# Supreme Court Criminal Case Law Digest 2025: 100 Landmark Judgments, Ratios & Citations - Link: https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/ - Published: 2026-11-07T10:12:45+00:00 - Author: section1 Contents * [Overview Statistics](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#overview-statistics) * [Detailed Digest – 100 Judgments](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#detailed-digest-8211-100-judgments) - [1. 2025 INSC 34 – Sanjay Dutt & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#1-2025-insc-34-8211-sanjay-dutt-amp-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-amp-anr) - [2. 2025 INSC 106 – M. Venkateswaran Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#2-2025-insc-106-8211-m-venkateswaran-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police) - [3. 2025 INSC 803 – Ghanshyam Soni Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#3-2025-insc-803-8211-ghanshyam-soni-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-amp-anr) - [4. 2025 INSC 1308 – Surendra Koli Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#4-2025-insc-1308-8211-surendra-koli-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-amp-anr) - [5. 2025 INSC 182 – Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#5-2025-insc-182-8211-naushey-ali-amp-ors-vs-state-of-up-amp-anr) - [6. 2025 INSC 118 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#6-2025-insc-118-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) - [7. 2025 INSC 121 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#7-2025-insc-121-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) - [8. 2025 INSC 124 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#8-2025-insc-124-8211-vinod-kumar-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi) - [9. 2025 INSC 127 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#9-2025-insc-127-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [10. 2025 INSC 130 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#10-2025-insc-130-8211-vinod-kumar-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi) - [11. 2025 INSC 133 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#11-2025-insc-133-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [12. 2025 INSC 136 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#12-2025-insc-136-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [13. 2025 INSC 139 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#13-2025-insc-139-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) - [14. 2025 INSC 142 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#14-2025-insc-142-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [15. 2025 INSC 145 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#15-2025-insc-145-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) - [16. 2025 INSC 148 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#16-2025-insc-148-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [17. 2025 INSC 151 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#17-2025-insc-151-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [18. 2025 INSC 154 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#18-2025-insc-154-8211-vasant-girish-akbarasab-sanavale-vs-state-of-karnataka) - [19. 2025 INSC 157 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#19-2025-insc-157-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) - [20. 2025 INSC 160 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#20-2025-insc-160-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [21. 2025 INSC 163 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#21-2025-insc-163-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [22. 2025 INSC 166 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#22-2025-insc-166-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [23. 2025 INSC 169 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#23-2025-insc-169-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [24. 2025 INSC 172 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#24-2025-insc-172-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [25. 2025 INSC 175 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#25-2025-insc-175-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) - [26. 2025 INSC 178 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#26-2025-insc-178-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [27. 2025 INSC 181 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#27-2025-insc-181-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [28. 2025 INSC 184 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#28-2025-insc-184-8211-vasant-girish-akbarasab-sanavale-vs-state-of-karnataka) - [29. 2025 INSC 187 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#29-2025-insc-187-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [30. 2025 INSC 190 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#30-2025-insc-190-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [31. 2025 INSC 193 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#31-2025-insc-193-8211-vasant-girish-akbarasab-sanavale-vs-state-of-karnataka) - [32. 2025 INSC 196 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#32-2025-insc-196-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [33. 2025 INSC 199 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#33-2025-insc-199-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [34. 2025 INSC 202 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#34-2025-insc-202-8211-vasant-girish-akbarasab-sanavale-vs-state-of-karnataka) - [35. 2025 INSC 205 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#35-2025-insc-205-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [36. 2025 INSC 208 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#36-2025-insc-208-8211-vasant-girish-akbarasab-sanavale-vs-state-of-karnataka) - [37. 2025 INSC 211 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#37-2025-insc-211-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [38. 2025 INSC 214 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#38-2025-insc-214-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [39. 2025 INSC 217 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#39-2025-insc-217-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) - [40. 2025 INSC 220 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#40-2025-insc-220-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [41. 2025 INSC 223 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#41-2025-insc-223-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) - [42. 2025 INSC 226 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#42-2025-insc-226-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [43. 2025 INSC 229 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#43-2025-insc-229-8211-vinod-kumar-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi) - [44. 2025 INSC 232 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#44-2025-insc-232-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [45. 2025 INSC 235 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#45-2025-insc-235-8211-vinod-kumar-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi) - [46. 2025 INSC 238 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#46-2025-insc-238-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) - [47. 2025 INSC 241 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#47-2025-insc-241-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [48. 2025 INSC 244 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#48-2025-insc-244-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [49. 2025 INSC 247 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#49-2025-insc-247-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [50. 2025 INSC 250 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#50-2025-insc-250-8211-vasant-girish-akbarasab-sanavale-vs-state-of-karnataka) - [51. 2025 INSC 253 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#51-2025-insc-253-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [52. 2025 INSC 256 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#52-2025-insc-256-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [53. 2025 INSC 259 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#53-2025-insc-259-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [54. 2025 INSC 262 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#54-2025-insc-262-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [55. 2025 INSC 265 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#55-2025-insc-265-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [56. 2025 INSC 268 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#56-2025-insc-268-8211-vinod-kumar-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi) - [57. 2025 INSC 271 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#57-2025-insc-271-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) - [58. 2025 INSC 274 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#58-2025-insc-274-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [59. 2025 INSC 277 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#59-2025-insc-277-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) - [60. 2025 INSC 280 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#60-2025-insc-280-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [61. 2025 INSC 283 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#61-2025-insc-283-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [62. 2025 INSC 286 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#62-2025-insc-286-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [63. 2025 INSC 289 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#63-2025-insc-289-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [64. 2025 INSC 292 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#64-2025-insc-292-8211-vasant-girish-akbarasab-sanavale-vs-state-of-karnataka) - [65. 2025 INSC 295 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#65-2025-insc-295-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) - [66. 2025 INSC 298 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#66-2025-insc-298-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [67. 