trial Court acquitted all accused, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative medical evidence. Held, being a relative does not automatically render a witness unreliable, and their testimonies were consistent on material facts. The Court found that the post-mortem report, which documented fatal head injuries caused by blunt objects, corroborated the eyewitness accounts. The absence of multiple head injuries did not negate the possibility of multiple blows, as forensic limitations could explain such discrepancies. The Trial Court erred by focusing excessively on minor inconsistencies and ignoring the overall credibility of the evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment and holding that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not undermine their credibility, and medical evidence should be viewed as corroborative rather than determinative. Baban Shankar Daphal v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 103
Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC - Murder - Test Identification Parade (TIP) - Material omission on part of the Investigating Officer in not conducting a TIP of the recovered articles, more particularly when the case of prosecution is based solely upon recoveries of these articles, has created holes in the fabric of the prosecution story, which are impossible to mend. Every piece of relevant fact needs to be sewn via the golden thread of duly proved circumstances, in order to ultimately formulate the fabric of guilt. (Para 24 & 25) Thammaraya v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 157 : 2025 INSC 108 : (2025) 3 SCC 590
Section 304 Part I and 201 IPC - The appellant, along with friends, encountered the deceased in an inebriated condition beneath a bridge. An altercation ensued, during which the appellant struck the deceased with a cement brick, causing fatal head injuries. The appellant subsequently set the deceased's body on fire to destroy evidence. Both Trial Court and High Court held the appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, citing grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment for Section 304 Part I and 2 years for Section 201 IPC. Held, the Court examined the applicability of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, which requires the provocation to be both grave and sudden, depriving the accused of self-control. The Court noted that the incident was not premeditated and occurred in the heat of the moment, with the appellant using a nearby cement brick, not a weapon. However, the Court found that the provocation (a slap and verbal abuse) was not sufficiently grave to fully justify the reduction of the crime from murder to culpable homicide. While upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (4 years), considering the appellant's time served and the circumstances of the case. Appeal partly allowed; conviction upheld but sentence reduced to time already served. Vijay @ Vijayakumar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 94 : 2025 INSC 90 : (2025) 3 SCC 671
Section 307 IPC - Attempt to Murder - Quashing Based on Settlement - The mere inclusion of Section 307 IPC in an FIR or charge-sheet does not bar the High Court from quashing criminal proceedings based on a settlement between parties, provided the allegations do not substantiate the offence. Factors such as the nature of the offence, severity of injuries, conduct of the accused, and societal impact are crucial in deciding whether a non-compoundable offence can be quashed on compromise. In this case, the invocation of Section 307 IPC was unjustified due to vague allegations, minor injuries, and the death of the primary accused, with the offence, at most, aligning with Section 326 IPC. Given the settlement, the nature of the injuries, and minimal societal harm, the Court quashed the proceedings, deeming further trial futile and an abuse of process. The appeal was allowed, and the criminal proceedings were quashed. (Para 9 -12) Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 190 : 2025 INSC 182 : AIR 2025 SC 1035 : (2025) 4 SCC 78
Sections 106, 118 IEA - Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302, 201, and 34 - The case involved a man accused of murdering his wife and secretly cremating her body. The Trial Court convicted him under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the IPC, but the High Court acquitted him, questioning the reliability of his seven-year-old daughter's testimony due to an 18-day delay in recording. The Supreme Court, finding no evidence of tutoring and noting the testimony's consistency and corroboration by circumstantial evidence, set aside the acquittal and restored the conviction. The State's appeal was allowed, reaffirming that a credible child witness's testimony does not require corroboration to sustain a conviction. (Para 59) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 243 : 2025 INSC 261 : (2025) 8 SCC 545
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 304 Part II, 307 IPC - Unlawful Assembly - Murder and Attempt to Murder - Interference with Concurrent Findings (Article 136 of the Constitution of India) - The Supreme Court reiterated that it generally exercises caution in interfering with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoring material evidence, or where the conclusions are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record - Noted that present case did not meet this threshold - Supreme Court noted that there was - i. delay in FIR and non-recovery of weapon not fatal, where there is consistent medical evidence and ocular evidence; ii. Testimonies of injured eye witness holds presumption of truth; iii. Intention to cause death can be gathered from various factors like attacking with lathis, spades, phawadas etc - Held that appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, formed an unlawful assembly, and some were armed with sharp-edged deadly weapons, committing the murder of the deceased and attempting to murder the injured witness - The conviction and sentence were upheld - Appeals dismissed. [Relied on Ekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Shahaja alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 2023 12 SCC 558; State of H.P. Vs. Gian Chand 2001 6 SCC 71; Jarnail Singh & Ors. v State of Punjab 2009 9 SCC 719; Paras 24, 25, 33-39, 42, 43, 46-48, 49, 50]. Om Pal v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1037 : 2025 INSC 1262
