Where the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, failure to establish motive, uncertainty regarding the last seen circumstance, contradictions in electronic evidence, procedural defects in recovery of material objects and breaks in the chain of forensic evidence render the prosecution case insufficient to sustain conviction for murder or criminal conspiracy. However, independent evidence proving conscious disposal or attempted disposal of the dead body may validly sustain conviction under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC notwithstanding acquittal on the principal charge of murder.

2026 INSC 685

State of Maharashtra v. Monika Kiran Suryawanshi & Ors.

HEAD NOTES 

A. Evidence Act, 1872 — Circumstantial Evidence — Principles governing conviction.

(Paras 19, 33 & 38 to 41)

Held, where the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, every incriminating circumstance must be firmly established and the chain of circumstances must be complete, consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. If any vital link in the chain is missing, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---

B. Criminal Law — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — Motive — Extramarital relationship — Proof.

(Paras 20 & 21)

Held, mere suspicion of an extramarital relationship, unsubstantiated by cogent and reliable evidence, cannot constitute proof of motive for murder. Telephone records or unilateral assertions, in the absence of convincing evidence of a reciprocal relationship or criminal intent, are insufficient to establish motive.

---

C. Evidence — Last Seen Theory — Evidentiary Value.

(Paras 22 & 23)

Held, the "last seen" theory is a weak piece of circumstantial evidence unless the prosecution conclusively establishes the time of death and proves that the deceased was last seen alive with the accused in circumstances excluding every other possibility. Where the time of death remains uncertain and the surrounding circumstances are doubtful, conviction cannot be founded solely upon the last seen theory.

---

D. Evidence Act, 1872 — Recovery under Section 27 — Sealing of seized articles — Importance.

(Paras 26 to 29)

Held, recovery of incriminating articles without sealing them at the place of seizure and without establishing an unbroken chain of custody renders the recovery unreliable. Failure to preserve the integrity of seized articles seriously undermines the evidentiary value of forensic reports based upon such recoveries.

---

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120-B — Criminal Conspiracy — Proof.

(Paras 30 to 33)

Held, conviction for criminal conspiracy requires proof of an agreement or meeting of minds to commit an illegal act. Mere suspicion, association between accused persons or inconclusive circumstantial evidence is insufficient to establish the offence under Section 120-B IPC.

---

F. Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 201 read with Section 34 — Causing disappearance of evidence — Conviction.

(Paras 34 to 40)

Held, where accused persons are apprehended while transporting the dead body of the deceased for disposal and the surrounding circumstances establish conscious participation in screening the offender from legal punishment, conviction under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC is justified even though the prosecution fails to prove the charge of murder.

---

Analysis of Facts

The prosecution alleged that accused No. 1, wife of the deceased, conspired with accused Nos. 2 and 3 to murder her husband owing to an alleged extramarital relationship with accused No. 2. The case rested entirely upon circumstantial evidence, including alleged motive, last seen evidence, recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, telephonic records and forensic reports.

The Trial Court convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.

The High Court, however, found that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive, the last seen theory remained doubtful, the telephonic evidence contradicted the prosecution's own version, and the recoveries were rendered unreliable due to serious procedural lapses, particularly failure to seal the seized articles. It therefore acquitted all accused of murder and conspiracy but maintained the conviction of accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 201 IPC as they were apprehended while transporting the dead body.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's appreciation of evidence.

---

Analysis of Law

The Court reiterated the following principles:

1. Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances.

2. Motive assumes greater significance where there is no direct evidence and must itself be proved by reliable evidence.

3. The last seen theory is not conclusive unless closely connected with the time of death and supported by other incriminating circumstances.

4. Recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act must satisfy strict procedural safeguards, including proper sealing and preservation of seized articles.

5. Criminal conspiracy requires proof of an agreement or meeting of minds and cannot be inferred merely from suspicion or association.

6. Independent evidence establishing conscious attempts to dispose of a dead body may sustain conviction under Section 201 IPC even where the charge of murder is not proved.

---

Ratio Decidendi

Where the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, failure to establish motive, uncertainty regarding the last seen circumstance, contradictions in electronic evidence, procedural defects in recovery of material objects and breaks in the chain of forensic evidence render the prosecution case insufficient to sustain conviction for murder or criminal conspiracy. However, independent evidence proving conscious disposal or attempted disposal of the dead body may validly sustain conviction under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC notwithstanding acquittal on the principal charge of murder.

A contractual clause providing that a security deposit shall carry no interest is valid and enforceable where it forms part of a freely accepted commercial agreement. However, where the same clause obligates the employer to refund the security deposit within a specified period after expiry or determination of the contract, the employer cannot retain the amount beyond that period without liability to pay reasonable interest for the delayed retention.

 

2026 INSC 678

State of Haryana & Ors. v. M/s. Jai Durgaa Finvest (P) Ltd.

HEAD NOTES 

A. Contract — Commercial Contracts — Interpretation — Courts cannot rewrite contractual terms.

(Paras 23 to 28)

Held, in commercial contracts voluntarily entered into by parties standing on an equal footing, courts are bound to enforce the contract according to its express terms. The court cannot rewrite, modify or substitute contractual stipulations merely because an alternative arrangement appears more equitable or reasonable. Parties who knowingly accept unambiguous contractual conditions remain bound by them.

---

B. Contract — Security Deposit — Clause providing that security deposit shall carry no interest — Validity.

(Paras 27 to 30)

Held, a contractual stipulation expressly providing that the security deposit shall carry no interest is neither unconscionable nor opposed to public policy. Such a clause, voluntarily accepted in an open commercial tender, is valid and binding upon the parties.

---

C. Contract — Interpretation — Security deposit — Refund within stipulated period — Liability to pay interest after delay.

(Paras 29 to 31)

Held, where the contract provides both that the security deposit shall carry no interest and that it shall be refunded within three months of expiry or earlier determination of the contract, both stipulations must be read harmoniously. No interest is payable during the contractual period or for three months thereafter; however, if the employer retains the security deposit beyond the stipulated period, interest becomes payable for the period of unauthorised retention.

---

D. Contract — Public Policy — Commercial bargains.

(Para 27)

Held, the doctrine of public policy cannot be invoked to invalidate a freely negotiated commercial bargain merely because one party subsequently considers its terms to be onerous. A commercial contract voluntarily executed pursuant to statutory rules cannot be avoided on grounds of perceived inequality after substantial performance.

---

E. Contract — Security Deposit and Interest on Delayed Instalments — Distinction.

(Para 27)

Held, a clause imposing interest on delayed payment of contractual instalments and a clause denying interest on security deposit operate in distinct fields. Interest on delayed instalments constitutes compensation for breach by the contractor, whereas the security deposit serves as a performance guarantee. The existence of one obligation does not create a reciprocal obligation upon the employer to pay interest on the security deposit.

---

F. Commercial Contracts — Binding Nature of Standard Form Contracts.

(Paras 24 to 28)

Held, where a bidder voluntarily participates in an open auction, accepts the statutory standard form agreement and executes the contract without coercion, fraud or undue influence, the contractual terms remain binding and enforceable. Subsequent challenge to such terms merely because they operate adversely cannot be entertained.

---

Analysis of Facts

The respondent was awarded a mining contract under the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1964, and executed the prescribed statutory Form-L agreement. The agreement required the contractor to furnish a security deposit, expressly stipulating that such deposit would not carry any interest and would be refunded within three months of expiry or earlier determination of the contract.

Following repeated defaults in payment of contractual instalments, the State terminated the contract. The contractor challenged the termination and also sought interest on the security deposit, contending that while the State charged interest on delayed instalments, denial of interest on the security deposit was arbitrary and opposed to public policy.

The High Court held Clause 19 to be unsustainable and awarded interest from the date of deposit. The State appealed.

The Supreme Court held that the contractor had voluntarily accepted the contractual terms and that Clause 19 was valid. However, the Court also held that the State could not retain the security deposit indefinitely beyond the period expressly stipulated for refund.

---

Analysis of Law

The Court reiterated the following principles:

1. Courts must enforce commercial contracts according to their express terms and cannot rewrite contractual obligations.

2. Freely negotiated commercial agreements voluntarily accepted by parties are binding unless vitiated by recognised legal grounds.

3. A contractual stipulation denying interest on a security deposit is valid and not opposed to public policy.

4. Contractual clauses must be construed harmoniously so that every part of the agreement is given effect.

5. While no interest is payable during the contractually agreed interest-free period, wrongful retention of the security deposit beyond the stipulated refund period gives rise to liability to pay interest.

6. Interest payable on delayed contractual instalments is compensatory for breach and cannot be equated with interest on security deposits held as performance guarantees.

---

Ratio Decidendi

A contractual clause providing that a security deposit shall carry no interest is valid and enforceable where it forms part of a freely accepted commercial agreement. However, where the same clause obligates the employer to refund the security deposit within a specified period after expiry or determination of the contract, the employer cannot retain the amount beyond that period without liability to pay reasonable interest for the delayed retention.

Where an employee applies for retirement on medical grounds within the period prescribed under a compassionate appointment scheme and the employer fails to process the application or communicate procedural deficiencies until after expiry of the prescribed age limit, the employer cannot rely upon the consequences of its own delay to deny compassionate appointment. A public authority is bound to administer beneficial schemes fairly and within a reasonable time, and administrative inaction cannot defeat an otherwise valid claim.

---

2026 INSC 710

Rahul S/o. Ramnarayan Madankar & Anr. v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.

HEAD NOTES

A. Compassionate Appointment — Medical Retirement — Employer's delay — Effect.

(Paras 21 to 30)

Held, where an employee applies for voluntary retirement on medical grounds before attaining the prescribed age limit and supports the application with a Government medical certificate, the employer is under a duty to scrutinise the application within a reasonable time. The employer cannot keep the application pending, communicate deficiencies only after the employee crosses the age limit and thereafter deny compassionate appointment by relying upon the consequences of its own delay.

---

B. Compassionate Appointment Scheme — Strict adherence to Scheme — Fair implementation.

(Paras 15 to 18)

Held, compassionate appointment is governed entirely by the applicable scheme and cannot be granted dehors its provisions. However, strict adherence to the scheme does not absolve the employer from administering the scheme fairly, reasonably and within a reasonable time. Administrative inaction cannot be permitted to defeat a legitimate claim arising under the scheme.

---

C. Compassionate Appointment — Medical Board Certificate — Delay in communicating requirement — Effect.

(Paras 23 to 26)

Held, where the employer considers the medical certificate initially produced by the employee to be insufficient, it must communicate such deficiency promptly. Failure to require a Medical Board certificate before expiry of the prescribed age limit disentitles the employer from relying upon the delayed production of such certificate to reject the dependent's claim.

---

D. Administrative Law — Public Authorities — No authority can take advantage of its own wrong.

(Paras 20 to 26)

Held, a public authority cannot derive advantage from its own omission or delay. Where the authority's failure to act within a reasonable time results in prejudice to the citizen, such delay cannot be used as a ground to defeat the statutory or policy benefit otherwise available.

---

E. Compassionate Appointment — Beneficial Scheme — Interpretation.

(Paras 26 & 30)

Held, beneficial schemes providing compassionate appointment must receive a fair and purposive construction consistent with their object. The scheme cannot be interpreted in a manner that places the beneficiary's rights at the mercy of administrative delay or procedural inaction.

---

F. Compassionate Appointment — Relief — Direct grant instead of remand.

(Paras 27 to 33)

Held, where the rejection of compassionate appointment is found wholly unsustainable, the claimant has diligently pursued the remedy for several years and remand would only prolong injustice, the Court may direct grant of compassionate appointment instead of remitting the matter for fresh consideration. Necessary age relaxation may also be granted where the claimant has crossed the prescribed age during pendency of litigation.

---

Analysis of Facts

The father of the first appellant, an employee of the respondent insurance company, applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds before attaining the age of fifty-five years and enclosed a medical certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon certifying permanent incapacity.

Although the application, supporting documents and repeated reminders were submitted before the prescribed age limit, the employer neither processed the application nor informed the employee that a Medical Board certificate was required. The requirement was communicated only after the employee crossed fifty-five years of age.

The employee immediately obtained the Medical Board certificate and complied with the employer's directions. Nevertheless, the employer rejected the dependent's claim for compassionate appointment solely on the ground that the employee had actually retired after attaining the age of fifty-five years. The High Court upheld the rejection.

The Supreme Court found that the delay resulting in crossing the age limit was attributable entirely to the employer's inaction and not to any default on the part of the employee.

---

Analysis of Law

The Court reaffirmed the following principles:

1. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of public employment and must strictly conform to the governing scheme.

2. The employer is equally bound to administer the scheme fairly, reasonably and within a reasonable time.

3. Administrative delay cannot be permitted to defeat an otherwise valid claim under a beneficial scheme.

4. No public authority can be allowed to take advantage of its own omission or default.

5. Procedural requirements such as production of a Medical Board certificate must be communicated promptly, particularly where eligibility depends upon compliance within a prescribed time.

6. Where prolonged litigation has resulted solely from the employer's unjustified action, the Court may grant final relief instead of remanding the matter.

---

Ratio Decidendi

Where an employee applies for retirement on medical grounds within the period prescribed under a compassionate appointment scheme and the employer fails to process the application or communicate procedural deficiencies until after expiry of the prescribed age limit, the employer cannot rely upon the consequences of its own delay to deny compassionate appointment. A public authority is bound to administer beneficial schemes fairly and within a reasonable time, and administrative inaction cannot defeat an otherwise valid claim.

Where constituent acts of the offence of money laundering occur in different territorial jurisdictions, each jurisdiction acquires concurrent competence to try the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. If the connected scheduled offence has been transferred to another competent jurisdiction and part of the money laundering activity has also occurred there, the connected PMLA proceedings may be transferred to the same Special Court to give effect to Section 44(1) of the Act and to secure the ends of justice.

 

2026 INSC 702

Amit Katyal v. Union of India & Anr.

HEAD NOTES 

A. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Ss. 43, 44 & 46 — Territorial Jurisdiction — Special Court — Place of trial.

(Paras 7 to 11)

Held, an offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act comprises one or more processes connected with the "proceeds of crime", including its derivation, acquisition, possession, concealment, use or projection as untainted property. Consequently, prosecution under Section 4 of the Act may be instituted before any Special Court within whose territorial jurisdiction any part of such process or activity has taken place.

---

B. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Ss. 43 & 44 — Transfer of PMLA proceedings — Scheduled offence transferred to another State — Effect.

(Paras 10 & 11)

Held, where the scheduled offence has been transferred to another jurisdiction and part of the offence of money laundering, including concealment or attachment of the proceeds of crime, has also occurred within that jurisdiction, transfer of the connected PMLA proceedings to the same Special Court is justified to give effect to Section 44(1) of the Act and to secure the ends of justice.

---

C. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Ss. 43, 44 & 46 — Simultaneous territorial jurisdiction — More than one Special Court.

(Paras 8 to 11)

Held, where different components of the offence of money laundering are committed in different local areas, simultaneous territorial jurisdiction may vest in more than one Special Court. The Special Court having jurisdiction over any part of the offence is competent to try the prosecution.

---

D. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S.178(d) — Offence consisting of several acts committed in different local areas — Application to PMLA proceedings.

(Para 8)

Held, by virtue of Sections 46 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and 178(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where an offence consists of several acts committed in different local areas, the Court having jurisdiction over any of those areas is competent to inquire into and try the offence, unless excluded by the special statute.

---

E. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Transfer of proceedings — Convenience not sole consideration — Ends of justice.

(Paras 10 & 11)

Held, transfer of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is not governed merely by the convenience of the accused or witnesses. Where statutory requirements, territorial jurisdiction and the need for joint trial of the scheduled offence and the money laundering offence justify transfer, the Court may direct transfer in the interests of justice.

---

F. Precedents — Applicability — Ratio decidendi — Facts of each case.

(Para 10)

Held, the ratio of a judicial precedent cannot be applied as a rigid formula divorced from the facts of the case. A decision rendered on materially different facts does not govern a case involving distinct statutory and factual considerations.

---

Analysis of Facts

The petitioner, a promoter of a real estate company developing the "Krrish World" project at Gurugram, sought quashing of the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). During the hearing, however, the relief was confined to transfer of the PMLA proceedings from the Special Court at Gurugram to the Special Court under the PMLA at Delhi.

The Enforcement Directorate opposed the transfer, contending that the proceeds of crime originated from fraudulent diversion of approximately ₹503 crores collected from homebuyers in Gurugram and that substantial immovable properties constituting proceeds of crime had been attached there.

The petitioner relied upon the fact that the principal scheduled offence (FIR No. 439 of 2024) had already been transferred by the Supreme Court from Gurugram to Delhi and argued that the connected PMLA proceedings should also be tried at Delhi.

The Supreme Court found that while substantial parts of the proceeds of crime originated at Gurugram, part of the money laundering activity, including concealment and attachment of assets, had also taken place at Delhi, thereby conferring concurrent territorial jurisdiction on both Special Courts.

---

Analysis of Law

The Court interpreted Sections 43, 44 and 46 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in conjunction with Section 178(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and reiterated the following principles:

1. The offence of money laundering is a continuing offence comprising several processes connected with the proceeds of crime.

2. Territorial jurisdiction under the PMLA extends to every place where any constituent activity relating to the proceeds of crime has occurred.

3. Multiple Special Courts may simultaneously possess territorial jurisdiction where different components of the offence occur in different places.

4. Section 44(1) of the PMLA contemplates that the offence of money laundering and the connected scheduled offence should ordinarily be tried by the same Special Court.

5. Transfer of proceedings may be ordered where necessary to achieve the statutory object of coordinated trial and to secure the ends of justice.

6. Judicial precedents on transfer petitions must be applied with reference to their own facts and cannot be mechanically extended to materially different situations.

---

Ratio Decidendi

Where constituent acts of the offence of money laundering occur in different territorial jurisdictions, each jurisdiction acquires concurrent competence to try the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. If the connected scheduled offence has been transferred to another competent jurisdiction and part of the money laundering activity has also occurred there, the connected PMLA proceedings may be transferred to the same Special Court to give effect to Section 44(1) of the Act and to secure the ends of justice.