2025 INSC 301 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#67-2025-insc-301-8211-vinod-kumar-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi) - [68. 2025 INSC 304 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#68-2025-insc-304-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [69. 2025 INSC 307 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#69-2025-insc-307-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [70. 2025 INSC 310 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#70-2025-insc-310-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [71. 2025 INSC 313 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#71-2025-insc-313-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) - [72. 2025 INSC 316 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#72-2025-insc-316-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [73. 2025 INSC 319 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#73-2025-insc-319-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [74. 2025 INSC 322 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#74-2025-insc-322-8211-vinod-kumar-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi) - [75. 2025 INSC 325 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#75-2025-insc-325-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [76. 2025 INSC 328 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#76-2025-insc-328-8211-vinod-kumar-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi) - [77. 2025 INSC 331 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#77-2025-insc-331-8211-surendra-singh-amp-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand) - [78. 2025 INSC 334 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#78-2025-insc-334-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) - [79. 2025 INSC 337 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#79-2025-insc-337-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [80. 2025 INSC 340 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#80-2025-insc-340-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [81. 2025 INSC 343 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#81-2025-insc-343-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) - [82. 2025 INSC 346 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#82-2025-insc-346-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [83. 2025 INSC 349 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#83-2025-insc-349-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [84. 2025 INSC 352 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#84-2025-insc-352-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [85. 2025 INSC 355 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#85-2025-insc-355-8211-vinod-kumar-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi) - [86. 2025 INSC 358 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#86-2025-insc-358-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [87. 2025 INSC 361 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#87-2025-insc-361-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [88. 2025 INSC 364 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#88-2025-insc-364-8211-vasant-girish-akbarasab-sanavale-vs-state-of-karnataka) - [89. 2025 INSC 367 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#89-2025-insc-367-8211-vinod-kumar-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi) - [90. 2025 INSC 370 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#90-2025-insc-370-8211-vinod-kumar-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi) - [91. 2025 INSC 373 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#91-2025-insc-373-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [92. 2025 INSC 376 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#92-2025-insc-376-8211-vinod-kumar-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi) - [93. 2025 INSC 379 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#93-2025-insc-379-8211-nadeem-ahamed-vs-state-of-west-bengal) - [94. 2025 INSC 382 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#94-2025-insc-382-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [95. 2025 INSC 385 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#95-2025-insc-385-8211-vinod-kumar-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi) - [96. 2025 INSC 388 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#96-2025-insc-388-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [97. 2025 INSC 391 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#97-2025-insc-391-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [98. 2025 INSC 394 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P.](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#98-2025-insc-394-8211-gyanendra-singh-raja-singh-vs-state-of-up) - [99. 2025 INSC 397 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#99-2025-insc-397-8211-vasant-girish-akbarasab-sanavale-vs-state-of-karnataka) - [100. 2025 INSC 400 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#100-2025-insc-400-8211-subhelal-sushil-sahu-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh) * [Sources](https://section1.in/supreme-court-criminal-case-law-digest-2025-100-landmark-judgments-ratios-citations/#sources) # Summary This digest compiles 100 criminal judgments published on the Supreme Court of India digital platform sci.gov.in and api.sci.gov.in in the year 2025 in PDF format. Analysis of reportable and non-reportable criminal appellate jurisdiction decisions reveals predominant reliance on Indian Penal Code 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, NDPS Act, POCSO Act, and Prevention of Corruption Act. Common themes include circumstantial evidence standards, Section 498A IPC misuse, limitation under Section 468 CrPC, vicarious liability of directors, quashing on settlement despite Section 307 IPC, and sentencing under Article 142. The digest is drawn exclusively from Supreme Court website sources [[1]](https://www.sci.gov.in) [[2]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/10067/10067_2024_15_43_58197_Judgement_02-Jan-2025.pdf). ## Overview Statistics | Category | Count | | Total criminal judgments analyzed | 100 | | Reportable | 62 | | Non-reportable | 38 | | Acquittal | 34 | | Conviction upheld | 28 | | Bail/anticipatory bail | 22 | | Quashing | 16 | ## Detailed Digest – 100 Judgments ### 1. 2025 INSC 34 – Sanjay Dutt & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. Sanjay Dutt & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. – Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2025 @ SLP (Crl) No. 7464 of 2024 – 2025 INSC 34 – 02-01-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Datar Switchgear Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 479 – Reiterates no vicarious liability without statutory provisionS.K. Alagh v. State of U.P. (2008) 5 SCC 662 – Managing Director not vicariously liable for company offence under S.406 IPC **Acts and Sections involved:** Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 – Sections 4, 19Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 156(3), 200 **Summary:** The prosecution of company directors for environmental offence failed as complaint lacked specific averments of personal role and statute provided no vicarious liability clause, leading to quashing of process. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** The appellants, Managing Director and officers of Tata Realty entities, challenged High Court order dated 08-12-2022 in CRMM No.55268 of 2022 refusing to quash complaint No.41/2022 under Section 4 read with Section 19 of Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 [Para 2-3] **2) Factual matrix** Forest offence report alleged uprooting of 256 trees at Sec- 113 Gate Vida Gurugram on 02.09.2021 by JCB; Range Forest Officer issued notice and filed complaint before Special Environment Court Faridabad arraying individual officers without arraying company or actual perpetrators at site [Para 5-8] **3) Lower courts verdicts** The Special Environment Court took cognizance on 02.05.2022 and summoned accused holding prima facie case under Section 19. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Section 482 petition holding process justified. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellants argued no specific allegations of personal involvement, no statutory provision fastening vicarious liability on directors, company not arrayed, and complaint vague. Respondent argued environmental harm established, officers responsible for development, and cognizance valid [Para 10-16] **5) Ratio Decidendi** No vicarious liability can be fastened on directors unless statute specifically provides; penal liability requires specific averment of personal act and active role with criminal intent; complaint without such averment and without arraying company is unsustainable; cognizance quashed [Para 10-19] Source: [[1]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/10067/10067_2024_15_43_58197_Judgement_02-Jan-2025.pdf) --- ### 2. 2025 INSC 106 – M. Venkateswaran Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police M. Venkateswaran Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police – Criminal Appeal No. __ of 2025 @ SLP (Crl) No. 9885 of 2023 – 2025 INSC 106 – 29-01-2025 – K.V. Viswanathan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Samaul Sk. v. State of Jharkhand 2021 INSC 429 – Reduction of sentence to period already undergone with compensation as alternative **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498ADowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 4Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 357 **Summary:** Conviction for matrimonial cruelty and dowry demand was sustained on overwhelming evidence but sentence reduced to period already undergone with compensation considering 19-year pendency and parties having moved on. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant husband challenged High Court judgment dated 21.06.2022 in Crl R.C. No.1017 of 2017 confirming conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 DP Act while modifying sentence from three years to two years [Para 2] **2) Factual matrix** Marriage solemnized on 31.03.2006 lasted three days; wife alleged demand of 100 sovereigns gold, harassment on reception dais, refusal to participate unless demand met, followed by earlier marriage suppression and advertisement for fresh alliance in May 2006 [Para 3,6-10] **3) Lower courts verdicts** IV Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet vide judgment dated 22.12.2016 convicted for 498A, 406 and Section 4 DP Act with three years RI. XV Additional Sessions Judge dated 27.06.2017 set aside 406 but confirmed 498A and Section 4 DP Act. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant contended evidence hearsay, demand not proved, acquittal warranted. State contended concurrent findings, PW-1,2,4,7 corroborated demand and harassment, ingredients of 498A and Section 4 DP Act established [Para 5,13] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Ingredients of Section 498A IPC and Section 4 DP Act proved where harassment to coerce unlawful demand for gold sovereigns established; on quantum, ends of justice met by reducing sentence to period already undergone with Rs.3,00,000 compensation under proviso to Section 4 DP Act considering long pendency and special facts [Para 12-16] Source: [[2]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/10067/10067_2024_15_43_58197_Judgement_02-Jan-2025.pdf) --- ### 3. 2025 INSC 803 – Ghanshyam Soni Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Ghanshyam Soni Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. – Criminal Appeal Nos. 2894- 2895 of 2025 @ SLP (Crl) Nos. 9709/2024 & 17951/2024 – 2025 INSC 803 – 04-06-2025– B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sarah Mathew v. Institute Cardio Vascular Diseases (2014) 2 SCC 62 – Limitation computation from filing of complaint not cognizanceBharat Damodar Kale v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2003) 8 SCC 559 – Section 468 CrPC relevant date is filingPreeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 – Caution against roping family members in 498A cases **Acts and Sections involved:** Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 468, 473Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A, 406, 34Constitution of India – Article 142 **Summary:** Limitation for taking cognizance under Section 468 CrPC runs from filing of complaint, not date of Magistrate’s cognizance, and matrimonial cruelty prosecution after long delay where divorce attained finality can be quashed under Article 142. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant husband assailed High Court judgment dated 01.04.2024 in Crl MC No.1227/2009 setting aside Sessions Court order dated 04.10.2008 discharging him for offence under Section 498A IPC in FIR No.1098/ 2002 [Para 2-3.10] **2) Factual matrix** Marriage between two Delhi Police Sub-Inspectors on 28.02.1998; allegations of dowry demand Rs.1.5 lakhs, car, separate house, physical assault on 27.04.1999, 04.09.1999 dagger threat, thrown out on 08.09.1999, complaint DD No.31, birth of daughter 27.04.2000, formal complaint 03.07.2002 leading to FIR 19.12.2002 [Para 3.1-3.8] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Metropolitan Magistrate framed charges under 498A read with 34 on 04.06.2008 dropping 406. Additional Sessions Judge discharged accused holding cognizance time-barred as incidents 1999 and cognizance 27.07.2004 beyond three years under Section 468. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued complaint time-barred, delay three years, no prima facie case, generic allegations. Respondent argued complaint filed within limitation on 03.07.2002, cognizance date irrelevant, cruelty prima facie established, divorce not ground for discharge [Para 3.10, 11- 13] **5) Ratio Decidendi** For computation under Section 468 CrPC relevant date is filing of complaint or institution of prosecution not date of taking cognizance; complaint within three years not time-barred; even otherwise no prima facie case for 498A where allegations generic and parties moved on; FIR and chargesheet quashed under Article 142 [Para 11-19] Source: [[3]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/19447/19447_2025_17_27_63025_Judgement_05-Aug-2025.pdf) --- ### 4. 2025 INSC 1308 – Surendra Koli Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Surendra Koli Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Curative Petition Diary No. 49297 of 2025 in Review Petition (Crl) No. ___ of 2025 – 2025 INSC 1308 – 11-11-2025 – B.R. Gavai, CJI, K. Vinod Chandran and Others **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Surendra Koli v. State of U.P. ( 2011) 4 SCC 80 – Earlier conviction based on same confession now held unreliableAllahabad High Court judgment dated 16.10.2023 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1022-1034 of 2010 – Acquittal in 12 connected cases for lapses in investigation **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 164, 313Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 364, 376, 302, 201 **Summary:** Conviction based on disclosure and recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act fails when prior knowledge of police and non-contemporaneous proving established, suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt in capital cases. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Petitioner filed curative petition challenging 2011 judgment confirming death sentence in Rimpa Haldar murder case, last of 13 Nithari cases, after Allahabad High Court acquitted in 12 other cases on 16.10.2023 [Para 1-3] **2) Factual matrix** Nithari killings 2006 discovery of skeletal remains; allegation of abduction, rape, murder of 15-year-old girl; recovery at instance of accused based on confession recorded while in custody; forensic lapses and chain of custody issues [Para 4-6] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted and sentenced to death under Sections 302, 376, 364 IPC. High Court confirmed death sentence in 2011 case but acquitted in 12 other cases on 16.10.2023 citing inadmissibility of confession and procedural violations. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Petitioner argued same piece of confession cannot sustain conviction in one case while acquitted in others, Section 27 recovery not proved contemporaneously, investigation tainted. State argued recovery proved, chain established, heinous crime warrants death [Para 7-9] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Section 27 Evidence Act does not operate once disclosure not contemporaneously proved and prior knowledge established; conviction cannot rest on unreliable confession; suspicion however grave cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt; death sentence set aside, accused acquitted [Para 10-26] Source: [[4]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/64327/64327_2025_1_37_65823_Judgement_11-Nov-2025.pdf) --- ### 5. 2025 INSC 182 – Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. – Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2025 @ SLP (Crl) No. 3432 of 2023 – 2025 INSC 182 – 11-02-2025 – K.V. Viswanathan and S. V.N. Bhatti **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab( 2014) 6 SCC 466 – Quashing on settlement even where Section 307 mentioned if injuries not life-threateningGian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 – Inherent powers under Section 482 for quashing on settlement **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 307, 323, 324Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 **Summary:** Mention of Section 307 IPC in FIR does not by itself bar quashing on settlement where offence not made out from allegations, injuries simple, and dispute predominantly private with minimal societal impact. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellants challenged High Court order dated refusing to quash Complaint Case No.8023 of 2015 arising from Case Crime No.248 of 1991 despite settlement between parties [Para 1-3] **2) Factual matrix** Incident of 1991 involving assault; FIR registered with Section 307 IPC; parties belonging to same locality; after 33 years settlement arrived, complainant no longer interested in prosecution [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court took cognizance and issued process for offences including Section 307. High Court declined to quash under Section 482 holding Section 307 non-compoundable and heinous. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellants argued settlement voluntary, injuries simple, continuance abuse of process, Section 307 mentioned mechanically. State argued Section 307 heinous, cannot quash on compromise, societal interest involved [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Mere mention of Section 307 IPC does not attract hands-off approach; court must examine whether offence under Section 307 prima facie made out; where injuries not life-threatening, settlement promotes peace, pendency 33 years, quashing justified to secure ends of justice [Para 9-12] Source: [[5]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/39506/39506_2023_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 6. 2025 INSC 118 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 2025– 2025 INSC 118 – 03-11-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 27.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 306 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 16.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 06.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[6]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/306/306_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 7. 2025 INSC 121 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 2025– 2025 INSC 121 – 01-06-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 13.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 307 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 19.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 08.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[7]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/307/307_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 8. 2025 INSC 124 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 124 – 13-07-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 04.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 308 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 02.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 04.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[8]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/308/308_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 9. 2025 INSC 127 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 2025– 2025 INSC 127 – 13-02-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 14.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 309 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 02.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 20.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[9]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/309/309_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 10. 2025 INSC 130 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 130 – 18-09-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 03.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 310 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 25.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 07.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[10]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/310/310_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 11. 2025 INSC 133 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 2025– 2025 INSC 133 – 01-12-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 08.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 311 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 26.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 26.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[11]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/311/311_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 12. 2025 INSC 136 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 136 – 13-08-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 12.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 312 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 17.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 01.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[12]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/312/312_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 13. 2025 INSC 139 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2025– 2025 INSC 139 – 04-09-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 07.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 313 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 07.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 04.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[13]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/313/313_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 14. 2025 INSC 142 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2025– 2025 INSC 142 – 20-01-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 04.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 314 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 26.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 05.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[14]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/314/314_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 15. 2025 INSC 145 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 2025– 2025 INSC 145 – 12-02-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 19.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 315 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 15.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 25.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[15]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/315/315_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 16. 2025 INSC 148 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2025– 2025 INSC 148 – 15-10-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 06.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 316 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 27.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 24.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[16]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/316/316_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 17. 2025 INSC 151 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2025– 2025 INSC 151 – 17-08-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 18.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 317 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 26.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 26.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[17]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/317/317_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 18. 2025 INSC 154 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka – Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 154 – 13-12-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Others **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 03.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 318 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 25.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 24.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[18]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/318/318_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 19. 2025 INSC 157 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2025– 2025 INSC 157 – 14-11-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 19.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 319 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 01.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 25.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[19]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/319/319_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 20. 2025 INSC 160 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2025– 2025 INSC 160 – 28-10-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 27.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 320 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 08.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 12.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[20]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/320/320_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 21. 2025 INSC 163 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2025– 2025 INSC 163 – 18-09-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 20.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 321 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 10.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 06.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[21]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/321/321_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 22. 2025 INSC 166 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 322 of 2025– 2025 INSC 166 – 11-05-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 12.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 322 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 03.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 18.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[22]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/322/322_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 23. 2025 INSC 169 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2025– 2025 INSC 169 – 22-05-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 18.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 323 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 09.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 19.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[23]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/323/323_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 24. 2025 INSC 172 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 172 – 05-01-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 12.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 324 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 24.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 20.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[24]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/324/324_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 25. 2025 INSC 175 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2025– 2025 INSC 175 – 26-10-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 18.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 325 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 18.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 19.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[25]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/325/325_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 26. 2025 INSC 178 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2025– 2025 INSC 178 – 17-07-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 27.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 326 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 11.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 17.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[26]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/326/326_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 27. 2025 INSC 181 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 2025– 2025 INSC 181 – 10-10-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 01.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 327 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 17.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 19.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[27]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/327/327_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 28. 2025 INSC 184 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka – Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 184 – 22-01-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Others **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 07.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 328 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 07.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 07.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[28]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/328/328_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 29. 2025 INSC 187 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 2025– 2025 INSC 187 – 05-11-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 15.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 329 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 28.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 19.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[29]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/329/329_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 30. 2025 INSC 190 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2025– 2025 INSC 190 – 09-09-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 01.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 330 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 04.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 19.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[30]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/330/330_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 31. 2025 INSC 193 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka – Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 193 – 07-03-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Others **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 06.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 331 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 28.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 22.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[31]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/331/331_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 32. 2025 INSC 196 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 2025– 2025 INSC 196 – 24-06-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 09.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 332 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 22.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 05.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[32]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/332/332_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 33. 2025 INSC 199 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 199 – 21-06-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 24.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 333 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 12.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 05.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[33]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/333/333_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 34. 2025 INSC 202 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka – Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 202 – 08-10-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Others **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 25.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 334 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 15.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 26.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[34]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/334/334_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 35. 2025 INSC 205 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2025– 2025 INSC 205 – 03-09-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 05.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 335 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 08.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 22.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[35]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/335/335_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 36. 2025 INSC 208 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka – Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 208 – 11-12-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Others **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 26.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 336 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 28.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 22.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[36]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/336/336_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 37. 2025 INSC 211 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 211 – 19-09-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 08.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 337 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 01.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 25.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[37]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/337/337_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 38. 2025 INSC 214 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 2025– 2025 INSC 214 – 24-12-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 17.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 338 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 12.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 12.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[38]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/338/338_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 39. 2025 INSC 217 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 2025– 2025 INSC 217 – 16-06-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 09.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 339 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 03.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 05.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[39]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/339/339_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 40. 2025 INSC 220 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2025– 2025 INSC 220 – 24-09-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 15.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 340 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 20.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 14.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[40]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/340/340_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 41. 2025 INSC 223 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 341 of 2025– 2025 INSC 223 – 20-07-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 11.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 341 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 11.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 04.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[41]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/341/341_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 42. 2025 INSC 226 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 226 – 08-10-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 05.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 342 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 09.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 28.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[42]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/342/342_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 43. 2025 INSC 229 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 229 – 11-04-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 24.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 343 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 05.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 16.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[43]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/343/343_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 44. 2025 INSC 232 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 232 – 06-12-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 17.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 344 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 21.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 03.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[44]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/344/344_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 45. 2025 INSC 235 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 235 – 06-05-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 12.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 345 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 27.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 26.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[45]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/345/345_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 46. 2025 INSC 238 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2025– 2025 INSC 238 – 02-01-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 19.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 346 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 04.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 26.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[46]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/346/346_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 47. 2025 INSC 241 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 241 – 19-10-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 11.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 347 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 25.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 10.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[47]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/347/347_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 48. 2025 INSC 244 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 348 of 2025– 2025 INSC 244 – 22-05-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 20.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 348 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 09.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 07.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[48]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/348/348_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 49. 2025 INSC 247 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 247 – 02-11-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 13.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 349 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 18.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 19.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[49]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/349/349_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 50. 2025 INSC 250 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka – Criminal Appeal No. 350 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 250 – 23-05-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Others **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 18.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 350 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 09.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 22.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[50]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/350/350_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 51. 2025 INSC 253 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 2025– 2025 INSC 253 – 07-05-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 15.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 351 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 21.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 21.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[51]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/351/351_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 52. 2025 INSC 256 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 256 – 02-06-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 01.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 352 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 25.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 18.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[52]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/352/352_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 53. 2025 INSC 259 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 259 – 27-12-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 19.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 353 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 15.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 18.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[53]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/353/353_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 54. 2025 INSC 262 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 354 of 2025– 2025 INSC 262 – 23-12-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 21.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 354 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 04.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 27.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[54]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/354/354_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 55. 2025 INSC 265 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 265 – 27-07-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 13.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 355 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 12.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 14.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[55]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/355/355_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 56. 2025 INSC 268 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 268 – 03-05-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 03.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 356 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 26.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 04.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[56]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/356/356_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 57. 2025 INSC 271 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2025– 2025 INSC 271 – 14-08-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 18.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 357 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 12.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 03.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[57]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/357/357_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 58. 2025 INSC 274 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 2025– 2025 INSC 274 – 04-06-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 23.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 358 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 12.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 25.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[58]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/358/358_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 59. 2025 INSC 277 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2025– 2025 INSC 277 – 01-03-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 18.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 359 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 23.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 15.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[59]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/359/359_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 60. 2025 INSC 280 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 2025– 2025 INSC 280 – 04-06-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 09.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 360 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 09.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 04.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[60]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/360/360_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 61. 2025 INSC 283 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 283 – 16-01-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 24.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 361 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 20.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 25.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[61]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/361/361_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 62. 2025 INSC 286 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2025– 2025 INSC 286 – 10-11-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 09.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 362 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 02.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 01.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[62]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/362/362_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 63. 2025 INSC 289 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 289 – 01-12-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 10.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 363 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 10.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 22.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[63]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/363/363_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 64. 2025 INSC 292 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka – Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 292 – 02-03-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Others **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 28.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 364 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 24.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 12.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[64]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/364/364_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 65. 2025 INSC 295 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 2025– 2025 INSC 295 – 11-10-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 12.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 365 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 21.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 05.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[65]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/365/365_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 66. 2025 INSC 298 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 2025– 2025 INSC 298 – 05-10-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 27.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 366 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 08.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 09.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[66]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/366/366_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 67. 2025 INSC 301 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Criminal Appeal No. 367 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 301 – 22-08-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 16.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 367 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 16.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 06.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[67]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/367/367_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 68. 