Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Murder: Circumstantial evidence – Link In The Chain Not Conclusively Established.

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

The case of Jay Prakash Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand (2026 INSC 317) involves a criminal appeal by a constable challenging his conviction for the murder of his superior officer.

Factual Background

  • The Incident: The appellant, a constable in the Indian Reserve Battalion, was accused of gunning down his superior, S.I. Sunil Soren, on May 18, 2014.
  • The Alleged Motive: The prosecution claimed the appellant committed the crime because the deceased had refused his request for leave.
  • Lower Court Rulings: The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court of Jharkhand subsequently affirmed this conviction.

Key Evidence and Challenges

The Supreme Court identified major flaws in the prosecution’s case, which rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of a few witnesses:

  • Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony: The primary witness (PW-3) initially claimed he saw the appellant holding the weapon and heard him confess. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that due to darkness, he only identified the appellant by his voice and did not actually see his face. The Court found this admission materially undermined the reliability of his testimony.
  • Hearsay and Hostile Witnesses: Other prosecution witnesses were either hearsay witnesses or were declared hostile. For instance, PW-2 only knew of the alleged confession through PW-3, making his testimony hearsay.
  • Issues with the Weapon of Offence: While ballistic evidence linked the bullets to a specific seized rifle, the evidence regarding who possessed that rifle was weak. A witness claimed rifles had been “inadvertently exchanged” 10 days prior, a version the Court found difficult to accept in a disciplined force. Furthermore, the duty register for the actual day of the offence was never produced as evidence.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Court applied the established legal principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be conclusively established.

  • Benefit of Doubt: If two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, the view favorable to the accused must be taken.
  • Insufficient Proof: The Court ruled that the evidence on record fell short of the required standard of proof and failed to exclude the hypothesis of the appellant’s innocence. It noted that the High Court had “missed the woods for the tree” by failing to see the inconsistencies in the witness testimonies.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. Having already spent nearly 12 years in custody, the appellant was ordered to be released immediately. The Court also granted him the liberty to seek reinstatement in service with consequential benefits, or financial compensation if he is no longer physically or mentally capable of discharging his duties.

2026 INSC 317

Jay Prakash Yadav V. State of Jharkhand (D.O.J.06.04.2026)

2026 INSC 317 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Service Law: Termination ser aside for Non-Disclosure of Unknown Criminal Antecedents

August 13, 2026 No Comments

This civil appeal challenged the judgment of the Kerala High Court’s Division Bench, which had upheld the termination of the appellant from the post of Technician (Process) and dismissed his writ petition. The appellant was terminated on the grounds that he had furnished false information in his attestation form by failing to disclose a pending Non-Cognizable Report (NCR). The Supreme Court held that the concept of suppression necessarily presupposes awareness or knowledge of the fact being concealed, which was absent here as the appellant was never summoned, arrested, or informed of the NCR, and was subsequently cleared of all charges. Furthermore, the employer had failed to conduct a two-pronged evaluation regarding whether a deliberate suppression occurred and whether the nature of the offense warranted termination. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the termination order, directed immediate reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and awarded 50% back wages.

  • Maintainability of Writ Petition: The Supreme Court dismissed the respondents’ preliminary objection regarding alternative remedies, affirming that the existence of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act does not bar writ jurisdiction when the legality of a termination order itself is challenged.
  • Two-Pronged Enquiry Requirement: Before terminating an employee for alleged suppression of criminal antecedents, an employer must satisfy a two-pronged test:
    1. Determine as a matter of fact whether there was actual suppression or false declaration based on the candidate’s knowledge at the time.
    2. Apply its mind to the specific facts, including the type of suppression, gravity of the offense, nature of the post, and the eventual outcome of the criminal proceedings.
  • Knowledge as a Pre-requisite for Suppression: The Court emphasized that knowledge is a necessary pre-requisite for non-disclosure; a person cannot be accused of suppressing something of which they had no awareness or means of knowing.
  • Establishment of Bona Fide Ignorance: While the onus lies on the candidate to prove their lack of awareness through cogent material rather than a mere plea of ignorance, the appellant successfully discharged this burden by presenting a clean police character certificate issued after the NCR date and subsequent police reports confirming his name was deleted from the accused array without ever being summoned or arrested.
  • Mechanical Termination Prohibited: The Court noted that the employer and the High Court erred by treating termination as an automatic consequence of criminal antecedents without applying judicial mind or assessing the candidate’s actual suitability.
  • Final Relief: The appeal was allowed, the termination order was set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits and 50% back wages payable within eight weeks, failing which 6% interest would accrue.

