Dhirendra Kumar @ Dhiroo v. State of Uttarakhand

Criminal Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Criminal Appeal No. 1848 of 2008)Decided 26 Feb 2015
Criminal Appeal No. 1848 of 2008
Justice Dipak Misra · Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel

Background

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC (murder) and sentenced to life imprisonment for killing Surat Singh with a stone on the night of 1 April 1983 in a village in present-day Uttarakhand, following a prior altercation over an alleged incident involving the appellant's aunt. The trial court's conviction was upheld by the High Court of Uttarakhand. The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that the eyewitness accounts were unreliable and that, since he too had sustained injuries, the incident was really a sudden, mutual fight that should be treated as a lesser offence (culpable homicide, not murder).

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that both lower courts had reasonably relied on the eyewitnesses (PW3 and PW4) and corroborating testimony, and that re-appreciation of evidence is not warranted in an appeal under Article 136 absent patent illegality or perversity. The Court found no evidence of a "free fight": the deceased's injuries (a shattered skull and face with brain matter visible) indicated a deliberate, forceful, and cruel attack, not an accidental or mutual-combat injury, especially against the backdrop of prior enmity between the families. The Court distinguished the facts from a precedent cited by the defence (Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad) where the fight arose suddenly without prior enmity. Applying the settled factors for distinguishing Section 302 from Section 304 (nature of weapon, prior enmity, force used, part of body targeted), the Court concluded this was murder, not a lesser offence, and dismissed the appeal.

Lesson Learnt

In appeals to the Supreme Court, factual findings and credibility assessments made by two lower courts are rarely reopened unless there is a clear legal error. Whether a killing is "murder" or a lesser offence turns on objective factors like the nature and location of injuries and evidence of premeditation or prior animosity: a claim of "sudden fight" will not succeed if the injuries and circumstances point to a deliberate, forceful attack.

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