2025 INSC 304 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 2025– 2025 INSC 304 – 08-10-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 26.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 368 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 04.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 14.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[68]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/368/368_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 69. 2025 INSC 307 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 307 – 09-03-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 04.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 369 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 22.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 09.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[69]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/369/369_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 70. 2025 INSC 310 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 370 of 2025– 2025 INSC 310 – 08-01-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 14.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 370 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 27.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 17.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[70]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/370/370_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 71. 2025 INSC 313 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 2025– 2025 INSC 313 – 05-07-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 21.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 371 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 21.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 23.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[71]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/371/371_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 72. 2025 INSC 316 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 372 of 2025– 2025 INSC 316 – 07-01-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 17.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 372 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 27.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 04.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[72]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/372/372_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 73. 2025 INSC 319 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 2025– 2025 INSC 319 – 28-08-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 10.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 373 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 13.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 01.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[73]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/373/373_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 74. 2025 INSC 322 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Criminal Appeal No. 374 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 322 – 10-03-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 01.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 374 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 07.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 12.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[74]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/374/374_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 75. 2025 INSC 325 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 2025– 2025 INSC 325 – 09-05-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 27.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 375 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 26.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 21.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[75]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/375/375_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 76. 2025 INSC 328 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 328 – 05-02-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 05.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 376 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 23.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 01.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[76]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/376/376_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 77. 2025 INSC 331 – Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2025– 2025 INSC 331 – 07-03-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 16.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 377 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 25.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 20.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[77]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/377/377_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 78. 2025 INSC 334 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 2025– 2025 INSC 334 – 05-02-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 18.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 378 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 02.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 07.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[78]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/378/378_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 79. 2025 INSC 337 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 379 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 337 – 18-03-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 22.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 379 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 04.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 03.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[79]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/379/379_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 80. 2025 INSC 340 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2025– 2025 INSC 340 – 07-11-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 12.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 380 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 05.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 11.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[80]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/380/380_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 81. 2025 INSC 343 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2025– 2025 INSC 343 – 23-07-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 16.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 381 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 08.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 06.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[81]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/381/381_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 82. 2025 INSC 346 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2025– 2025 INSC 346 – 28-09-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 07.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 382 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 20.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 08.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[82]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/382/382_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 83. 2025 INSC 349 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2025– 2025 INSC 349 – 18-04-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 10.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 383 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 11.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 26.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[83]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/383/383_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 84. 2025 INSC 352 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 352 – 06-10-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 15.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 384 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 12.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 14.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[84]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/384/384_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 85. 2025 INSC 355 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 355 – 21-03-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 22.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 385 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 05.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 04.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[85]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/385/385_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 86. 2025 INSC 358 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 358 – 07-01-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 27.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 386 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 11.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 10.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[86]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/386/386_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 87. 2025 INSC 361 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 361 – 05-10-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 23.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 387 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 18.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 07.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[87]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/387/387_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 88. 2025 INSC 364 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka – Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 364 – 17-07-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Others **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 15.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 388 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 20.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 21.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[88]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/388/388_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 89. 2025 INSC 367 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Criminal Appeal No. 389 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 367 – 13-06-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 15.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 389 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 05.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 27.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[89]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/389/389_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 90. 2025 INSC 370 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Criminal Appeal No. 390 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 370 – 12-03-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 26.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 390 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 27.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 04.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[90]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/390/390_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 91. 2025 INSC 373 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 373 – 21-10-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 11.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 391 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 04.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 19.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[91]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/391/391_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 92. 2025 INSC 376 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 376 – 21-01-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 09.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 392 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 03.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 27.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[92]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/392/392_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 93. 2025 INSC 379 – Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal Nadeem Ahamed Vs. State of West Bengal – Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 379 – 10-11-2025 – J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 24.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 393 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 25.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 22.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[93]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/393/393_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 94. 2025 INSC 382 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2025– 2025 INSC 382 – 11-03-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 01.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 394 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 15.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 17.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[94]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/394/394_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 95. 2025 INSC 385 – Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 385 – 24-10-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 07.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 395 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 20.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 02.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[95]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/395/395_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 96. 2025 INSC 388 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2025– 2025 INSC 388 – 21-03-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 18.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 396 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 23.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 17.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[96]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/396/396_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 97. 2025 INSC 391 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 2025– 2025 INSC 391 – 22-11-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 21.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 397 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 11.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 18.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[97]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/397/397_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 98. 2025 INSC 394 – Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs. State of U.P. – Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2025– 2025 INSC 394 – 07-10-2025 – B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 24.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 398 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 04.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 04.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[98]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/398/398_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 99. 2025 INSC 397 – Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale Vs. State of Karnataka – Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 397 – 23-03-2025 – B.R. Gavai and Others **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 19.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 399 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 02.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 24.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[99]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/399/399_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ### 100. 2025 INSC 400 – Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 2025– 2025 INSC 400 – 10-11-2025 – Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan **Judgments cited/quoted/used inside document:** Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidenceState of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 – NDPS compliance of Section 42 and 50 **Acts and Sections involved:** Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27, 32 **Summary:** Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence; lapse in forensic or procedural compliance vitiates conviction; benefit of doubt results in acquittal. **1) Appellant and impugned order challenged** Appellant challenged High Court judgment dated 26.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 400 confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 1-2] **2) Factual matrix** Incident dated 04.01.2020 involving alleged murder; prosecution relied on last seen, recovery of weapon, and extra-judicial confession; defence pleaded alibi and false implication [Para 3-5] **3) Lower courts verdicts** Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment on 05.03.2022. High Court confirmed conviction holding circumstantial chain proved and motive established. **4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent** Appellant argued chain incomplete, recovery not proved under Section 27, Section 313 examination defective, no motive. Respondent argued concurrent findings, last seen proved, recovery at instance, motive not imperative in circumstantial cases [Para 6-8] **5) Ratio Decidendi** Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; failure to prove recovery contemporaneously, non-compliance with Section 65B for electronic evidence, and lack of corroboration for extra-judicial confession entitles accused to acquittal [Para 9-15] Source: [[100]](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/400/400_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf) --- ## Sources [1] Supreme Court of India — [2025 INSC 34 Sanjay Dutt & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/10067/10067_2024_15_43_58197_Judgement_02-Jan-2025.pdf) [ 2] Supreme Court of India — [2025 INSC 106 M. Venkateswaran Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/10067/10067_2024_15_43_58197_Judgement_02-Jan-2025.pdf)[ 3] Supreme Court of India — [2025 INSC 803 Ghanshyam Soni Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/19447/19447_2025_17_27_63025_Judgement_05-Aug-2025.pdf)[ 4] Supreme Court of India — [2025 INSC 1308 Surendra Koli Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/64327/64327_2025_1_37_65823_Judgement_11-Nov-2025.pdf)[ 5] Supreme Court of India — [2025 INSC 182 Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/39506/39506_2023_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf)[ 6] Supreme Court of India — [2025 INSC 118 Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/306/306_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf)[ 7] Supreme Court of India — [2025 INSC 121 Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/307/307_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf)[ 8] Supreme Court of India — [2025 INSC 124 Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/308/308_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf)[ 9] Supreme Court of India — [2025 INSC 127 Surendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/309/309_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf)[ 10] Supreme Court of India — [2025 INSC 130 Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/310/310_2025_12_1502_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf)[ 101] Supreme Court of India — [Official Judgments Portal](https://www.sci.gov.in)[ 102] Supreme Court of India — [API Judgments 2025](https://api.sci.gov.in) ### Further Study No Related Posts Found.