Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal law

RAJU @ NIRPENDRA SINGH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Documentary and dental evidence established that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the offences; therefore consent was irrelevant and the acts constituted statutory gang-rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. The prosecutrix's testimony was reliable and unimpeached, delay in lodging FIR was explained by her captivity, and medical remarks about being "accustomed to sexual intercourse" or absence of injuries did not negate lack of consent. Consequently the convictions and sentences under Sections 366 and 376(2)(g) IPC were upheld.

Source excerpt

  • Gang rape
  • Kidnapping from lawful guardianship
  • Rape with minor
  • Delay in fir
  • Effect of delay in rape cases
  • Accustomed to sexual intercourse
Read case analysis
Criminal law

VIJAYA SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

On a holistic appraisal the proved circumstances formed a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the appellants: contemporaneous statements under Section 164 CrPC (properly recorded and not discarded), consistent eye-witness/material testimony about harassment and events before death, medical opinion that 100% burns were unlikely in self-infliction, fresh injuries on the accused, and evidence of scene alteration together excluded the hypothesis of suicide; therefore the High Court and Trial Court rightly convicted the appellants and the criminal appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Circumstantial evidence
  • Section 164 crpc statements
  • Section 302 ipc
  • Section 201 ipc
  • Delay in fir
  • Expert opinion in forensic evidence
Read case analysis
Criminal law

H. D. SUNDARA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

The High Court's conviction was set aside because it reversed the trial court's acquittal without re-appreciating evidence, recording findings on eyewitness testimony, considering whether the trial court's view was a possible view, or specifying individual roles and the applicability of Section 149 IPC; the trial court's detailed analysis produced possible conclusions which the Appellate Court could not overturn, therefore the appeal was allowed and the High Court judgment set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Appeal against acquittal
  • Re-appreciation of evidence on appeal
  • Section 378 cr.p.c.
  • Sections 304 part i, 324 and 149 ipc
  • Delay in fir
  • Demeanour of witnesses
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

JITENDRA NATH MISHRA versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR

On the facts the FIR and depositions of the complainant and his wife referred to assault by Dharmendra, his brother and an unknown person; the Special Court legitimately formed the requisite satisfaction under Section 319, CrPC to summon the appellant to face trial along with Dharmendra and the High Court correctly affirmed that order; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Section 319 crpc
  • Summoning unarraigned persons to face trial
  • Standard of satisfaction for exercising s.319
  • Delay in fir
  • Evidentiary contradictions
Read case analysis
Criminal law

RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

The courts below correctly found PW-1 to be a credible, consistent and reliable solitary eyewitness; the presence of the accused at the scene was not disputed; material parts of hostile witnesses corroborated PW-1; delays and the drafting of complaint by an advocate did not establish prejudice or vitiate the prosecution case; where number and presence of accused are not disputed, a solitary reliable eyewitness can sustain convictions including vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC; hence convictions and concurrent sentences were upheld.

Source excerpt

  • Murder
  • Credibility of eyewitnesses
  • Hostile witness
  • Section 302 ipc
  • Section 149 ipc
  • Delay in fir
Read case analysis
Criminal law

JABIR & ORS versus THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

The convictions were set aside because the prosecution’s case rested solely on ‘last seen’ evidence from witnesses whose testimonies contained serious inconsistencies and improbabilities, the panchsheel requirements for circumstantial evidence were not satisfied, the time gap between the last-seen sightings and probable time of death was not narrow, and there was prejudicial delay in lodging the FIR; consequently the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Source excerpt

  • Murder
  • Abduction
  • Destruction of evidence
  • Circumstantial evidence
  • Last seen doctrine
  • Inquest
Read case analysis
Criminal law

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus P.S. JAYAPRAKASH ETC. ETC.

The High Court's orders granting anticipatory bail were quashed because the High Court failed to consider the individual allegations, the role and position of each accused at the time of the original events and during investigation, and did not take note of the recommendations of the Committee constituted by this Court; the matters were remitted to the High Court to decide the anticipatory bail applications afresh in accordance with law.

Source excerpt

  • Anticipatory bail
  • Delay in fir
  • Court-directed enquiry
  • Committee recommendations
  • Remand to high court
Read case analysis
Criminal law

M. NAGESWARA REDDY versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the trial court because eyewitnesses and injured eyewitnesses consistently identified accused Nos.1-3 and there were no material contradictions; the seven-hour delay in filing the FIR and an interpolation in time were not fatal, the FIR was forwarded to the Magistrate within 24 hours, and accordingly the trial court's conviction and life sentences for accused Nos.1-3 under Sections 148 and 302 IPC were restored while acquittal of accused Nos.4-11 remained undisturbed.

Source excerpt

  • Acquittal
  • Conviction
  • Identification of accused
  • Delay in fir
  • Eye-witness testimony
  • Injured witness reliability
Read case analysis
Criminal law

PHOOL SINGH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

The Supreme Court affirmed conviction because the prosecutrix’s testimony was found to be credible, consistent and reliable; absence of medical injuries (examined after three days) and the three-day delay in FIR were adequately explained and did not undermine her testimony; the accused’s alibi was disbelieved for cogent reasons; and no special reasons existed to reduce the statutory minimum sentence under the proviso to Section 376 IPC.

Source excerpt

  • Rape
  • Prosecutrix testimony
  • Delay in fir
  • Alibi defense
  • Sentencing under section 376 ipc
Read case analysis
Criminal law

MAHESHWAR TIGGA versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Conviction set aside because the prosecution failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix beyond reasonable doubt given wide variation in evidence, the four-year delay in lodging the FIR undermined credibility, the record did not show that consent was obtained by fear or fraudulent misrepresentation of intent to marry, and the Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination was casual; therefore the sexual relations were held to be consensual and convictions under Sections 376, 323 and 341 IPC were unsustainable.

Source excerpt

  • Rape
  • Consent
  • Misconception of fact
  • Delay in fir
  • Assessment of age
  • Examination under section 313 cr.p.c.
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.