Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi & ors. vs. Syeda Arifa Parveen 2025 INSC 1187

Zainul vs. State of Bihar 2025 INSC 1192

What happens when the conviction of a large group is based on vague and inconsistent evidence in a land dispute turned violent? The Supreme Court revisits constructive liability under Section 149 IPC, raising probing questions on the treatment of bystanders in unlawful assemblies. Key Takeaways: ✅ Mere presence at the scene does not establish guilt under Section 149 IPC. ✅ Courts must separate truth from embellishment and avoid convicting passive bystanders. ✅ The prosecution must prove “common object” beyond reasonable doubt for group liability. Statutes: ✅ Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 323 IPC ✅ Section 27, Arms Act ✅ Section 154, 161 CrPC #SupremeCourt #CriminalLaw #Section149 #UnlawfulAssembly

Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi & ors. vs. Syeda Arifa Parveen 2025 INSC 1187

Can an oral gift (Hiba) of immovable property, claimed decades later, stand its ground against consistent documentary evidence of possession and the bar of limitation? Key Takeaways: ✅ Supreme Court clarifies that oral gifts under Mohammedan Law require clear proof of possession and mutation in revenue records to be valid. ✅ Mere oral claims or long-delayed assertions, without public acts of ownership, cannot override registered titles or established possession. ✅ The law favours those who safeguard their rights — late claims unsupported by documents face legal hurdles. Statutes/Sections Cited: * Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 50, 73 * Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 129 * Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 & 59 #PropertyLaw #SupremeCourt #EvidenceAct #LimitationAct #MuslimLaw

Nilesh Baburao Gitte. vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 1191

In this judgement, the Apex Court revisits the crucial principles of circumstantial evidence in criminal law. This verdict underscores the necessity of a complete and unquestionable chain of evidence before convicting an accused under circumstantial proof. Key Takeaways: ✅ The “five golden principles” of circumstantial evidence must be strictly adhered to. ✅ Absence of conclusive forensic evidence weakens the prosecution’s case. ✅ Burden of proof remains strictly on prosecution, not on the accused. ✅ Medical evidence ambiguities can create reasonable doubt. ✅ Motive must be clearly established beyond reasonable doubt. Statutes: ✅ Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302, 27) ✅ Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 8, 27, 106) ✅ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 313) #CriminalLaw #SupremeCourt #CircumstantialEvidence #EvidenceLaw

Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal Etc. 2025 INSC 1193

In this case, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder, reinstating the Trial Court’s acquittal. Central to the judgment was the assessment of eyewitness reliability, contradictory testimonies, and the evidentiary value of weapon recovery under Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Evidence Act. Key Takeaways: ✅ Identification of accused must be beyond doubt. ✅ Chance witnesses require cautious scrutiny. ✅ Confession admissibility under Evidence Act Sections 25-27 is limited. ✅ The High Court’s interference without perversity was erroneous. Statutes: ✅ Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302, 34 ✅ Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 25, 26, 27 ✅ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Relevant procedural provisions #CriminalLaw #SupremeCourt #EvidenceAct #JudicialReview

K.S. Shivappa vs. Smt. K. Neelamma 2025 INSC 1195

MINORS CAN REPUDIATE GUARDIAN CONDUCTED PROPERTY SALES, EVEN WITHOUT FILING A SUIT. If a minor, upon attaining majority, resells or otherwise demonstrates repudiation within the time limit, the prior unauthorized sale stands voidable. The judgment also underscores the necessity of proving title and personal testimony in court disputes. Key Takeaways: ✅ Minors can void unauthorized sales by conduct, not just by filing suits. ✅ Burden of proving title lies on the claimant. ✅ Power-of-attorney testimony must be based on personal knowledge. Statutes Referenced: ✅ Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Section 8(2), 8(3) ✅ Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 60 #PropertyLaw #SupremeCourt #MinorRightd #Guardianship #PowerofAttorney