Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: May 18 – May 22, 2026
1) Threat to upload intimate video can constitute criminal intimidation even without recovery of device or recording
The Court upheld the conviction of a man for criminal intimidation under Sections 503 and 506 IPC for threatening to upload intimate images/videos of a woman with whom he had been in a long-term romantic relationship, holding that even in the absence of recovery of the alleged video or mobile phone, conviction can be sustained if the prosecutrix’s testimony inspires confidence and establishes a genuine apprehension of harm.
While dismissing the appeal against the Madras High Court’s decision affirming conviction on the charge of criminal intimidation, the Bench held that under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, “special knowledge” is not confined only to physical spaces like a home or closed room, but can also extend to intimate relationships where only the parties involved are privy to what transpired between them. However, considering that the incident dated back to 2015, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
Cause Title- Vijayakumar v. State of Tamilnadu (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 525)
Date of Judgment- May 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
2) Can’t have multiple FIRs in respect of same transaction: Supreme Court allows clubbing of FIRs in Gurugram real estate fraud case
While reaffirming the view that there cannot be multiple FIRs in respect of the same occurrence or transaction giving rise to cognizable offences, the Court ordered the clubbing of FIRs against the Directors of a company in a real estate fraud case involving a project named 'Brahma City'/'Krrish World' in Gurugram.
The Court was considering a writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, by the petitioners seeking appropriate directions from the Court for clubbing/transfer of multiple First Information Reports registered against them in different jurisdictions, arising out of the same set of transactions about the real estate project “Brahma City/Krrish World”, to obviate multiplicity of proceedings.
Cause Title- Amit Katyal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 509)
Date of Judgment- May 18, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
3) Amicus must be granted adequate opportunity to confer with convict: Supreme Court reiterates
The Court directed compliance with the directions issued in Anokhi Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) and Bhola Mahto v State of Jharkhand (2026), mandating that the amicus must be afforded a reasonable time to prepare the matter and an adequate opportunity must be granted to the amicus to meet and confer with the accused/convict concerned.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the appellant, who was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Cause Title- Nandkishore Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 531)
Date of Judgment- May 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
4) “Exclusion of wife & children not a suspicious circumstance by itself”: Supreme Court upholds unregistered will in favour of testator’s sister
The Court upheld the validity of an unregistered Will executed in favour of the testator’s sister, holding that mere exclusion of the wife and children from inheritance cannot by itself invalidate a Will in the absence of suspicious circumstances affecting its genuineness or due execution.
The Court observed that the very object of a Will is to alter the normal line of succession and that a testator is legally entitled to distribute property according to his own wishes. The Bench further reiterated that there is no legal requirement mandating registration of a Will and no adverse inference can be drawn solely because a Will is unregistered.
The Court was hearing a civil appeal challenging the judgment of the Karnataka High Court affirming concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court upholding a Will executed by the deceased testator in favour of his younger sister. The appellants, being the wife and children of the deceased, had alleged that the Will was fabricated and surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
Cause Title- Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) & Ors. v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 521)
Date of Judgment- May 21, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
5) High Court cannot grant fresh bail after Supreme Court cancels bail without showing change in circumstances
The Court held that a High Court cannot grant fresh bail to an accused whose earlier bail was cancelled by the Supreme Court unless the subsequent bail order discloses a material change in circumstances or fresh grounds which were not considered at the time of cancellation of bail.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the informant challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the accused in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The accused had earlier been granted bail by the High Court, which was subsequently cancelled by the Supreme Court in January 2025.
Cause Title- Mohseen v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 526)
Date of Judgment- May 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
6) Non-mentioning of author of crime in inquest report can’t be reason to doubt subsequently named accused’s involvement
While remanding a bail matter back to the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court held that the non-mentioning of the author of the crime or the person who had caused the death in the inquest report cannot, by itself, be a reason to doubt the involvement of the accused, who may be subsequently named.
The Apex Court was considering a criminal appeal preferred by the nephew of the deceased, challenging the order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application by which the Accused (second respondent) was released on bail.
Cause Title- Bhagat Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 527)
Date of Judgment- May 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
7) Adverse inference can be drawn against a party possessing special knowledge of facts if he fails to enter witness box
The Court upheld the Madras High Court’s dismissal of a suit challenging multiple sale deeds executed through registered General Powers of Attorney (GPAs), reiterating that where a party possessing special knowledge of facts fails to enter the witness box, an adverse inference may legitimately be drawn against such party.
The Bench noted that the appellant had failed to produce documentary evidence proving the alleged loan transactions, repayment of principal, or payment of interest. The Court also found it significant that the appellant herself did not enter the witness box despite making serious allegations of fraud, forgery, and misuse of blank signed papers.
