1) Absence of proof of demand of illegal gratification & recovery may be ground for acquittal but not for quashing FIR
While setting aside the impugned orders of the Karnataka High Court quashing the FIRs in a corruption case against certain police officials, the Court held that the absence of proof as to the demand of illegal gratification and recovery may become a ground for discharge and/or ultimate acquittal in the trial, but these cannot become grounds for quashing of the FIR.
The Apex Court was considering a batch of seven appeals preferred by the State of Karnataka.
Cause Title- State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Prabhu Shankar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 766)
Date of Judgment- July 30, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
2) State can’t take advantage of its own continuing default: Supreme Court grants relief to deputy collector promotees
While observing that the State cannot take advantage of its own continuing default by treating the promotees’ ad hoc appointment as bad in law, the Court allowed the Deputy Collector Promotees to count their ad hoc service for the purposes of computing seniority.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the final judgment passed by the Uttarakhand High Court. The matter revolved around the question of entitlement of the promotees to count their ad hoc service for the purposes of computing seniority.
Cause Title- The State of Uttarakhand v. Jagdish Chandra Kandpal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 759)
Date of Judgment- July 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
3) Solatium and statutory interest inseparable parts of land acquisition compensation; appeal to exclude them attracts ad valorem court fee
The Court held that the additional amount under Section 23(1-A), solatium under Section 23(2), and statutory interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are integral components of compensation, and that an appeal seeking their reduction or exclusion attracts ad valorem court fee under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
The Court was hearing an appeal by Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. against a Uttarakhand High Court order directing it to pay ad valorem court fee on the decretal amount of ₹2,34,03,602.05 in a first appeal arising from land acquisition proceedings.
Cause Title- Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. v. S.P. Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 773)
Date of Judgment- July 31, 2026
Coram- Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Manmohan
4) Weapon recovery alone cannot sustain conviction without link to crime: Supreme Court restores trial court acquittal in 1988 murder case
The Court held that recovery of a weapon under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, even if proved and even if human blood is found on it, cannot by itself lead to conviction unless the prosecution establishes a clear link between the recovered weapon, the crime and the accused.
The Bench accordingly restored the Trial Court’s order of acquittal in a 1988 murder case, holding that the eyewitness testimonies were suspect, the alleged dying declaration was not credible, the scene of occurrence was doubtful, and the prosecution's evidence did not satisfy the standard required to overturn an acquittal.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a Bombay High Court order which had remitted the matter to the Sessions Court for reconsideration of eyewitness testimony, Section 27 recoveries and the chemical analysis report, after the Trial Court had acquitted the accused.
Cause Title- Khalil Pasha & Ors. v. Abdul Rasheed & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 754)
Date of Judgment- July 28, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
5) Stray bovine-related accidents a growing concern: Supreme Court suggests compensation mechanism, animal tagging
The Court observed that accidents with a direct and proximate bovine cause are “not few and far between”, and suggested that the Centre and State Governments consider measures including complete implementation of cattle laws, compensation mechanisms for cattle-related accidents, tagging of animals, responsibility of owners, and nodal officers for shelters and digitised records. The Court was hearing an appeal by the widow of a man who was hit by a stray bull while walking on the road, suffered a head injury and became unconscious. A Single Judge of the High Court had awarded compensation, but the Division Bench set aside that relief on the ground that the matter involved disputed questions of fact and relegated the claimants to a civil court.
Cause Title- Nisha v. Municipal Council Sangrur & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 774)
Date of Judgment- July 31, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
6) Elevators as common carriers owe heightened duty of care; manufacturer, operator and premises owner jointly liable to safeguard users
The Court held that elevators must be treated as common carriers owing a heightened duty of care to passengers, and that the manufacturer, operator and owner of premises providing elevator services are joint duty bearers liable to safeguard users.
It also upheld the finding that OTIS Elevator Company was principally deficient in service, affirming 70% liability on OTIS, 25% on MES and 5% on RAW in a fatal lift accident at the RAW office complex.
The Court was hearing OTIS’ appeal against an NCDRC order holding OTIS, the Research and Analysis Wing and the Military Engineering Service jointly and severally liable to compensate the family of a senior officer who died after a malfunctioning lift suddenly moved downward during rescue.
Cause Title- M/s OTIS Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. Rashmi Handa & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 756)
Date of Judgment- July 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
7) Requirement of seeking prior permission before applying for civil post & grant of NOC can’t be dispensed with at Airman’s will
While upholding the refusal to grant an Airman NOC and consequent discharge from the IAF in view of his appointment on a civil post, the Court held that the prescription of seeking prior permission before attempting to apply for a civil post and the subsequent grant of NOC by the competent authority after such selection cannot stated to be simple procedural requirements that could be dispensed with at the will of the concerned Airman.
The Apex Court was of the view that by skipping the first requirement of seeking prior permission to apply for a civil post, an Airman cannot seek grant of NOC.
Cause Title- Nakhat Singh v. Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 758)
Date of Judgment- July 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
8) Private investigation remains unregulated despite concerns: Supreme Court urges Law Ministry, Law Commission to examine issue
The Court observed that private investigation remains an “area sans regulation” and that a mechanism is needed to address evolving methods of evidence collection, including photographs and videos allegedly procured through private investigators or detectives.
The Court made the observations while dealing with electronic material placed in a matrimonial maintenance dispute, where a large number of photographs and videos were relied upon to allege that a spouse was pursuing a relationship outside marriage.
Cause Title- HC v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 778)
Date of Judgment- July 31, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
9) Section 125(4) CrPC adultery plea can be decided before final maintenance; interim maintenance can be denied only on ex facie clear proof
The Court held that an application under Section 125(4) CrPC alleging adultery must be considered before final adjudication of maintenance proceedings, but interim maintenance can be denied at the threshold only where clear and cogent evidence ex facie establishes adultery.
The Court was hearing an appeal by a husband who had filed an application under Section 125(4) CrPC, contending that his wife was not entitled to interim maintenance on account of alleged adulterous relationships.
The Trial Court dismissed his application at the threshold, observing that the authenticity of the photographs and CD relied upon could be determined only after evidence was exhibited in the main maintenance proceedings. The High Court declined interference, holding that the issue could be adjudicated at the final stage.
Cause Title- HC v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 778)
Date of Judgment- July 31, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
10) IBC moratorium operates against corporate debtor alone; no bar on deciding consumer complaint against directors
While granting relief to homebuyers stuck in a real estate dispute, the Supreme Court has held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) operates against the corporate debtor alone and no other category, whether it be any subsidiary company, manager/ director, or personal guarantor, can be added to it unless specifically provided.
The Apex Court further held that there was no bar on deciding the consumer complaint against the Promoters, Directors when there was no moratorium operating in their favour.
The Apex Court was considering the civil appeals filed against the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby the NCDRC rejected the applications seeking continuation of consumer complaint against the Respondents in view of the moratorium imposed against the first Respondent under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and adjourning the complaint sine die.
Cause Title- Tejas J. Shah & Amisha T. Shah v. Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 746)
Date of Judgment- July 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
11) Motor accident compensation| Insurance company not liable when driver of offending vehicle didn’t possess valid driving license
The Court held that if the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving license, the same would have made the insurer bound to honour the award passed in a motor accident case. The Apex Court applied the principle of pay and recover saying that the insurer could not be held liable to make good the award as at the time of the accident the driver did not possess a valid license.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the appellant-insurer against the fastening of liability upon it by the High Court in terms of the impugned judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, reversing the finding of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal though granting compensation to the claimants but directing the respondents, namely, Om Prakash (driver of the offending vehicle) and Rajinder Singh (owner of the offending vehicle), to pay the amount as awarded. The Tribunal held the appellant-insurer not liable to pay the same.
