LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Naval Kishore & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1048Decided 24 Sept 2026
Criminal Appeal arising out of Diary No. 56431 of 2025
Justice Aravind Kumar · Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

Background

In 2009, a woman, Pinki, and her two young daughters were found murdered near a railway track in Ludhiana. Investigation revealed that Pinki's husband had planned the killing (suspecting his wife's fidelity and to claim insurance money), assisted by his brother and a friend (the two appellants here), who were promised a share of the money. The Trial Court convicted all three of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment with an added direction that they "remain in prison till the rest of their life", effectively excluding any future remission. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence but did not examine whether the trial court had the power to add that no-remission condition. The two appellants (not the husband) challenged this before the Supreme Court, conceding the conviction but contesting the sentence.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that while a trial (Sessions) court can sentence someone to ordinary life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, only Constitutional Courts (the Supreme Court and High Courts) have the power to impose a special "no-remission" category of life sentence that curtails the government's statutory remission powers. A Sessions Court cannot do so. Since the Trial Court here was not competent to add that condition, it was set aside. However, given the gravity of the crime (premeditated murder of three people, including two children) balanced against the appellants' roughly 12 and 11.5 years already served and their satisfactory prison conduct, the Court itself exercised its constitutional sentencing power and substituted a fixed term of 25 years' rigorous imprisonment without remission, instead of life-long incarceration or ordinary life imprisonment (which effectively means release after 14 years' remission).

Lesson Learnt

A trial court cannot order that a convict "remain in prison for the rest of their natural life" without any possibility of remission, only the Supreme Court or a High Court can impose such a sentence, and even then only in appropriately grave cases, after weighing both the brutality of the crime and factors like time already served and conduct in custody.

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