{"total":10,"count":10,"limit":25,"offset":0,"next":null,"act":"bns","section":"103","source":"eCourts India. Reported judgments only; the holding is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the order, reproduced unaltered. A judgment is listed against a section only where the order itself records that it applied that provision.","judgments":[{"cnr":"SCIN010125642009","order":"order-19.pdf","title":"Prakash Nayi @ Sen vs The State of Goa Home Department Secretary","court":"SC","court_name":"Supreme Court of India","date":"2023-01-12","citation":null,"precedential_value":"Binding (Supreme Court)","court_marking":"reportable","ratio_decidendi":"When an accused raises a plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the test to be applied is legal insanity, not medical insanity. Legal insanity requires incapacity to know the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law. The burden on the accused is to establish this on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The crucial point of time is the moment of commission of the offense. Evidence of conduct before, during, and after the offense, combined with medical evidence of mental disorder, is relevant in determining legal insanity. If credible medical evidence establishes mental disorder at the time of the offense, and the accused subsequently becomes fit to stand trial, this is indicative of prior insanity. The trial court and appellate court must apply a preponderance of probabilities standard and not reject the insanity defense merely because the nature of the act appears intentional or because some witnesses did not observe abnormality.","applied_to_this_section":"Provision for punishment of murder. The appellant was originally convicted under this section, which was set aside by the Supreme Court upon finding him legally insane at the time of the offense.","basis":"successor","decided_under":"ipc 302","url":"https://ecourtsindia.com/cnr/SCIN010125642009/order-19"},{"cnr":"SCIN010135602016","order":"order-23.pdf","title":"Hussain vs Union of India","court":"SC","court_name":"Supreme Court of India","date":"2017-03-09","citation":null,"precedential_value":"Binding (Supreme Court) - Landmark Constitutional Decision with Systemic Directi","court_marking":"reportable","ratio_decidendi":"Speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right cannot be denied due to lack of resources. When criminal trials or appeals remain pending for extended periods without fault of the accused, the accused is entitled to either expedited trial completion within specified timelines (6 months for magisterial trials and 2 years for sessions trials with accused in custody; 5 years for appeals) or bail. High Courts are constitutionally obligated to issue directions to subordinate courts ensuring these timelines are met, and to monitor compliance through appropriate action plans and judicial performance assessments. The State is required to augment judicial infrastructure, including appointing additional judges, establishing forensic laboratories, and digitizing case records, to fulfill this constitutional obligation. Undertrial prisoners who have undergone detention exceeding the likely sentence upon conviction must be released on personal bond. These are mandatory obligations, not discretionary matters.","applied_to_this_section":"Murder charge under which second appellant Aasu was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment; referenced as serious offence category","basis":"successor","decided_under":"ipc 302","url":"https://ecourtsindia.com/cnr/SCIN010135602016/order-23"},{"cnr":"SCIN010037312005","order":"order-36.pdf","title":"Sadhu Saran Singh vs State of U. P.","court":"SC","court_name":"Supreme Court of India","date":"2016-02-26","citation":null,"precedential_value":"Binding (Supreme Court)","court_marking":"reportable","ratio_decidendi":"An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate, and reconsider evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded. While a double presumption of innocence exists in favor of an acquitted person, the paramount consideration is substantial justice and avoiding miscarriage of justice from acquitting the guilty. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence, acquittal should not be disturbed. However, when the approach of the trial court in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence and deduction of conclusions, the appellate court must interfere. Ocular (eyewitness) evidence has greater evidentiary value than medical evidence unless the contradiction is so extreme that medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true. The non-examination of a kidnapped and intimidated witness cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. Evidence of eyewitnesses, though interested parties, is trustworthy when reliable and internally consistent. Minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony spanning long examination periods are immaterial when the core narrative remains consistent and corroborated.","applied_to_this_section":"Murder - applied for conviction of three murders committed in the violent attack; discussed whether death sentence should be awarded","basis":"successor","decided_under":"ipc 302","url":"https://ecourtsindia.com/cnr/SCIN010037312005/order-36"},{"cnr":"SCIN010081002011","order":"order-6.pdf","title":"Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs State of M. P","court":"SC","court_name":"Supreme Court of India","date":"2012-09-13","citation":null,"precedential_value":"Binding (Supreme Court)","court_marking":"reportable","ratio_decidendi":"When a claim of juvenility is raised before any court, the court must conduct a simplified inquiry under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, following a strict hierarchical order of evidence: (1) Matriculation or equivalent certificates, (2) Date of birth certificate from school first attended (other than play school), (3) Birth certificate from corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat, or (4) Medical opinion only in the absence of the foregoing. Once any of the first three categories of documents is produced and not controverted, the court shall accept them as conclusive proof of age and pass a finding of juvenility if the age is below 18 years on the date of commission of the offence. The court shall not conduct investigative or trial-like inquiries, shall not require witnesses to be examined merely because they made entries in documents, shall not conduct medical tests unless the documents are found to be fabricated or manipulated, and shall complete the age determination within 30 days. A school admission register produced by the school principal is relevant and conclusive evidence of date of birth when consistently entered and not controverted, and courts shall not second-guess such entries by conducting fishing inquiries or requiring corroborating evidence such as horoscopes. The date relevant for determining juvenility is the date of commission of the alleged offence, and once established, the juvenile is entitled to all benefits under the Juvenile Justice Act regardless of when the claim is raised.","applied_to_this_section":"Applied to the offence for which the appellant was charged and convicted.","basis":"successor","decided_under":"ipc 302","url":"https://ecourtsindia.com/cnr/SCIN010081002011/order-6"},{"cnr":"SCIN010120252010","order":"order-4.pdf","title":"Subhash Krishnan vs State of Goa","court":"SC","court_name":"Supreme Court of India","date":"2012-08-17","citation":null,"precedential_value":"Binding (SC)","court_marking":"reportable","ratio_decidendi":"In criminal trials involving identification evidence, when multiple independent eyewitnesses positively identify the accused in court with specific reference to identifying features (such as distinctive clothing) and distinctive acts performed during the crime, and when such in-court identification is corroborated by: (a) participation in prior test identification parade conducted within reasonable time of occurrence (24 days) where accused did not challenge procedures; (b) recovery of vehicle and weapons linked to appellant; (c) credible evidence of previous acquaintance supporting enduring impress of identity; (d) consistent medical/forensic evidence; and (e) circumstances of arrest at scene with weapons, the absence of formal cross-examination of key witness (due to unavoidable circumstances) or initial non-mention in complaint does not vitiate the trial or conviction. The purpose of investigation is to set law in motion and collect evidence; if investigative procedures are thereafter followed lawfully and evidence collected is sufficiently corroborated, conviction can be upheld despite technical defects in initiation of investigation.","applied_to_this_section":"Murder - applied to convict appellant and co-accused for intentionally causing death of Shanu Komarpant through brutal assault resulting in 36 injuries","basis":"successor","decided_under":"ipc 302","url":"https://ecourtsindia.com/cnr/SCIN010120252010/order-4"},{"cnr":"SCIN010086712004","order":"order-5.pdf","title":"State of Karnataka vs Shantappa Madivalappa Galapuji","court":"SC","court_name":"Supreme Court of India","date":"2009-04-20","citation":"State Of Karnataka v. Shantappa Madivalappa Galapuji And Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 203 Of 2005, Supreme Court Of India, ","precedential_value":"Binding (SC) - Landmark Precedent On Child Witness Evidence","court_marking":"reportable","ratio_decidendi":"A child witness of tender age can testify in criminal proceedings if the child possesses the intellectual capacity to understand the questions put to the witness and to give rational answers thereto. The trial judge, after conducting preliminary examination to test the child's understanding, demeanor, and grasp of truth and its consequences, is the appropriate authority to determine competency. The evidence of a competent child witness cannot be rejected merely on the presumption that the child has been tutored because of staying with or being examined by an educated relative such as an advocate. If after careful scrutiny of child witness evidence, the court finds an impress of truth therein, the evidence can form the basis of conviction. When a High Court reviews a trial court's conviction, it must provide reasoned judgment indicating specific deficiencies in the trial court's assessment rather than setting aside the conviction abruptly without explanation.","applied_to_this_section":"Punishment for murder. Applied to conviction of accused for strangulation death of Annapurna.","basis":"successor","decided_under":"ipc 302","url":"https://ecourtsindia.com/cnr/SCIN010086712004/order-5"},{"cnr":"SCIN010248622022","order":"order-7.pdf","title":"Rajni vs State of Uttar Pradesh","court":"SC","court_name":"Supreme Court of India","date":"2025-05-23","citation":"2025 INSC 780","precedential_value":"Binding (SC)","court_marking":"reportable","ratio_decidendi":"When documentary evidence in the form of school certificate and birth certificate from municipal authority showing date of birth is available, the Juvenile Justice Board cannot order medical examination for age determination. The hierarchy prescribed under Section 94(2) of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 must be strictly followed: school/matriculation certificate first, then birth certificate from corporation/municipality/panchayat, and only in absence of these can medical examination be ordered. The date of birth mentioned in school certificate is determinative of age and cannot be ignored. Further, the Juvenile Justice Board has no power of review under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 to revisit its earlier acceptance of a date of birth in a previous proceeding. Additionally, when a juvenile accused of heinous offence has been on bail for more than three years without evidence of misuse, interference with bail order is not warranted unless there is evidence of misuse of liberty.","applied_to_this_section":"Murder charge against accused; classified as heinous offence","basis":"successor","decided_under":"ipc 302","url":"https://ecourtsindia.com/cnr/SCIN010248622022/order-7"},{"cnr":"HCBM040101242026","order":"order-3.pdf","title":"Anil S/o Shivshankar Rahule vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso. , Hudkeshwar, Nagpur","court":"HC","court_name":"HCHC","date":"2026-04-17","citation":null,"precedential_value":"Persuasive (Other HC)","court_marking":null,"ratio_decidendi":"When circumstantial recoveries under panchanama contain fatal and physically impossible contradictions, such as identical timing and witnesses at geographically distant locations, they cannot be prima facie relied upon to deny the liberty of bail to an accused.","applied_to_this_section":"Punishment for Murder; applied to evaluate the gravity of the offence charged.","basis":"cited","decided_under":null,"url":"https://ecourtsindia.com/cnr/HCBM040101242026/order-3"},{"cnr":"HCBM010020382026","order":"order-4.pdf","title":"Govind Ramnath Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra","court":"HC","court_name":"HCHC","date":"2026-03-04","citation":null,"precedential_value":"Persuasive (Other HC)","court_marking":null,"ratio_decidendi":"When co-accused against whom similar allegations are made have been released on bail and the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has undergone significant incarceration, the principle of parity applies.","applied_to_this_section":"Punishment for Murder.","basis":"cited","decided_under":null,"url":"https://ecourtsindia.com/cnr/HCBM010020382026/order-4"},{"cnr":"UPHC010029261987","order":"order-2.pdf","title":"Shiv Saran Singh vs State","court":"HC","court_name":"UPHC","date":"2025-10-09","citation":null,"precedential_value":"Persuasive (Other High Court)","court_marking":null,"ratio_decidendi":"A witness cannot be convicted under Section 350 Cr.P.C. for non-appearance before court without establishing that he failed to appear without just excuse, and the court must follow the summary trial procedure prescribed under Section 350 Cr.P.C., including providing proper notice and opportunity to show cause before passing a conviction order.","applied_to_this_section":"Murder charge in the original case (State vs. Ram Das) for which appellant was summoned as witness","basis":"successor","decided_under":"ipc 302","url":"https://ecourtsindia.com/cnr/UPHC010029261987/order-2"}]}