Cause Title- Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Om Parkash & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 767)
Date of Judgment- July 30, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
12) Order U/S.299 CrPC has to be passed when accused is found absconding & not when he is subsequently apprehended
The Court held that an order under Section 299 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure has to conclusively find proof of the jurisdictional facts and has to be passed at the committal stage or at the trial stage, when the accused is found absconding and not when he is subsequently apprehended. The Apex Court rendered such findings while acquitting a murder accused who went absconding after noting that no order was passed under Section 299 when the matter was brought before Court, either at the time of committal or at the time of commencement of trial.
Cause Title- Mahendra Singh v. The State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 775)
Date of Judgment- July 31, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
13) Person authorised to frame rules can also amend, alter or delete: Supreme Court on registrar’s power u/s.55 (1) of Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act
While observing that a person authorised to frame rules also carries with him the requisite authorisation to amend, alter or delete, the Court held that the Registrar has the requisite power under Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act to frame the rules to regulate service conditions.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge setting aside the appellant’s promotion order to the post of Additional Manager, and one Kishor Bagh, the original writ petitioner (fifth respondent), being promoted on a notional basis vice him.
Cause Title- S. P. Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 769)
Date of Judgment- July 30, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
14) Respondent supporting decree need not file cross-objections to assail adverse finding if no additional relief is sought
The Court held that a respondent who supports a decree is entitled to assail a finding recorded against him without filing cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provided he does not seek any relief beyond what the decree has already granted.
The Court was hearing appeals against a Madras High Court judgment which had reversed the Trial Court’s refusal of specific performance and decreed the suit in favour of the purchasers. The Trial Court had granted a refund of the advance amount with interest and charge over the suit property, but declined specific performance on equitable grounds.
Cause Title- V.N.A.S. Chandran v. S. Venilla and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 776)
Date of Judgment- July 30, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
15) Employer cannot deny promotion or pay scale for missing acrs caused by its own wrongful action
The Court held that an employer cannot deny promotion or pay-scale benefits to an employee on the ground that the requisite number of Annual Confidential Reports are unavailable, where such non-availability was caused by the employer’s own wrongful action.
The Supreme Court accordingly held that a reinstated Rajasthan judicial officer was entitled to Selection Scale and Super Time Scale based on his valid ACRs, after finding that the Rajasthan High Court’s administrative side could not rely on the absence of ACRs during the period when he had been wrongfully kept out of service.
The Court was hearing a miscellaneous application filed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan on its administrative side, seeking clarification on whether the judicial officer’s reinstatement with continuity of service, seniority and consequential benefits included the grant of Selection Scale and Super Time Scale despite non-availability of ACRs for six out of seven relevant years.
Cause Title- High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Abhay Jain (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 762)
Date of Judgment- July 30, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
16) Order VII Rule 7 CPC| Court’s discretion to grant smaller relief than claimed not available when plaintiff sets up different case from established one
While dealing with a matter concerning a partition suit, the Supreme Court has held that Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) authorizes the Court to grant a smaller relief than the larger relief claimed, but such discretion would not be available when a plaintiff sets up an altogether different case from the one ultimately found established on facts and in law. The Apex Court was dealing with an appeal challenging an order of the Madras High Court passed in a second appeal.
Cause Title- Maragadham v. Periyaraja (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 757)
Date of Judgment- July 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
17) Courts can’t place absolute non-extendable outer limit on police custody: Supreme Court explains legislative change U/S 187(2) BNSS
While modifying the conditions for carrying out the interrogation of a police officer booked in a custodial death case, the Court held that the Court cannot place an absolute and non-extendable outer limit on police custody, since such a limit forecloses recourse to Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regardless of what the investigation may yet reveal.
The appeal by special leave was preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Cause Title- The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 744)
Date of Judgment- July 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
18) Sentence for remainder of natural life without remission cannot be held unconstitutional
The Court held that a sentence directing imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, including without remission in select cases, is valid and cannot be challenged as unconstitutional before a two-judge Bench after the issue has already been answered by a five-judge Constitution Bench.