Cause Title- Mallika v. R. Nallathambi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 529)
Date of Judgment- May 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Read Further…
8) Employee has no vested right to compel government to fill vacancies through promotion after cadre restructuring
The Court reiterated that employees do not possess a vested right or legitimate expectation to be promoted and that the Government, as appointing authority, is entitled to decide not to fill vacancies by promotion, especially where there is cadre restructuring and a change in recruitment policy.
The Court further held that vacancies need not necessarily be filled under the rules existing on the date when such vacancies arose and reiterated that the applicable rules are those prevailing on the date consideration for promotion actually takes place.
The Court was hearing appeals filed by the State of Odisha challenging a judgment of the Orissa High Court directing the convening of a Departmental Promotion Committee for considering the respondents for appointment to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer under executive instructions prevailing before the Odisha Transport Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021.
Cause Title- State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 505)
Date of Judgment- May 18, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
9) “Motive is irrelevant”: Supreme Court upholds conviction of husband accused of murdering wife by strangulating her
The Court upheld the conviction of a husband for murdering his wife by strangulation inside the matrimonial home, holding that the medical evidence, surrounding circumstances, conduct of the accused, and the false defence sought to be projected through an alleged suicide note cumulatively formed an unbroken chain pointing solely towards his guilt.
The Court observed that the accused had failed to furnish any plausible explanation regarding the suspicious death of his wife inside the matrimonial home and had failed to discharge the burden cast upon him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the husband challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court affirming his conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife. The High Court had upheld the finding that the death was homicidal and not suicidal.
Cause Title- Chetan Dashrath Gade v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 522)
Date of Judgment- May 21, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
10) Statutory compensation under MRTP Act cannot be waived by contract: Supreme Court reaffirms landowners’ right to additional TDR
The Court reaffirmed that landowners surrendering land under Section 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966 are entitled to full statutory compensation, including additional Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for development of amenities on the surrendered land. The Court held that such entitlement cannot be defeated through contractual undertakings, executive conditions, allegations of delay, or claims of waiver.
The Court observed that compensation payable upon acquisition of land is intrinsically linked to Article 300A of the Constitution of India and that authorities cannot compel landowners to relinquish statutory rights as a pre-condition for grant of development rights. It further held that delay and laches cannot defeat claims seeking fair compensation for acquisition of property.
Cause Title- Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Vijay Nagar Apartments & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 517)
Date of Judgment- May 20, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
11) Criminal proceedings against accused cannot continue when similarly situated co-accused stands discharged
The Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be selectively continued against one accused where similarly situated co-accused, against whom allegations are equal or even more serious, have already been discharged by the Court.
The Court observed that the principle of parity is a foundational tenet of criminal jurisprudence and mandates equal treatment of similarly situated accused persons.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the refusal to discharge the appellant, a public official, in criminal proceedings arising out of alleged irregularities relating to administrative approvals and official decision-making concerning forest and environmental matters.
Cause Title- Susanta Kumar Dalei @ Susanta Kumar Dalai v. State of Odisha (Vigilance) (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 510)
Date of Judgment- May 18, 2026
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
12) Punjab State Grid Code| Strict liability penalty for failure to demonstrate declared power capacity does not require mens rea
The Court held that a generating station’s failure to demonstrate its declared power generation capacity, when called upon by the State Load Despatch Centre (SLDC), attracts a strict civil liability penalty and does not require proof of mens rea, deliberate intent, or illegal profiteering. Restoring the findings of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC), the Court ruled that gaming of the grid system and failure to demonstrate declared capacity are distinct violations under the Punjab State Grid Code, 2013.
It observed that while allegations of gaming require proof of intentional misdeclaration and undue commercial gain after a due inquiry complying with principles of natural justice, penalties for failure to demonstrate declared capability under Regulation 11.3.13 operate independently as a strict liability mechanism. The Bench clarified that the provision is intended to ensure the integrity and reliability of power scheduling and grid operations in real time.
Cause Title- Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Talwandi Sabo Power Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 515)
Date of Judgment- May 20, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
13) Supreme Court upholds Visitor’s power to take disciplinary action against first Registrar of Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University
The Court held that the Visitor of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University was competent to initiate disciplinary action and terminate the services of the University’s First Registrar, holding that the power to appoint under the transitional provisions of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 also carried the authority to suspend or dismiss.
The Bench clarified that Section 46(b) of the Act, which empowered the Visitor to appoint the First Registrar, had to be read with Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, under which the authority having power to appoint also possesses the power to terminate unless a contrary intention appears. However, despite disagreeing with the Allahabad High Court’s finding that the Visitor lacked jurisdiction, the Court declined to interfere with the operative relief granted to the First Registrar considering the expiry of his tenure and the prolonged litigation between the parties.
