Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: June 08, 2026 To June 14, 2026

JudgmentsConsensual Premarital Physical Relationship Cannot By Itself Reflect Poor Character : Supreme Court Allows Police AppointmentCase Title: Gajula Thirupathi v. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board & OrsCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 606The Supreme Court has directed the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to appoint a candidate whose selection as a police constable was cancelled due to his involvement in a criminal case arising from a failed romantic relationship, holding that a consensual premarital relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be treated as a reflection of poor moral character.A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan allowed the appeal filed by Gajula Thirupathi and restored a Telangana High Court single judge's order directing reconsideration of his appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC).The appellant had been provisionally selected for appointment as a police constable. However, his candidature was cancelled after the Recruitment Board found that he had earlier been involved in a criminal case registered under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The case stemmed from allegations by a woman, who was his neighbour, that he had maintained a relationship with her for several years on a promise of marriage but later married another woman. The criminal case was eventually compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015.S.27 Evidence Act | Panch Witness Turning Hostile Not Fatal If Recovery Proved By Other Evidence: Supreme CourtCause Title: UPERNDRA KHARE VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 607The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction, noting that mere turning hostile of the panch witness would not be fatal to the prosecution's case to create doubt over the recovery evidence based on the accused's disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act when the recovery evidence was proved otherwise by other corroborative evidence.A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale affirmed the concurrent findings of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Sessions Court, which had convicted the Appellant for an offence of murder, after finding that the alleged recovery based on the disclosure statements of the accused was sufficiently proved by the Investigating officer's testimony alone, despite the panch witnesses turning hostile.“Though an attempt is made by the learned counsel for the appellant to submit before this Court that the recovery at the instance of the present appellant is not proved because the panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama turned hostile. We are unable to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the simple reason that this Court had consistently taken a view that merely on account of the panch witnesses turning hostile cannot be a ground to discard this important piece of evidence, if the recovery is proved through the investigating officer.”, the court observed.Civil & Criminal Remedies Can Be Invoked For Same Cause, But There Shouldn't Be Inordinate Time Gap Between Them: Supreme CourtCause Title: NAZIBUL RAHIM KHAN & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 608The Supreme Court held that an unreasonable and inordinate delay in registering the FIR, after institution of a civil suit on the same set of facts/circumstances, can justify the quashing of the criminal proceedings.“…it is important to indicate that it is no longer res integra that upon the same cause of action and based on the same set of facts/circumstances, both civil and criminal proceedings can be maintainable. However, if the aggrieved person wishes to invoke civil as also criminal remedies, there should not be an unreasonable or inordinate gap between instituting the two.”, observed a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan, while quashing a criminal proceeding registered by the Respondent No.2 against the Appellant, after 23 years of the filing of the civil suit.The Court was not persuaded by the Respondent No.2-complainant's submission that there exists no limitation period for initiating criminal proceedings. The Court questioned that when the complainant instituted the civil suit in 2001 disputing the role of the Appellant in the power of attorney to execute the sale deed of her land, then what precluded her from not registering the FIR immediately within few days of the institution of the civil suit, and why did she waited for 23 years to register the FIR only in 2024, on the same set of facts/allegations, on which the civil suit was instituted.Supreme Court Summarises Law On Approver's Testimony, Says Corroboration Not Mandatory For Accomplice's EvidenceCause Title: GOPI CHAND @ PAPPU VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI)Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 609The Supreme Court observed that even where an accomplice's testimony is not independently corroborated on material particulars, it may still form the basis ...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: June 08, 2026 To June 14, 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: June 08, 2026 To June 14, 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers