Indian Penal Code, 1860
Repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still governs matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides, which is why the judgments below apply it.
3956 Supreme Court judgments considering this law. Search within these.
-
Ram Singh v. The State of U.P.
As per PW-1-informant (son of the deceased), on the fateful evening when he and his brother were sitting in the open space in front of the entrance door of his house, his mother was sitting close by on a cot and some neighbours…
-
Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of Karnataka By Police Inspector Hubli
Whether the extra judicial confession of the appellant-accused was admissible, credible and sufficient for his conviction thereon for the murder of his brother-PW-1’s son; whether the testimony of PW-1 could be termed as reliable…
-
N. Manogar & Anr. v. The Inspector of Police & Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the trial court whereunder, the trial court rejected the application filed by the complainant u/s. 216/319 CrPC seeking the summoning of, and the…
-
Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
The trial Court acquitted appellants-accused nos.3, 4 and 5 for the commission of murder of one ‘M’. However, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and held the appellants guilty of the commission of murder. Whether the…
-
Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the order passed by the Special Judge, rejecting the application filed u/s. 439 CrPC by the appellant seeking regular bail in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities…
-
State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors
High Court, if justified in acquitting the main accused and the co-accused of the charges u/s. 302/34 IPC.
-
Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
The High Court, if justified in refusing to quash the docket order which re-initiated criminal proceedings against the appellants for offences u/s. 420, 498A, 506 IPC and u/s. 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
-
Bhaggi @ Bhagirath @ Naran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
The capital punishment awarded to the petitioner-convict for the conviction u/s. 376 AB, IPC was not confirmed and it was commuted to imprisonment for life, which, going by the provisions thereunder, means imprisonment for the…
-
Abdul Jabbar v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Matter pertains to conviction of the appellant for offences punishable u/s. 323/34 IPC and imposition of three months imprisonment, as also conviction u/s. 325/34 IPC and imposition of one year imprisonment with Rs 500/- fine…
-
Dattatraya v. The State of Maharashtra
Whether the courts below were justified in convicting the appellant u/ss. 302 and 316 IPC and sentencing to undergo life imprisonment and 10 years of R.I. respectively along with fine, for causing death of his wife as also the…
-
Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for quashing of the FIR registered u/ss. 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against the vendee for the criminal acts, misuse of power of attorney-PoA, misappropriation of…
-
Sachin Garg v. State of U.P. and Anr.
In a case wherein the dispute was commercial in nature having no element of criminality, whether the Magistrate was justified in issuing summons for trial u/ss.406, 504 and 506, Penal Code, 1860 and the High Court in dismissing…
-
Shatrughna Atmaram Patil & Ors. v. Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary & Anr.
One R (owner) sold premises in dispute to five persons. Thereafter, R committed suicide and left behind a suicide note, naming the tenants, who were in possession of premises in question, as abettors. On the strength of the same,…
-
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr.
Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the statutory right conferred under the proviso to s.167(2), Cr.P.C, on the ground that the investigation qua some of the accused named in the FIR was pending, though the…
-
Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr.
The crux of respondent No. 2’s allegations is that the appellants purportedly forged his signature on the passport application submitted to obtain the minor child’s passport. Whether the actions of the appellants prima facie…
-
Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Interpretation of s.17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 incorporated by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 and its applicability to the facts of the present case.
-
State of Haryana v. Mohd. Yunus & Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in convicting A1 only u/s. 323 while acquitting u/s. 302/34, and convicting and sentencing A2 u/s. 302 and 323 read with s. 34; and whether in trial u/s. 302 IPC, it is safe to convict on the…
-
Dinesh Gupta v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Despite the commercial nature of the dispute involved, criminal complaint was filed and an FIR was registered against the appellants. Whether, the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the FIR and the summoning order.
-
Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Others
Writ petition filed u/Art. 32 by one of the victims challenging the order of State of Gujarat granting remission and early release of 11 convicts held guilty in Bilkis Bano matter, if maintainable; writ petitions filed as Public…
-
Velthepu Srinivas and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) and Anr.
The courts below, if justified in convicting the four accused u/ss. 302/34 IPC and imposing sentence for life for committing murder of the victim.
-
Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana
In a case based only on circumstantial evidence, conviction of the appellant u/s.302 read with s.34, Penal Code, 1860 for murder and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life, if justified.
-
Gurdev Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab & Ors
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Special Judge allowing the application u/s. 319 CrPC summoning the appellant along with three other officials of the…
-
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab
Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt, the entire chain of circumstances, not leaving any link missing for the appellant to escape from the clutches of law.
-
Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
Accused not formally arrested at the time of giving information if can be deemed to be in the ‘custody’ of the police, admissibility of evidence in terms of s.27, Evidence Act, 1872. Conviction and sentence of the appellant…
-
Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh
Conviction and sentence of the appellants, inter alia, for offence u/s.364-A, Penal Code, 1860, if justified.
- Rajaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors
- T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala
- The State of Rajasthan v. Gurbachan Singh & Others
- Lakhan Singh v. Amarjeet Singh & Anr
- V. P. Singh Etc v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
- Istkar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
- Gireesan Nair & Ors. Etc. v. State of Kerala
- P. Ponnusamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu
- Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.
- Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel v. State of U.P.
- S. Kaleeswaran v. State by the Inspector of Police Pollachi Town East Police Station, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu
- The State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai
- Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia & Ors
- Md. Jabbar Ali & Ors. v. The State of Assam
- Gurmail Singh & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.