The Court dismissed the Article 32 petitions as misdirected, observing that an attempt to re-agitate the settled issue amounted to misuse, if not abuse, of the process of law.
The Court was hearing four writ petitions by convicts who had either been sentenced by courts to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life or whose death sentences had been commuted by the President to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission or parole.
Cause Title- Ramasrey @ Fakkad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 764)
Date of Judgment- July 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
19) Appeal U/S 374 CrPC not maintainable against first-time conviction by sessions court exercising appellate jurisdiction
The Court held that where a Sessions Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, reverses an order of acquittal and convicts an accused for the first time, such conviction cannot be further appealed under Section 374 CrPC (corresponding to Section 415 BNSS), and clarified that revisions arising from such first-time appellate convictions must be approached by High Courts with greater scrutiny than ordinary revisions arising from concurrent findings of guilt.
The Court further directed that in such exceptional cases, High Courts should adopt a more liberal approach while exercising revisional jurisdiction and, where warranted by the facts, invoke the power under Section 401(1) CrPC (Section 442 BNSS) to exercise the same powers available to an appellate court, thereby ensuring that an accused convicted for the first time by an appellate court is not left without meaningful judicial scrutiny, even though no independent right of appeal exists.
Cause Title- Vishnu Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 770)
Date of Judgment- July 30, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
20) Roads inside ICD not public place under MVA; claimants may seek compensation for accidents by regular vehicles within depot
The Court held that roads inside a customs-bonded Inland Container Depot do not constitute a “public place” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while clarifying that this finding would not bar claimants from seeking compensation under the Act for accidents involving regular vehicles ordinarily plying on roads if such vehicles are taken inside the depot.
The Court also set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment and restored the Tribunal’s finding rejecting a Motor Vehicles Act compensation claim arising from an accident involving a Reach Stacker inside the Inland Container Depot.
The Court was hearing an appeal by Container Corporation of India Limited in a claim arising from an accident at the Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, where a Reach Stacker hit the claimant and ran over his pelvic region, resulting in amputation of his right leg and serious disability.
Cause Title- Container Corporation of India Limited v. Rishi Ranjan Mishra & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 763)
Date of Judgment- July 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
21) “Reach Stacker” used in enclosed custom-bonded inland container depot is not a "motor vehicle"
The Court held that a Reach Stacker, a heavy industrial machine used to lift and stack shipping containers, operating within an Inland Container Depot (ICD) is not a "motor vehicle" under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA).
Consequently, claims for compensation arising from accidents involving such specialized equipment within enclosed, restricted-access industrial premises cannot be maintained before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) under Section 166 of the MVA. The Bench set aside a judgment of the Delhi High Court and restored the order of the MACT Saket Courts, Delhi, which had rejected the claim petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Cause Title- Container Corporation of India Limited v. Rishi Ranjan Mishra & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 763)
Date of Judgment- July 29, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
22) Plaint amendment after commencement of trial to be permitted only if party couldn't raise matter before commencement despite due diligence
While dealing with a matter pertaining to a money recovery suit, the Supreme Court has clarified that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) specifically speaks of amendment of the plaint after commencement of trial being permitted only if the party, despite having exercised due diligence, could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the defendant in a suit for recovery of money challenging the impugned order, which permitted amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage, when the suit was dismissed on that principal aspect. The same was sought to be brought in by way of amendment. The District Court, in which the appeal was pending, had rejected the application.
Cause Title- Chitra & Anr. v. C. Natarajan (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 781)
Date of Judgment- July 28, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
23) National Commission for Scheduled Caste can’t take over adjudicatory functions to pass orders in service matters
While setting aside an order upholding the directions passed by the National Commission for Scheduled Caste in respect of a service matter, the Court held that the directions issued by the Commission, as they related to the payment of arrears, were contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.
The Apex Court also held that the Commission cannot take over adjudicatory functions. The Apex Court was dealing with an appeal challenging an order passed by the Bombay High Court. The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Cause Title- Mumbai Port Authority v. National Commission For Scheduled Caste (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 755)
Date of Judgment- July 28, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
24) Central government has power u/s 3 Environment Protection Act to formulate bounded amnesty schemes for non-compliant projects
The Court held that while the prior Environmental Clearance (EC) requirement under the 2006 EIA Notification remains mandatory, Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, equips the Central Government with ample statutory authority to carve out narrowly tailored, time-bound amnesty schemes. It was observed that the decriminalization of regulatory contraventions under the 1986 Act via the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023, supplies a relaxed legislative space that reinforces the Executive’s power to amend the prior clearance regime.
The Court also held that the prior Environmental Clearance (EC) regime under the 2006 EIA Notification is mandatory and does not accommodate post-facto clearances without formal statutory amendments.
Cause Title- Vanashakti v Union of India and other connected matters (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 761)
Date of Judgment- July 29, 2026
Coram- Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi
25) Order XXII Rule 10 CPC plea barred by res judicata if same transfer was earlier decided on merits under Order I Rule 10 CPC
The Court held that an application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC would be barred by res judicata where an earlier impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was decided on merits after examining the same transfer, the same interest and the same facts, and the order was neither appealed nor reviewed.
The Court was hearing an appeal arising from a property dispute in which subsequent purchasers sought impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC after their earlier impleadment plea under Order I Rule 10 CPC, based on the same registered sale deed, had been rejected by the High Court.
Cause Title- Sanjiv Kumar v. Shakuntla Devi and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 747)
Date of Judgment- July 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
26) Property legally bought in wife’s name is her exclusive property; application of Section 33 of Indian Succession Act misplaced
The Court observed that for the application of Section 33 of the Indian Succession Act, it is essential that the deceased person regarding whom the succession dispute is, is a male. The Apex Court further held that when a man legally bought the property in the name of his wife, the application of this provision would be misplaced since the property would be in the name of the wife and the same would be her exclusive property.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the original defendant challenging the judgment passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court in a Second Appeal.
Cause Title- Shakuntala & Ors. v. Robert Anthony & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 765)
Date of Judgment- July 30, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
27) Registration certificate not conclusive of entitlement to interim possession of seized vehicles
While observing that a registration certificate is a relevant factor but not conclusive of entitlement to interim possession of seized vehicles, the Court upheld an order granting interim possession of seized vehicles to a Company.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court wherein the Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the petition filed by M/s Earth Stein Private Limited (respondent company) was allowed. By the said order, the interim custody of the subject vehicles, namely one Bolero City Pick-up, 3 Excavators and one Ashok Leyland Tipper was granted to the respondent company, pending the resolution of the criminal cases between them.
Cause Title- Krishnan Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 748)
Date of Judgment- July 27, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
28) Refundable security deposit paid in lieu for GPA execution under joint development agreement is not by itself entrustment u/s 405 IPC
The Court held that mere payment of a refundable security deposit under a Joint Development Agreement, in lieu of execution of a General Power of Attorney, does not amount to “entrustment” under Section 405 IPC unless dishonest misappropriation, conversion or disposal of the property in breach of law or contract is specifically made out.
The Court was hearing an appeal against the Madras High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 406, 420, read with Sections 109 and 34 IPC in relation to a property development dispute.
Cause Title- G. Saminathan & Another v. The State, Represented By The Sub-Inspector Of Police & Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 772)
Date of Judgment- July 31, 2026
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
29) Conviction can’t be based merely on ground of last seen theory without any other incriminating circumstance: Supreme Court acquits murder accused
While acquitting an accused in a murder case after finding that the testimony of the witnesses to prove the last seen theory did not inspire confidence, the Supreme Court has held that there can be no conviction merely on the basis of the last seen theory without any other incriminating circumstance.
The Apex Court was considering a murder case registered against the appellant.
Cause Title- Munu Sen v. The State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 780)
Date of Judgment- July 29, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran