1. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh: Citation: (2014) 2 SCC 1 Subject: Registration of FIRs Provision considered: Section 154, CrPC
Case background
The proceedings arose from a complaint concerning the alleged kidnapping of a minor girl and police inaction. A Constitution Bench considered whether police must register an FIR immediately when information discloses a cognizable offence.
What the Supreme Court held
Registration of an FIR is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence. In that situation, police cannot first conduct an inquiry to decide whether the accusation is true. Where the information does not itself disclose a cognizable offence but indicates that an inquiry is necessary, a limited preliminary inquiry may determine whether such an offence is disclosed. The Court identified illustrative situations where a preliminary inquiry might be appropriate, including matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence and corruption complaints. These categories do not create a blanket exception to mandatory registration.
Practical
Police cannot refuse registration merely because they doubt a complaint that discloses a cognizable offence.
BNSS relevance: Section 173(3), BNSS expressly addresses preliminary inquiry for a specified category of offences, subject to conditions. Current advice must account for that statutory framework.
2. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar: Citation: (2014) 8 SCC 273 Subject: Safeguards against unnecessary arrest Provisions considered: Sections 41 and 41A, CrPC
Case background
The case arose from allegations of cruelty and dowry demands against a husband. It led the Court to examine routine arrests and the failure to assess whether custody was actually necessary.
What the Supreme Court held
An arrest must not follow automatically merely because an offence is cognizable and non-bailable. For offences within Section 41(1)(b), police must assess the statutory conditions for arrest, including whether it is necessary to prevent further offending, facilitate proper investigation, prevent interference with evidence or witnesses, or secure the accused’s presence. Police must record reasons, and magistrates must scrutinise the justification for detention rather than mechanically authorise it. The Court also emphasised compliance with the notice-of-appearance procedure.
Practical
The power to arrest does not dispense with the duty to justify arrest. The directions extend beyond matrimonial cases to the relevant category of offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.
3. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal: Citation: (1997) 1 SCC 416 Subject: Custodial violence and arrest safeguards Constitutional provisions: Articles 21 and 22
Case background
A letter drawing attention to custodial deaths was treated as a public interest proceeding. The Court examined safeguards needed to protect people during arrest and detention.
What the Supreme Court held
The Court prescribed safeguards including identification of arresting officers, preparation of an arrest memo, notification of a friend or relative, maintenance of custody records and medical examination. It also recognised that compensation in public law may be an appropriate remedy for an established violation of fundamental rights arising from custodial abuse.
Practical
An arrested person retains constitutional protection. Documentation, access to information and accountability in custody are essential safeguards against abuse.
4. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation: Citation: (2022) 10 SCC 51 Subject: Bail and unnecessary incarceration Provisions considered: CrPC provisions governing arrest, summons and bail
Case background
The proceedings addressed recurring difficulties faced by accused persons who had not been arrested during investigation but encountered demands to surrender and seek bail after the charge sheet was filed.
What the Supreme Court held
The Court emphasised personal liberty, compliance with arrest safeguards and timely consideration of bail applications. It organised guidance by categories of offences and circumstances.
It criticised unnecessary custody and stressed that investigation, appearance before court and consideration of bail should not operate on an assumption that every accused must first be jailed.
Practical
Filing a charge sheet does not by itself make custody necessary. The applicable offence category, conduct of the accused and statutory restrictions remain relevant; the judgment does not confer automatic bail in every case.
5. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra: Citation: (1984) 4 SCC 116 Subject: Conviction based on circumstantial evidence
Case background
The prosecution alleged that the accused had murdered his wife by poisoning her. The case depended on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court found the chain insufficient and acquitted him.
What the Supreme Court held
The Court set out five principles for cases resting on circumstantial evidence:
- The circumstances relied upon must be fully established.
- The established facts must be consistent only with the accused’s guilt.
- The circumstances must be conclusive in nature and tendency.
- They must exclude every hypothesis except guilt.
- The chain must be complete enough to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence.
Practical
Strong suspicion cannot replace proof. A conviction based solely on circumstances requires a complete chain establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh: Citation: (1973) 2 SCC 808 Subject: Presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt
Case background
The Court examined a murder conviction involving serious weaknesses in the prosecution evidence. It gave the accused the benefit of doubt and acquitted him.
What the Supreme Court held
The prosecution ordinarily bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence reasonably supports two views—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favourable to the accused should be adopted. The doubt must be reasonable and grounded in the evidence; imaginary or speculative doubts do not require acquittal.
Practical
Courts must decide whether guilt has been proved, rather than whether the accused appears suspicious. Statutory presumptions and reverse-burden provisions require separate consideration where applicable.
7. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: Citation: 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 Subject: Quashing criminal proceedings Provisions considered: Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482, CrPC
Case background
The litigation concerned a corruption-related FIR against Bhajan Lal and the High Court’s interference with the investigation. The Supreme Court examined when criminal proceedings may be quashed at an early stage.
What the Supreme Court held
The Court identified illustrative categories in which intervention may be justified. These include cases where:
- The allegations, accepted at face value, do not constitute an offence.
- The allegations are inherently absurd or improbable.
- An express legal bar prevents the proceedings.
- The proceedings are manifestly malicious and instituted for an ulterior purpose.
The categories are illustrative, not exhaustive. The power must be exercised sparingly and with caution.
Practical
Quashing can prevent abuse of the criminal process, but it is not ordinarily an occasion for the High Court to conduct a trial or resolve contested evidence.
8. Selvi v. State of Karnataka: Citation: (2010) 7 SCC 263 Subject: Involuntary scientific interrogation Constitutional provisions: Articles 20(3) and 21
Case background
The Court considered challenges to the involuntary administration of narcoanalysis, polygraph examinations and Brain Electrical Activation Profile tests during criminal investigations.
What the Supreme Court held
Compulsory administration of these techniques violates constitutional protections against compelled self-incrimination and unjustified interference with personal liberty. Voluntary administration requires safeguards. The test responses themselves do not become admissible merely because consent was given. The Court distinguished them from information or material subsequently discovered through voluntarily administered tests, whose admissibility must satisfy the governing law.
Practical
Investigative convenience does not override constitutional rights. Scientific interrogation techniques cannot be treated as a shortcut to legally admissible proof.
9. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal: Citation: (2020) 7 SCC 1 Subject: Admissibility of electronic evidence Provision considered: Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Case background
Although the dispute arose from election proceedings, the Court’s ruling on electronic evidence has major relevance to criminal trials involving recordings, messages, CCTV footage and other digital material.
What the Supreme Court held
For computer outputs governed by Section 65B, the prescribed certificate is ordinarily a condition of admissibility. The Court distinguished such outputs from an original electronic record properly produced and proved through the original device. It also explained that courts can assist in obtaining a certificate where it is held by a third party; timing and procedural fairness remain important.
Practical
Preserve the source device, identify how the record was produced and address certification early. Admissibility does not, by itself, establish authenticity or prove the allegation.
BSA relevance: Section 63, BSA now governs the corresponding certification framework for electronic records. Its text and prescribed certificate requirements must be consulted.
10. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab: Citation: (1980) 2 SCC 684 Subject: Death penalty and individualised sentencing Provisions considered: Section 302, IPC and Section 354(3), CrPC
Case background
A Constitution Bench considered the constitutional validity of the death penalty for murder and the framework for choosing between death and life imprisonment.
What the Supreme Court held
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of capital punishment while severely restricting its use. Life imprisonment is the rule and death is the exception. The death penalty is reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. Sentencing requires consideration of the circumstances of both the offence and the offender, including mitigating factors.
Practical
The seriousness of a crime alone does not complete the sentencing exercise. A death sentence requires an individualised assessment and legally sufficient special reasons.
11. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab: Citation: (1980) 2 SCC 565 Subject: Anticipatory bail Provision considered: Section 438, CrPC
Case background
The case arose from anticipatory bail applications connected with allegations of corruption against a former minister and others. A Constitution Bench considered the scope of the power to grant protection against arrest.
What the Supreme Court held
Anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy that protects personal liberty. Courts should exercise that discretion according to the facts rather than impose rigid restrictions absent from the statute. Relevant considerations include the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s circumstances, the possibility of fleeing justice and whether the accusation appears intended to humiliate or injure the applicant through arrest.
Practical
An anticipatory bail application requires an individual assessment. Neither the seriousness of an allegation nor an assertion of false implication automatically determines the result.
12. Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi): Citation: (2020) 5 SCC 1 Subject: Duration of anticipatory bail Provision considered: Section 438, CrPC
Case background
Conflicting decisions had created uncertainty about whether anticipatory bail must expire after a fixed period or when the accused appears before the trial court.
What the Supreme Court held
A Constitution Bench held that anticipatory bail need not ordinarily be limited to a fixed period. Depending on the circumstances, its protection can continue until the conclusion of trial. Courts may impose appropriate conditions or restrict protection where specific facts justify doing so. Protection can also be cancelled or modified on legally recognised grounds.
Practical
An accused does not automatically lose anticipatory bail merely because a charge sheet has been filed or trial has begun. The wording of the order and subsequent conduct remain important.
13. Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation: Citation: (2012) 1 SCC 40 Subject: Bail in economic offences Provision considered: Section 439, CrPC
Case background
The accused sought bail in the prosecution arising from the allocation of 2G spectrum licences. The Court considered the seriousness of the allegations alongside the purpose of pretrial detention and the likely length of proceedings.
What the Supreme Court held
The primary object of bail is to secure the accused’s presence at trial. Detention before conviction should not be used as punishment. The seriousness of an economic offence is relevant, but courts must also consider the likely sentence, the period already spent in custody, the prospect of a lengthy trial and risks such as interference with evidence.
Practical
Economic offences require careful scrutiny, but the label “economic offence” does not by itself justify indefinite pretrial imprisonment.
14. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand: Citation: (1977) 4 SCC 308 Subject: Bail and personal liberty
Case background
The Court considered whether the accused should remain at liberty while proceedings continued following the State’s challenge to an acquittal.
What the Supreme Court held
The decision is associated with the principle “bail, not jail.” The Court recognised that release is ordinarily appropriate unless circumstances indicate risks such as absconding, obstructing justice, repeating offences or intimidating witnesses.
Practical
Bail decisions should focus on legally relevant risks. This general principle operates subject to the applicable statute, including special laws containing stricter bail conditions.
15. Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh: Citation: (1978) 4 SCC 47 Subject: Excessive bail conditions and access to justice
Case background
A poor accused person could not obtain release because of onerous financial and surety requirements. The case raised questions about whether bail conditions could effectively exclude those without money or local connections.
What the Supreme Court held
Courts must consider the accused’s financial circumstances when fixing bail conditions. Unreasonable bond amounts and unjustified insistence on local sureties can frustrate an order granting release. The judgment recognised the importance of release on personal bonds in appropriate cases.
Practical
A bail order should make release realistically possible. Financial conditions must not turn poverty into a reason for continued detention.
16. M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence: Citation: (2021) 2 SCC 485 Subject: Default bail Provision considered: Section 167(2), CrPC
Case background
The accused applied for default bail after the applicable investigation period had expired. The prosecution filed its complaint later, creating a dispute about whether that filing defeated the application.
What the Supreme Court held
Where an accused properly invokes the right to default bail after the statutory period expires and is prepared to furnish bail, a later charge sheet or complaint does not extinguish that right. If the prosecution files its report before the accused invokes the right, the position differs.
Practical
Timing is critical. Lawyers should calculate the applicable deadline, check whether any extension was lawfully granted and record when the default bail application was filed.BNSS relevance: The corresponding remand and default bail framework appears in Section 187, BNSS and must be read with any applicable special law.
17. Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb: Citation: (2021) 3 SCC 713 Subject: Prolonged incarceration and bail under the UAPA Provisions considered: Section 43D(5), UAPA and Article 21
Case background
The accused had spent several years in custody in a prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, with little prospect of the trial concluding soon.
What the Supreme Court held
Statutory restrictions on bail do not eliminate the power of constitutional courts to grant relief where prolonged incarceration and delay in trial violate fundamental rights. The Court considered the length of detention, the likely duration of trial and the circumstances of the prosecution.
Practical
Even under stringent special legislation, substantial trial delay can justify constitutional intervention. The judgment does not dispense with statutory bail restrictions in ordinary cases.
18. Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar: Citation: (1980) 1 SCC 81 Subject: Speedy trial and undertrial detention Constitutional provision: Article 21
Case background
Public interest proceedings exposed the plight of undertrial prisoners in Bihar, including people detained for periods exceeding the punishment they could have received on conviction.