Cause Title- Vice Chancellor Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University v. Jitendra Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 520)
Date of Judgment- May 21, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
14) Cannot deny regularization to similarly placed employees after regularizing 30,000 workers: Supreme Court grants relief to left-out muster roll workers in Assam
The Court while directing the State of Assam to regularize left-out muster roll workers, held that it cannot deny regularization benefits to workers who were left out of an earlier regularization exercise despite being similarly situated to nearly 30,000 workers already regularized under a July 22, 2005 Cabinet decision. The Court ruled that such exclusion violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India and clarified that the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 200 6) 4 SCC 1 cannot be mechanically invoked to defeat legitimate claims arising from long and continuous service.
The Court observed that once the State consciously framed and implemented a policy regularizing a defined class of workers engaged prior to April 1, 1993, it was constitutionally obligated to extend equal treatment to all eligible members of that class. The Bench further held that the State, as a model employer, cannot repeatedly assure courts that left-out workers would be considered for regularization and later rely on technical objections to deny them parity.
Cause Title- Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. The State Of Assam and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 523)
Date of Judgment- May 21, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
15) Should not support any party contrary to the law: Supreme Court pulls up Uttar Pradesh state authorities for filing affidavits to support waitlisted candidate
The Court observed that the role of government authorities is to provide objective assistance to the court based strictly on facts and applicable law, rather than taking an unlawful stand to favor an individual litigant. The Court held that a waitlisted candidate recommended for an institutional vacancy under Section 13(4) of the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, cannot legally demand a subsequent change in their designated place of posting.
The Court noted that statutory provisions governing unforeseen vacancies must be interpreted strictly and cannot be manipulated to permit a candidate to bypass initial allocations in pursuit of a preferred venue.
Cause Title- Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 508)
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2026
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
16) "Mistaken identity": Supreme Court acquits Sri Lankan refugee in UAPA case wrongly identified as absconding LTTE-accused
The Court acquitted a Sri Lankan refugee who had been convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), in an alleged conspiracy to revive the banned Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that he was the absconding accused “Sri” named in the original FIR.
The Court found that the appellant, whose real name was recorded as “Ranjan” in official documents, had been falsely implicated based on “mistaken identity” through belated and unreliable witness testimonies.
The Bench was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the Madras High Court affirming the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 120B IPC, Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv) and 38(1) of the UAPA, Section 6 of the Poisons Act, Section 14(c) of the Foreigners Act and Section 3 read with Section 12(1)(a) of the Passport Act.
Cause Title- Sri v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 516)
Date of Judgment- May 20, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
17) Seriousness of injury alone cannot attract attempt to murder charge without proof of intention to kill
The Court held that the gravity or seriousness of injuries by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, unless the prosecution establishes the requisite intention or knowledge necessary to constitute an attempt to murder.
The Court was hearing criminal appeals challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 307 and 506 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC, for assaulting the injured informant with lathis, causing head injuries which were subsequently declared dangerous to life.
Cause Title- Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 524)
Date of Judgment- April 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
18) Fundamental right to live with dignity includes citizens' freedom to move freely without apprehension from dog bites in public places
The Court observed that the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution necessarily encompasses the right of every citizen to access public spaces without the constant apprehension of physical harm from stray dog attacks.
The Court has dismissed all applications that sought a recall of its November 7 judgment. The Court robustly upheld the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), declaring that the framework remains legally binding and that challenges against it merit no acceptance.
Cause Title- In Re: City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 506
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
19) Crime scene re-enactment not per se testimonial compulsion; expert analysis based on it admissible as corroborative evidence
The Court held that while a directed crime scene re-enactment or walkthrough is legally admissible, it remains a corroborative piece of evidence that cannot independently form the sole basis of a criminal conviction. The Bench ruled that if a re-enactment merely requires an accused to walk, act in a certain manner, or imitate a visual sequence to capture physical attributes for forensic comparison, it functions purely as secondary, corroborative proof rather than a forced personal testimony under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
In the judgment, while upholding the conviction in Dr. Subbiah’s murder case, the Bench observed that an expert report generated from a simulated walkthrough, such as a forensic gait analysis, is inherently a created document representing the investigating officer's directions rather than the suspect's personal statement. The Bench cautioned that laying down sweeping rules to routinely bar re-enactments would eliminate a potent scientific investigative technique, provided courts maintain a strict line of distinction between a directed physical demonstration and an exercise that forces an accused to unearth hidden personal knowledge of a crime.
