LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Bilal Hajar @ Abdul Hameed v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Criminal Appeal · 2018 INSC 945Decided 10 Oct 2018
Criminal Appeal No. 1305 of 2008
Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre · Justice Indu Malhotra

Background

Nine persons were tried for murder after posters threatening to kill a man named Siva appeared on public walls in Coimbatore in 1991; Siva was later stabbed to death by some of the accused. The appellant (accused no. 6) was convicted only under Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy) for allegedly hosting the meeting at his house where the plan to kill Siva was hatched, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the two prosecution witnesses who placed him at that meeting (a tea-stall owner and his tea-boy) were unreliable "chance witnesses."

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that an appellate court under Article 136 of the Constitution should be slow to re-appreciate evidence already concurrently accepted by two lower courts unless the findings are perverse or made without evidence. On examining the testimony of the two witnesses itself, the Court found it natural, consistent, and uncontradicted on any material point, and noted the appellant had chosen not to cross-examine either witness. The Court held that physical presence at the actual killing was not necessary for a conspiracy conviction, hosting the meeting where the plan was hatched was sufficient to sustain guilt under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 302 IPC. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and life sentence upheld.

Lesson Learnt

A person can be criminally liable for conspiracy to murder even without being present at the actual killing, if evidence shows they participated in planning it; and failing to cross-examine a witness on alleged inconsistencies can later bar a party from challenging that witness's credibility on appeal.

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