What the Supreme Court held
A reasonably speedy trial is an essential part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The proceedings highlighted the injustice caused by prolonged detention, poverty and inability to secure legal assistance.
Practical
Pretrial detention cannot continue without meaningful attention to the progress of the case. Courts must examine delay and the circumstances of prisoners who remain in custody because they lack resources.
19. P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka: Citation: (2002) 4 SCC 578 Subject: Speedy trial and judicial time limits Constitutional provision: Article 21
Case background
A seven-judge Bench examined earlier decisions prescribing fixed periods after which certain criminal proceedings would have to end.
What the Supreme Court held
The right to a speedy trial does not translate into a single, universally applicable deadline for all criminal cases. Courts must consider factors such as the length and reasons for delay, the nature of the prosecution, the accused’s conduct and the prejudice caused. The Court rejected rigid judicially created cut-offs requiring automatic termination of proceedings.
Practical
Delay can support bail, directions to expedite trial or other appropriate relief. It does not automatically produce an acquittal once a fixed number of years has passed.
20. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani: Citation: (1978) 2 SCC 424 Subject: Right against self-incrimination during questioning Provisions considered: Article 20(3) and Section 161(2), CrPC
Case background
A former Chief Minister challenged proceedings arising from her refusal to answer questions during a police investigation.
What the Supreme Court held
Protection against compelled self-incrimination extends to the investigative stage. A person cannot be compelled to answer questions whose answers would tend to expose them to a criminal charge. The judgment also addressed coercive interrogation and the importance of access to legal assistance.
Practical
Police questioning must respect the privilege against self-incrimination. The privilege does not amount to an unrestricted right to refuse every question irrespective of its nature.
21. Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu: Citation: (2021) 4 SCC 1 Subject: Confessions in NDPS prosecutions Provisions considered: Sections 53 and 67, NDPS Act; Section 25, Indian Evidence Act
Case background
The Court considered whether officers exercising investigative powers under the NDPS Act were police officers for the purpose of the statutory prohibition on police confessions.
What the Supreme Court held
By a majority, the Court held that officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It also held that a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under that Act.
Practical
An NDPS prosecution cannot treat a Section 67 confession as admissible proof of guilt. Recovery evidence, forensic material and other independently admissible evidence must be assessed on their own merits.
22. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh: Citation: (1999) 6 SCC 172 Subject: Safeguards during personal searches under the NDPS Act Provision considered: Section 50, NDPS Act
Case background
A Constitution Bench considered the consequences of searching a person for contraband without informing them of the statutory safeguard concerning the presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate.
What the Supreme Court held
When Section 50 applies, the person must be informed of the right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate. Failure to comply can render the recovery from the personal search suspect and undermine a conviction resting on that recovery. The Court did not hold that every procedural defect automatically nullifies the entire trial.
Practical
First identify whether the search was a personal search attracting Section 50. Searches of premises, vehicles or bags raise distinct questions; the safeguard should not be mechanically applied to every seizure.
23. Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras: Citation: AIR 1957 SC 614 Subject: Conviction on the testimony of a single witness Provision considered: Section 134, Indian Evidence Act
Case background
The Court examined whether a conviction could be sustained on the evidence of a single witness without additional eyewitness corroboration.
What the Supreme Court held
Evidence is assessed by its quality rather than the number of witnesses. A conviction may rest on the testimony of one wholly reliable witness. Where a witness is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the court ordinarily looks for corroboration in material particulars.
Practical
There is no general requirement to produce multiple eyewitnesses. A single credible witness may suffice, while several unreliable witnesses may fail to establish guilt.
24. Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay: Citation: AIR 1958 SC 22 Subject: Dying declarations Provision considered: Section 32(1), Indian Evidence Act
Case background
The Court considered the evidentiary value of statements made by a deceased person concerning the circumstances of the fatal attack.
What the Supreme Court held
There is no absolute rule that a dying declaration requires corroboration before it can support a conviction. A truthful and voluntary dying declaration can be sufficient by itself. Courts must examine the circumstances in which it was made, the declarant’s opportunity to observe and identify the assailant, and the reliability of the recording.
Practical
A dying declaration is neither automatically conclusive nor inherently weak. Its reliability must be established through careful scrutiny.
25. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra: Citation: (2002) 6 SCC 710 Subject: Medical certification of dying declarations
Case background
A Constitution Bench addressed whether a dying declaration becomes unacceptable merely because a doctor did not formally certify the declarant’s fitness to make the statement.
What the Supreme Court held
A medical certificate is a rule of caution, rather than an indispensable legal requirement in every case. The decisive issue is whether the declarant was mentally fit to make a voluntary and truthful statement. The person recording it must be satisfied about that fitness, and the court must evaluate the supporting evidence.
Practical
The absence of a medical endorsement does not automatically exclude a dying declaration. It makes careful examination of the declarant’s condition and the recording process especially important.
26. State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal: Citation: (1988) 4 SCC 302 Subject: Medical evidence, eyewitness testimony and reasonable doubt
Case background
The Court examined a murder prosecution involving arguments about discrepancies between eyewitness accounts and medical evidence.
What the Supreme Court held
Credible eyewitness testimony is not necessarily displaced by medical opinion suggesting another possibility. However, a fundamental medical contradiction that makes the eyewitness account impossible can materially undermine the prosecution. The Court also explained that reasonable doubt must arise from reason and evidence, rather than speculation.
Practical
Courts distinguish minor inconsistencies from contradictions affecting the core prosecution account. Medical evidence and eyewitness testimony must be evaluated together.
27. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh: Citation: (1996) 2 SCC 384 Subject: Evaluation of evidence in rape prosecutions
Case background
The Supreme Court considered an acquittal in a rape prosecution and the approach taken to the complainant’s testimony, the delay in reporting and the absence of corroboration.
What the Supreme Court held
The testimony of a complainant in a sexual offence case does not require corroboration as an inflexible rule of law. Courts must assess the evidence sensitively and avoid assumptions about how a victim should behave. Delay in reporting must be considered in its social and factual context.
Practical
A conviction may rest on credible testimony without independent corroboration. The prosecution must still establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a fair evaluation of the evidence.
28. Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka: Citation: (2007) 4 SCC 415 Subject: Appeals against acquittal
Case background
The Court examined the principles governing an appellate court’s power to reverse an acquittal.
What the Supreme Court held
An appellate court has full power to review and reassess the evidence in an appeal against acquittal. However, an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence. Where two reasonable conclusions are possible on the evidence, the appellate court should not disturb the trial court’s finding merely because it prefers the other view.
Practical
An acquittal can be reversed where legally justified, including where the trial court’s reasoning is perverse or materially erroneous. Mere disagreement with a reasonably available view is insufficient.
29. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra: Citation: (2021) 19 SCC 401 Subject: Interference with investigation and interim protection Provisions considered: Section 482, CrPC and Article 226
Case background
The Supreme Court examined a High Court order directing that no coercive measures be taken against the accused while a petition seeking to quash an FIR remained pending.
What the Supreme Court held
Courts should ordinarily allow police to investigate cognizable offences. At the quashing stage, they should not routinely evaluate the reliability of disputed allegations or conduct a premature assessment of evidence. Orders staying investigation or directing “no coercive steps” require exceptional justification and appropriate reasons. Such protection should not be granted mechanically.
Practical
Filing a quashing petition does not automatically entitle an accused to protection from arrest or investigation. Quashing relief and bail relief involve distinct legal considerations.
30. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab: Citation: (2005) 6 SCC 1 Subject: Criminal liability for medical negligence Provision considered: Section 304A, IPC
Case background
A doctor faced criminal proceedings following a patient’s death allegedly linked to failures in medical treatment and oxygen support.
What the Supreme Court held
Criminal negligence requires a substantially higher degree of negligence than that sufficient for civil liability. In the medical context, the negligence must be gross or of a very high degree. An unsuccessful treatment, an accident or a mere error of judgment does not automatically establish criminal liability. The Court also prescribed safeguards concerning competent medical opinion and cautioned against routine arrest of doctors.
Practical
A poor medical outcome alone is insufficient to establish a criminal offence. The prosecution must demonstrate the required degree of negligence through appropriate evidence.BNS relevance: Section 106, BNS contains the provision on causing death by negligence, including specific treatment of a registered medical practitioner performing a medical procedure. Its wording must be considered separately from the earlier IPC provision.