Where unexplained delay in forwarding the First Information Report to the jurisdictional Magistrate is coupled with investigative lapses, contradictions in contemporaneous records, doubtful conduct of witnesses and circumstances suggestive of ante-timing or embellishment, the cumulative effect of such infirmities renders the prosecution case unreliable. In such circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt, and conviction cannot be sustained.

2026 INSC 707

Deo Prasad & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh

HEAD NOTES

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S.157 — First Information Report — Delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate — Effect.

(Paras 43 to 53)

Held, delay in forwarding the First Information Report to the jurisdictional Magistrate is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution. However, where such delay is accompanied by circumstances indicating possible ante-timing, unexplained investigative lapses, contradictions in the prosecution evidence or other suspicious features, it assumes considerable significance. The prosecution case must then be examined on the cumulative effect of all surrounding circumstances to determine its authenticity.

---

B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss.154 & 157 — FIR — Ante-timing — Circumstances creating doubt.

(Paras 43 to 53)

Held, where an FIR allegedly registered on the date of occurrence reaches the Magistrate after an unexplained delay of two days, coupled with contradictions regarding its lodging, unexplained delay in post-mortem and unusual investigative conduct, the possibility of ante-timing, embellishment or subsequent manipulation cannot be excluded, thereby seriously impairing the credibility of the prosecution case.

---

C. Evidence Act, 1872 — Appreciation of Evidence — Interested eyewitnesses — Reliability.

(Paras 21 to 42)

Held, consistency of eyewitnesses on broad features alone is insufficient to sustain conviction. Their evidence must inspire confidence when tested against contemporaneous documentary evidence, medical evidence and surrounding circumstances. Material contradictions affecting the genesis of the prosecution case warrant cautious judicial scrutiny.

---

D. Criminal Investigation — Delay in Inquest and Post-mortem — Effect.

(Paras 44 & 45)

Held, failure of the investigating agency to preserve the dead body, postponement of the inquest proceedings and unexplained delay of nearly forty-eight hours in conducting the post-mortem constitute serious investigative lapses. In the absence of satisfactory explanation, such lapses lend support to the defence and weaken the prosecution case.

---

E. Evidence Act, 1872 — Medical Evidence vis-à-vis Ocular Evidence.

(Paras 31, 32 & 41 to 53)

Held, medical evidence is essentially corroborative. Where medical evidence, documentary record and surrounding circumstances collectively cast doubt upon the prosecution version, ocular testimony cannot be accepted mechanically and must be subjected to careful judicial scrutiny.

---

F. Criminal Jurisprudence — Benefit of Doubt.

(Paras 41 to 53)

Held, the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Where the cumulative effect of the evidence raises genuine doubt regarding the genesis of the occurrence, fairness of investigation or authenticity of the First Information Report, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---

Analysis of Facts

The prosecution alleged that six accused persons, armed with deadly weapons, assaulted the deceased in broad daylight. The conviction recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court rested principally upon the testimony of three alleged eyewitnesses corroborated by medical evidence.

The defence questioned the genuineness and timing of the First Information Report, the unexplained delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, the delay in holding the inquest and conducting the post-mortem, the existence of prior political rivalry and admitted enmity, material contradictions in the testimony of eyewitnesses and serious lapses in investigation.

The Supreme Court examined not merely individual discrepancies but the cumulative effect of all surrounding circumstances and found that the suspicious features appearing in the prosecution case substantially affected its credibility.

---

Analysis of Law

The Court reiterated the settled principles governing appreciation of criminal evidence:

1. Prompt forwarding of the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate is an important safeguard against fabrication and subsequent manipulation.
2. Mere delay in forwarding the FIR does not by itself vitiate the prosecution case.
3. Where such delay is accompanied by suspicious circumstances indicating ante-timing, embellishment or manipulation, it assumes considerable evidentiary significance.
4. The credibility of eyewitnesses must be tested in the light of contemporaneous documentary evidence, medical evidence and the natural conduct of the parties.
5. Serious investigative lapses, when considered along with other suspicious circumstances, may render the prosecution version unsafe for sustaining conviction.
6. A criminal conviction can be sustained only when the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt.

---

Ratio Decidendi

Where unexplained delay in forwarding the First Information Report to the jurisdictional Magistrate is coupled with investigative lapses, contradictions in contemporaneous records, doubtful conduct of witnesses and circumstances suggestive of ante-timing or embellishment, the cumulative effect of such infirmities renders the prosecution case unreliable. In such circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt, and conviction cannot be sustained.