Back
SUNITA GUPTA
Simran @ Meena Khan – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Sunita Gupta, J.
“Envy is the desire to have what someone else has. Jealousy is the fear of losing what you have. The more insecure you are about yourself or your relationship, the more jealous you are, because you are afraid to lose your significant other to someone else.” - Oliver Markus
1. Present is a glaring example of another brutal inhuman attack with acid on a young girl of hardly 25 years of age, out of jealousy giving rise to the present appeals.
2. Simran @ Meena Khan (hereinafter referred to as “A-1”) and Raju @ Qayoom (hereinafter referred to as “A-2”) assails the judgment dated 15.01.2011 in Session Case No. 49/10 arising out of FIR No.1036/04 PS Lajpat Nagar by which appellants were held guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 326/120B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). Appellants were absolved of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 19.01.2011, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1 Lac; in default of payment of fine, they were directed to und
No cases identified as bad law. None of the provided case law descriptions contain keywords or phrases explicitly indicating they have been overruled, reversed, abrogated, criticized, questioned, or otherwise treated as bad law (e.g., no mentions of "overruled," "reversed," "abrogated," or similar negative treatments).
Rohtash Kumar VS State of Haryana - 2013 4 Supreme 333: "Conviction on circumstantial evidence - principles restated." The phrase "principles restated" indicates positive treatment, as if the principles are being reaffirmed or followed.
Ramesh Harijan VS State of U. P. - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 401: "Evidence of hostile witness should not be discarded in totality. Discrepancies and inconsistencies, if not major, should not benefit the accused." Presented as settled law ("should not"), suggesting it is followed.
State Of M. P. VS Bala @ Balaram - 2005 6 Supreme 646: "Important point Power under proviso to Section 376 IPC... is to be used sparingly..." Labeled "Important point," indicating authoritative and followed principle.
Rajendra VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2009 3 Supreme 77: "It is a well settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness may not be totally rejected..." Explicitly states "well settled law," a strong indicator of being followed.
State Of M. P. VS Munna Choubey - 2005 1 Supreme 559: "Important point For deciding just and appropriate sentence... are to be delicately balanced..." Labeled "Important point," suggesting followed as standard principle.
Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai VS State Of Gujarat - 1999 9 Supreme 233: "Evidence of a hostile witness can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution version..." Stated as permissible without legal bar, implying accepted and followed.
Ravji Alias Ram Chandra VS State Of Rajasthan - 1995 0 Supreme(SC) 1267: Describes a specific application of sentencing principles in a brutal murder case, with no negative treatment; the conclusion supports existing law on death penalty commutation.
VISHNU VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1576: "When there is no delay in lodging FIR... conviction and sentence of accused cannot be faulted." States when conviction holds, indicating application of reliable principles.
State Of Gujarat VS Anirudhsing - 1997 6 Supreme 435: Provides interpretation of law on confessions and duty of court to scan evidence, presented as binding ("It is the duty of the Court").
Abdul Sayeed VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2010 6 Supreme 489: "Testimony of an injured witness is generally considered to be very reliable." Uses "generally considered," indicating standard application.
Jarnail Singh VS State of Punjab - 2009 6 Supreme 526: "The FIR is not the encyclopedia... Deposition of an injured witness should be relied upon..." Uses normative language ("should be relied upon"), suggesting affirmed practice.
Prithi VS State of Haryana - 2010 5 Supreme 601: "In an appeal under Article 136... does not enter into detailed examination..." and "Evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto..." Stated as standard court practice.
State Of U. P. VS Kishan Chand - 2004 6 Supreme 277: "Just because witnesses are related to deceased would not be a ground to discard their testimony if otherwise it inspires confidence." Normative rule for credibility assessment.
Balraje @ Trimbak VS State of Maharashtra - 2010 4 Supreme 59: "An accused can be convicted and sentenced even if other co-accused are acquitted." Stated as permissible, indicating affirmed principle.
Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Sahed VS State Of U. P. - 2006 1 Supreme 371: "Important points 1. There is absolutely no requirement in law..." Labeled "Important points," with definitive language on legal requirements.
K. A. Abbas H. S. A. VS Sabu Joseph - 2010 4 Supreme 65: "Sentence of imprisonment can be granted for default in payment of compensation..." Indicates valid sentencing option.
Mohar VS State Of U. P. - 2002 6 Supreme 496: High Court "was right in reversing their acquittal," affirming the reversal as correct application of law.
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2010 3 Supreme 190: Lists 8 distinct points (e.g., "Cryptic telephonic messages cannot be treated as FIR," "Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal can review the entire evidence"). Enumerated holdings without treatment indicators, suggesting procedural guidance.
Mohd. Haroon VS Union of India - 2014 2 Supreme 658: "Had the State government been vigilant... CBI enquiry cannot be ordered as a routine." Specific admonition and limit on CBI enquiries.
Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma VS State of Uttarakhand - 2010 7 Supreme 26: Lists 4 points (e.g., "Evidence of a person does not become effaced... Absconding by itself is not conclusive proof"). Enumerated rules on evidence and procedure.
Appabhai VS State Of Gujarat - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 111: Describes outcome giving benefit of doubt for some charges but upholding others, plus "GRANT OF SPECIAL LEAVE DOES NOT ENTITLE PARTIES TO OPEN OUT AND ARGUE THE WHOLE CASE" as a procedural limit.
ANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWAD VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2013 8 Supreme 213: "Court has to consider question of compensation in every criminal case." Mandatory duty ("has to consider").
Dayal Singh VS State of Uttaranchal - 2012 5 Supreme 260: "Officials responsible for defective investigation must be punished." Directive on accountability.
State Of U. P. VS Ramesh Prasad Misra - 1996 6 Supreme 339: Reiterates hostile witness scrutiny and circumstantial evidence duty, with "would not be totally rejected" and "it is the duty of the Court."
Mahesh s/o Janardhan Gonnade VS State of Maharashtra - 2008 1 Supreme 898: "An order of acquittal can be interfered with if there are compelling and substantial reasons." Sets standard for interference.
None. All cases contain sufficient descriptive language to categorize based on affirmative phrasing (e.g., "well settled," "important point," "should not," "duty of the Court"), lack of negative indicators, and context of presenting legal principles or outcomes without ambiguity in treatment signals.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
