Sri Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.

Criminal Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2017)Decided 6 Jan 2017
Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2017
Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose · Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

Background

The appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 376 IPC after a complaint that he had sexual intercourse with the victim on several occasions on a false promise of marriage, with the victim stating in cross-examination that the last such incident occurred in August 2009. During trial, the appellant raised a plea of juvenility, claiming that going by his date of birth he was a minor at the relevant time. The trial court examined documentary evidence and fixed his date of birth as 19.10.1991, holding him not juvenile on the date of the offence, but the Madras High Court directed a medical examination to redetermine his age, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that once the trial court had relied on statutory documentary evidence to determine the appellant's date of birth, and that finding was not shown to be flawed, there was no basis for the High Court to order a medical examination: the law requires a medical report only when the documents are found fabricated or manipulated. The Court also held that where an offence is alleged to have occurred on multiple dates, juvenility must be assessed as of the date of the last incident, which the trial court had correctly done based on the victim's own testimony. The Court distinguished a precedent relied on by the respondent (Karthi) as relevant only to delay in lodging the FIR, not to shifting the date of the offence itself. Finding the High Court's approach "incorrect and completely misdirected" and remand to be an empty formality, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the trial court's finding that the appellant was not a juvenile.

Lesson Learnt

When a court has already determined a person's age from valid documentary evidence, courts should not order a fresh medical age-determination merely because a party disputes the finding: medical examination is only warranted where the documents themselves are shown to be fabricated.

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