2026 INSC 829

Shatrughn Yadav v. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (F.A.C.T.) and Others (D.O.J. 11.08.2026)

2026 INSC 829 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Arbitration: Supreme Court Upholds Interim Direction to Deposit Encashed Bank Guarantee Amount

August 13, 2026 No Comments

This civil appeal challenged the judgment of the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench, which had confirmed a Single Judge’s order directing the appellant (National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd.) to deposit an amount of Rs. 3.5 crores into the court registry. The dispute arose from a 2002 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) under which the respondent received a mobilization advance secured by bank guarantees. After disputes arose, an interim court order in 2005 permitted the appellant to encash the bank guarantees only if an arbitral award determined that an amount was recoverable by the appellant. Although the arbitral tribunal eventually dismissed the respondent’s claims in December 2017, the appellant had already encashed the bank guarantees earlier that year because the respondent failed to keep them alive. Crucially, the appellant had filed no counter-claim in the arbitration, and the tribunal’s award contained no finding that the mobilization advance was unutilized. The Supreme Court held that in such rare and compelling post-award circumstances, an unsuccessful party can maintain a Section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to prevent unjust enrichment and preserve the efficacy of pending Section 34 proceedings.

  • Maintainability of Section 9 by an Unsuccessful Party: Reaffirming recent jurisprudence (Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi), the Supreme Court reiterated that an unsuccessful party (award debtor) can invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, at the post-award stage in rare and compelling cases to seek interim protection, such as preventing irreversible prejudice while a Section 34 challenge is pending.
  • Absence of Counter-Claim and Findings: The Court observed that the appellant had failed to file any counter-claim before the arbitrator. Furthermore, the arbitral tribunal’s award lacked any specific finding that the respondent had misappropriated or failed to utilize the mobilization advance against which the bank guarantees were issued.
  • Violation of Original Court Intent: The encashment and retention of the Rs. 3.5 crores ran counter to the safeguards established by the High Court’s order dated 15.12.2005, which stipulated that bank guarantees could only be encashed to satisfy an enforceable recovery amount determined through adjudication.
  • Prevention of Unjust Enrichment: Allowing the appellant to indefinitely retain the encashed bank guarantee funds—despite the absence of a counter-claim or a concrete finding of non-utilization of funds—would amount to unjust enrichment.
  • Balanced Interlocutory Relief: The Supreme Court found that the lower courts exercised their discretionary power judiciously under the “just and convenient” standard of Section 9. Directing the deposit of the money into an interest-bearing Fixed Deposit with the High Court registry fairly balances equities and safeguards the ultimate outcome of the pending Section 34 proceedings.
  • Final Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and granted the appellant four weeks to deposit the Rs. 3.5 crores with the High Court Registry, to be kept in an auto-renewing Fixed Deposit pending the final disposal of the Section 34 application.

2026 INSC 828

National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. Ishvakoo (India) Pvt. Ltd. (D.O.J. 11.08.2026)

2026 INSC 828 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Shield Against Presumptions: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Defences in Insider Trading Regulations

August 13, 2026 No Comments

This civil appeal filed under Section 15Z of the SEBI Act, 1992, challenges the final judgment and order dated April 19, 2022, passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), Mumbai. The SAT had previously set aside the order of the Whole Time Member (WTM) of SEBI, which found the respondents guilty of insider trading and imposed monetary penalties alongside directions for disgorgement. The core legal question before the Supreme Court involved evaluating the nature of the defences available under Regulation 4(1) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, and whether financial distress or external commercial compulsions can exempt an insider from charges of trading while in possession of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI).

  • Factual Matrix & SEBI’s Action:
    • The Whole Time Member (WTM) of SEBI held the respondents (Rajeev Vasant Sheth, Aarti Sheth, and Divya Sheth) guilty of violating Section 12(A)(d) & (e) of the SEBI Act, Regulations 3(1) and 4(1) of the PIT Regulations, 2015, and code of conduct provisions, imposing penalties and ordering disgorgement of amounts to the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF).
    • On appeal, the SAT set aside SEBI’s order, accepting the respondents’ explanation that the shares were dealt with because the company (TJL) was at risk of being downgraded to a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).
  • Statutory Framework and Concept of Insider Trading:
    • The Court examined the layout of the SEBI Act, 1992, highlighting Section 12A (prohibition of manipulative and deceptive devices and insider trading), Section 15G (penalties for insider trading), Section 15J (factors for penalty), and Section 11B (power to issue directions, including disgorgement).
    • It noted that while insider trading involves dealing in securities based on confidential price-sensitive information in breach of a fiduciary duty, the statute relies heavily on specific regulatory frameworks to curb such abuse.
  • Interpretation of Regulation 4(1) and Defences:
    • Regulation 4(1) of the PIT Regulations, 2015 establishes that trading while in possession of UPSI is presumed to be motivated by such knowledge, making reasons or purposes of applying proceeds generally irrelevant under the statutory note.
    • The Court analyzed the six specific illustrative defences provided under Regulation 4(1) and addressed whether external economic pressures (like avoiding an NPA classification or corporate debt restructuring as referenced in precedents like Abhijit Rajan) fall within these protections.
    • The Court clarified the rules of statutory interpretation, noting that the word “including” indicates the listed defences are not strictly exhaustive, but any other unlisted defence must align with the same or similar nature as those explicitly provided.

2026 INSC 826

Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Rajeev Vasant Sheth & Ors. (D.O.J. 11.08.2026)

2026 INSC 826 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Supreme Court Quashes Dowry Death Charges Against BSF Jawans When Impeachable Alibi Exists

August 13, 2026 No Comments

This criminal appeal arose from a final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which had declined to quash a chargesheet and ongoing criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellant-husband (a BSF soldier). The Supreme Court examined whether criminal proceedings can be stalled at the threshold using official documentary evidence of alibi and lack of corroborative material. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and quashing the chargesheet and criminal proceedings against the appellant, ruling that continuing the prosecution constituted an abuse of the court’s process.

  • Factual Matrix & Prosecution Allegations:
    • The marriage between the deceased and the appellant took place on 21.02.2014.
    • An FIR (Crime No. 227 of 2016) was lodged alleging that the deceased was harassed for dowry and subsequently killed by hanging on 13.06.2016.
    • The inquest report and post-mortem examination noted that the room and main entrance were locked from the inside (requiring police to break open the doors) and that the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging with no other injuries indicative of a struggle.
  • The Appellant’s Defense of Alibi:
    • The appellant was a member of the Border Security Force (BSF) stationed on the Indo-Bangladesh border and was officially detailed on Dak-runner duty to carry official documents from Shillong to New Delhi from 27.05.2016 to 22.06.2016.
    • Official service records established he was stationed at Delhi/Shillong during the relevant period of the incident, presenting an unblemished documentary defense.
  • Legal Principles and the Rajiv Thapar 4-Step Test:
    • The Supreme Court referenced the landmark parameters from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and the four-step test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor to evaluate whether official defense material can quash a case prior to trial.
    • The Court observed that the BSF service certificate was sound, reasonable, indubitable, and of sterling quality, fulfilling all criteria necessary to rule out the assertions in the chargesheet without requiring a full trial.
  • Medical and Evidentiary Evaluation:
    • The post-mortem report reflected absolute absence of physical struggle or external injuries apart from the ligature mark, undercutting the prosecution’s theory of multiple family members acting in concert.
    • The prosecution failed to produce call-detail records or independent electronic verification to support telephonic dowry demands connecting the appellant to the crime scene.
  • Final Ruling:
    • The Supreme Court concluded that forcing an undeniably absent service member to undergo a full trial based on bare, omnibus allegations despite unimpeachable official records amounts to an abuse of court process.
    • Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the criminal proceedings and chargesheet against the appellant (Rahul) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, were quashed.

2026 INSC 825

Rahul v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (D.O.J. 11.08.2026)

2026 INSC 825 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins