LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ajmal vs The State of Kerala

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 709Decided 12 Jul 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 1838 of 2019
Ajay Rastogi · Vikram Nath

Background

During a nighttime festival in Kerala in January 2008, a verbal altercation between two groups of young men over vehicles not giving way escalated when the group of ten accused later stopped the victim's car, forced the occupants out, and attacked them with a stick and a brick picked up from the roadside. The victim died of head injuries the next day, and the trial court convicted several of the ten accused (including the three appellants) for offences including murder under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34; the Kerala High Court had already acquitted some accused of the unlawful-assembly charge and upheld the conviction of the three appellants, who then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the case did not amount to murder but to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, because there was no premeditation, the accused were unarmed when they stopped the vehicle and only picked up weapons during a spontaneous quarrel, the fatal blows were single blows each (not repeated assaults), the alleged exhortation to kill was not proved by the eyewitnesses at trial, and the High Court had already found no common object for an "unlawful assembly." It converted the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC while maintaining the other convictions (wrongful restraint, causing hurt, mischief), and since the appellants had already served years in custody, sentenced them to time already served and ordered their release.

Lesson Learnt

Courts distinguish murder from culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on factors like premeditation, whether weapons were carried in advance or picked up in the heat of the moment, the number and severity of blows, and whether there was real intention to kill: a sudden fight escalating into a fatal single blow, without proof of a design to kill, may be culpable homicide rather than murder.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case