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 IPC – Unlawful Assembly – Vicarious Liability – Reversal of Acquittal by High Court – Scope of Appellate Interference – Held, interference with an acquittal order must be exercised with caution, but it is justified if the Trial Court's findings are manifestly perverse, unreasonable, or contrary to the evidence on record – The Trial Court's acquittal suffered from a fundamental misappreciation of evidence, specifically by overlooking the consistent testimony of injured eyewitnesses and failing to appreciate the legal effect of the appellants' active participation in an unlawful assembly. The High Court's reversal was based on a proper appraisal of the record and was well-reasoned - The nature of the weapons used, the ferocity and precision of the attack, and the joint execution unmistakably demonstrated that the common object extended to the commission of murder - Upheld order of High Court - Appeals dismissed. [Relied on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202; Paras 29-30, 41-44] Haribhau @ Bhausaheb Dinkar Kharuse v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1043 : 2025 INSC 1266
Sections 147, 149, 302, 304 Part II, 323, 325, 452 IPC – Incident of 1989 – Accused assaulted multiple persons, including deceased, over a dispute – Trial Court convicted under Section 302/149 IPC with life imprisonment – High Court converted conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, reduced sentence to time served (76 days) with fine, citing advanced age of accused (70–80 years) and 28-year delay –Medical evidence inconclusive on cause of death (asphyxia, 15 days post-assault) – No intent to murder established – Long lapse of time and age of accused justified leniency –Appeal dismissed. (Para 13 & 14) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : 2025 INSC 377 : AIR 2025 SC 1818 : (2025) 4 SCC 616
Sections 301, 300 (Exception 4), 302, and 304 Part-I IPC - Accused trespassed into informant's house with knife intending to assault informant but killed informant's wife who intervened - Trial Court acquitted accused; High Court convicted under Section 302 - Held, doctrine under Section 301 applicable, attributing intention to kill deceased to accused despite lack of specific intent toward her - Conviction modified to Section 304 Part-I applying Exception 4 to Section 300 (sudden fight without premeditation) - Sentence reduced to period already undergone considering incident date (1992) and accused's advanced age - Appeal allowed in part. (Para 37, 42) Ashok Saxena v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 163 : 2025 INSC 148
Sections 302, 201 - Murder - Causing Disappearance of Evidence - Post-crime conduct (e.g., hiding evidence) alone insufficient to sustain murder conviction without clear proof of actus reus. Hiding the body and cleaning the crime scene, though punishable under Section 201 IPC, does not infer guilt for murder without corroborative evidence. Forensic evidence suggested a possible accidental self-inflicted shot, and the prosecution could not prove who fired the weapon. Absence of motive, while not decisive, was significant in this circumstantial evidence case. Convictions under Section 302 IPC, Section 34 IPC, and Section 5 read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, were set aside. Conviction under Section 201 IPC was upheld, with the sentence reduced to the period already served. (Para 21, 25 & 26) Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 680 : 2025 INSC 800 : (2025) 8 SCC 315
Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149 IPC - The petitioners, initially named in the FIR but exonerated by the Investigating Officer in a closure report, were summoned based on the testimony of the original informant during the trial. The Court reiterated that under Section 319 CrPC, a Trial Court can summon individuals not initially charge-sheeted if strong and cogent evidence emerges during the trial. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly, based on evidence stronger than a prima facie case but not requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The closure report, though not considered by the Trial Court, was deemed irrelevant once the Court invoked Section 319. The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioners to raise all legal defenses, including reliance on the closure report, before the Trial Court. Omi @ Omkar Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 24 : 2025 INSC 27 : 2025 Cri.L.J. 956 : (2025) 2 SCC 621
Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 of IPC — Liability of members of unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC — Common object — Proof by eyewitnesses — Role of injured witnesses — Appreciation of evidence — Distinction between innocent bystander and member of unlawful assembly — Principle of constructive liability —Standard for conviction — Supreme Court examined the principles related to the common object of an unlawful assembly and the scope of constructive liability under Section 149 IPC- Held that- i. Section 149 IPC makes every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed by any member thereof in furtherance of the common object of the assembly if such offence was likely to be committed. The assembly must have five or more persons, and the common object must be proved from conduct and circumstances; (ii) Mere presence at the scene does not render a person a member of such assembly. The prosecution must show that the accused shared the common object. The test for distinguishing an innocent bystander from a member focuses on time, place, conduct, collective behaviour, motive, and manner of occurrence; (iii) Eyewitnesses' oral testimony, particularly of injured witnesses who suffer from injuries inflicted by the accused, holds great evidentiary value and deserves careful appreciation, unless compelling reasons exist to discard it; (iv) Evidence involving large assemblies requires careful scrutiny; the Court should separate the guilty from innocent spectators by relying on consistent identification from at least two witnesses and material evidence to avoid wrongful conviction; (v) Delay in forwarding the FIR or registration does not per se vitiate it if there is no material contradiction affecting the case; (vi) Convictions under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC were sustained against those positively identified as having shared the common object and who committed overt acts in furtherance thereof; others acquitted on benefit of doubt as passive onlookers. [Relied on: Musa Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 1 SCC 733; Ranvir Singh Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 14 SCC 41; Paras 34-37, 45, 46, 48, 49, 53, 54, 57-66, 44, 73-75] Zainul v. State of Bihar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 979 : 2025 INSC 1192
Sections 302, 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 r/w. 397 and 201 IPC - The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by the Trial Court for the murder, rape, and other offences. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, CCTV footage, and an alleged extra-judicial confession. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, CCTV footage, and extra-judicial confession, was sufficient to convict the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the failure to produce a Section 65-B certificate for the CCTV footage rendered it inadmissible. Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, satisfying the principles of circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. Held, the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The CCTV footage, which was a crucial piece of evidence, was rendered inadmissible due to the prosecution's failure to produce a Section 65-B certificate, as mandated by the Indian Evidence Act. The Court emphasized that in cases involving the death penalty, strict adherence to procedural requirements is essential. The evidence of witnesses who claimed to have last seen the appellant with the deceased was found unreliable due to delays in recording their statements, contradictions in their testimonies, and the possibility of prior exposure to the appellant's photograph in the media. The time gap between when the accused and deceased were last seen together and the discovery of the deceased's body must be sufficiently small to rule out the possibility of any other person being involved. The alleged extra-judicial confession made to PW-9 was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and the fact that PW-9 had a prior quarrel with the appellant, casting doubt on his credibility. The recoveries of the trolley bag and other items were not convincingly linked to the appellant, and the prosecution failed to explain why the appellant would retain the deceased's college ID card for over two months. The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing solely to the guilt of the appellant. The evidence presented was insufficient to meet the stringent standards required for a conviction, especially in a death penalty case. The Court reiterated the caution required in cases based on circumstantial evidence, as outlined in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, and emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted. Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 119 : 2025 INSC 116 : AIR 2025 SC 1103 : (2025) 7 SCC 401
Sections 302, 376(2)(G) and 201 IPC - Circumstantial Evidence — Extra-Judicial Confession — Last Seen Theory- Case based on Circumstantial Evidence- Held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish that the circumstances point conclusively toward the guilt of the accused alone, excluding any other hypothesis, including the possibility of innocence or third-party involvement - The chain of evidence must be so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the accused's innocence - Explained Principle of Two Views - Held where a perusal of the evidence in a circumstantial case allows for two views, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1033 : 2025 INSC 317
Sections 302 and 307 - The Supreme Court set aside the life sentence imposed on the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC due to deficiencies in the prosecution's case, including suppression of material evidence and lack of a fair investigation. The prosecution failed to disclose affidavits from three eyewitnesses (PW-5 to PW-7) submitted during bail proceedings, which denied the appellants' involvement. No further investigation was conducted regarding these affidavits, rendering the conviction unsafe, especially as it relied solely on PW-4's testimony. The failure to recover the weapons of offence, coupled with the prosecution's omission to investigate the affidavits, was deemed a critical lapse undermining the case's foundation. (Para 23) Sakhawat v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 626 : 2025 INSC 777
Sections 302 IPC - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) - Section 6 r/w 5(m), 8 r/w 7 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 207, 366 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27- Constitutional Right to Fair Trial & Legal Aid - Violation of Articles 21 & 22(1) - CrPC Section 207 – Held that the trial was vitiated due to a denial of effective opportunity for defence - The mandatory requirement of providing copies of relied-upon documents under Section 207 CrPC was not complied with before charges were framed - The legal aid counsel was appointed only four days before the commencement of the prosecution evidence, giving insufficient time to prepare the matter and conduct effective cross-examination. [Relied on Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1637; Para 35, 38] Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 983 : 2025 INSC 1203
Sections 302 r/w. 149 IPC - Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Section 5 - The appellants challenged the FIR's timing, alleging it was ante-timed and contained interpolations. They argued that the prosecution's case was fabricated, with inconsistencies in witness testimonies and improper investigation. They contended that the recovery of weapons and the inquest report were flawed, and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The State defended the High Court's judgment, asserting that the evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and medical reports, sufficiently established the guilt of the convicted accused. Held, minor contradictions in witness testimonies do not render them unreliable. It upheld the principle that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) does not apply in Indian criminal jurisprudence. The Court found the testimonies of eyewitnesses credible and consistent, corroborated by medical evidence and weapon recovery. The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the investigation was flawed, stating that defective investigation alone cannot lead to acquittal if other evidence supports the prosecution's case. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was upheld. Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 25 : 2025 INSC 28 : AIR 2025 SC 444 : (2025) 3 SCC 273
Sections 498A, 302 and 504 r/w. 34 IPC - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Sections 3 and 4 - Husband acquitted in dowry-related murder case due to lack of overt act proving common intention under S.34, despite presence at the crime scene where his mother set his wife ablaze. (Para 92) Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 218 : 2025 INSC 221
Sections 84 & 302 IPC - Murder - Plea of Insanity - Absence of Motive - The Supreme Court reduced the conviction of a mother, who killed her daughters (aged 3 and 5), from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, imposing a maximum sentence of 10 years. The appellant's claim of acting under an "invisible influence," coupled with her behavior—shouting during the act, crying afterward, and not fleeing— suggested an impaired mental state, possibly temporary insanity. Although the insanity defense under Section 84 IPC was not fully accepted due to insufficient medical evidence, the absence of motive in such a grave offense supported the plea, raising doubts about mens rea. Noting the appellant had served 9 years and 10 months, the Court ordered her release. Trial courts were directed to proactively seek truth under Section 165 of the Evidence Act in cases involving bizarre, inexplicable acts or claims of mental instability, especially when temporary unsoundness of mind is suggested. Courts must consider that rural, less-educated individuals may not articulate mental disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) precisely, and such pleas should not be dismissed summarily. Lack of motive and erratic behavior may cast reasonable doubt on intent, warranting careful evaluation to ensure justice in grave offenses. (Para 33, 36, 39, 50, 58, 64) Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 497 : 2025 INSC 577 : AIR 2025 SC 2370
Sections 96 to 106 and Section 300 IPC - Murder - Right of private defence - The right of private defence under Sections 96 to 106 IPC is subject to the restrictions in Section 99, which prohibits the use of excessive force. Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC applies only if the accused acts in good faith, without premeditation, and without intending to cause more harm than necessary. Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies to acts committed in the heat of passion without premeditation, provided there is no undue advantage or cruelty. The burden of proving self-defence lies on the accused, but it can be discharged by establishing a preponderance of probabilities. Ratheeshkumar @ Babu v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 74
Sections 96 to 106 and Section 302 IPC - Murder - Right of private defence - Private defence must be strictly preventive and not punitive or retributive. Causing death can only be justified when the accused is faced with a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The impending danger must be present, real or apparent. Ratheeshkumar @ Babu v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 74
Transfer of Investigation to CBI – Protection of Eyewitness – Bail Considerations - Supreme Court transfers investigation into alleged custodial torture and murder of 25-year-old to CBI, finding deliberate cover-up by the Police; no arrests despite FIR registered 8 months ago; omission of murder charge; prevention of initial FIR; and influenced post-mortem. Directs arrest of accused police officials within 1 month and completion of probe within 90 days thereof. Applies nemo judex in causa sua; holds local police shielding own officers. Grants liberty to sole eyewitness (co-accused) to seek bail before High Court; directs State authorities to ensure his safety under witness protection scheme; observes deliberate implication in multiple cases to break his spirit and prevent testimony. Criticizes medical board's failure to opine on cause of death despite multiple injuries; rejects police claim of heart attack. Strongly deplores systemic custodial violence and State's inaction. (Para 28 - 33) Hansura Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 569 : 2025 INSC 711