Cause Title- The State of Tamil Nadu v. Ponnusamy & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 507)
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2026
Coram- Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
20) Job of a criminal court is not to order loose acquittals: Supreme Court upholds conviction in Dr Subbiah murder case
The Court set aside the Madras High Court's acquittal, and restored the convictions in Dr. Subbiah’s murder case. Opening the judgment with a quote from Rabindranath Tagore, “The greed of gain has no time or limit to its capaciousness...It is ruthlessly ready without a moment's hesitation to crush beauty and life”, the Court said that the judiciary must resist ordering routine acquittals based on speculative hypotheses when a trial court's evaluation of concurrent evidence remains unassailable.
It observed that while advanced techniques like gait analysis are valuable for criminal identification, an expert forensic report cannot be relied upon unless it is built upon primary source materials that are independently proved as admissible and reliable. The Court observed that a High Court sitting in appeal must not reflexively enter into a wholesale re-appreciation of evidence or disturb conviction findings by force of habit, unless the trial court’s conclusions are demonstrably perverse, illegal, or completely impossible.
Cause Title- The State of Tamil Nadu v. Ponnusamy & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 507)
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2026
Coram- Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
21) Pre-cognizance hearing must be given to accused even if PMLA complaint was filed before BNSS came into force
The Court has held that the accused must be given an opportunity of hearing under the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, even if the prosecution complaint itself had been filed prior to July 1, 2024. The Court clarified that failure to provide such hearing renders the cognizance order void ab initio.
Furthermore, it held that the proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS confers a substantive right upon the accused and forms part of the guarantee of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Bench further ruled that mere ministerial acts, such as numbering a complaint and posting it for cognizance, do not amount to an “inquiry” under Section 2(1)(k) BNSS so as to attract the saving clause under Section 531(2)(a) BNSS.
Cause Title- Parvinder Singh v. Directorate Of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 519)
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2026
Coram- Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
22) Supreme Court sets aside Allahabad High Court order issuing far reaching directions while exercising bail jurisdiction u/s 483 of BNSS
Taking note of the far-reaching directions issued while deciding a bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court mandating the Trial Court to follow the judgments in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir v. State of U.P. (2023) and Jitendra v. State of U.P. (2023).
The Apex Court, however, clarified that the steps taken by the State authorities would remain unaffected. The matter was posted for consideration on a subsequent date regarding the issue of the power of the Court to issue directions while exercising bail jurisdiction.
Cause Title- Rambalak v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 511)
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
23) Government circular discouraging FIR on civil disputes cannot justify nine-year delay in FIR: Supreme Court quashes FIR
The Court quashed a criminal case arising out of a decades-old property dispute in Surat, holding that an eight-to-nine-year delay in lodging the FIR alleging cheating, forgery and extortion, coupled with significant improvements in subsequent complaints, indicated an attempt to give criminal colour to a longstanding civil dispute.
In the matter, the pertinent alleged incident had occurred in the year 2001, however, an FIR was filed in 2009. Criticising the Gujarat High Court’s approach, the Bench observed that the material improvement introduced in the later FIR fundamentally altered the nature of the dispute. The Court held that such developments could not be ignored while examining whether criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.
Cause Title- Bhikhubhai Govindbhai Patel & Anr. v. The State Of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 532)
Date of Judgment- May 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
24) Order passed u/s. 2 to 4 of Partition Act is also deemed decree as per sec.2(2) of CPC: Supreme Court restores execution petition
While setting aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court terminating the execution proceedings in a property dispute case, the Supreme Court has held that in certain circumstances, an Order made under Sections 2 to 4 of the Partition Act is also a deemed Decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Civil Appeals before the Apex Court arose from Orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court setting aside the Execution Proceedings.
Cause Title- Jennifer Messias v. Leonard G Lobo (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 502)
Date of Judgment- May 18, 2026
Coram- Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
25) We have serious reservations on Gulfisha Fatima judgment: Supreme Court grants bail to narco-terror accused after 5 years in custody
The Supreme Court, while granting bail in a UAPA Case, held that it harbours serious reservations on various aspects of the judgment namely, Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), including its directive foreclosing the right of the appellants to seek bail for a period of one year.
It also been observed that the judicial trend of smaller benches progressively diluting the binding three-judge bench precedent established in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, emphasizing that judicial discipline mandates strict adherence to the ratio decidendi of larger benches.
Cause Title- Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation, Jammu [SLP(Crl) No. 1090/2026]
Date of Judgment- May 18, 2026
Coram- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
26) Time frame quite large to term death as proximate to attract last seen theory: Supreme Court acquits murder accused
While reversing the order of conviction handed down by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, the Court held that there could be no conviction based on the last seen together theory as the time frame was quite large to term death as proximate.
The Apex Court was considering the appeal filed by two accused persons.
Cause Title- Papan Sarkar @ Pranab v. State of West Bengal (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 528)
Date of Judgment- May 22, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran