A QUICK OVERVIEW OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON 06TH AUG. 2025

1. JAMNALAL VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER
Case No. SLP (Crl) No. 69/2015 Neutral Citation 2025 INSC 935
Coram BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan, JJ
Statute/ legal provisions/ points Criminal Law – Suspension of sentence – Scope of
of law involved Section 389 Cr.P.C
Summary :
Accused/Respondent No.2 was held guilty for the offences under Section 3/4 (2) of
POCSO Act and Section 376(3) IPC; and was sentenced to undergo 20 years RI under
Section 3 / 4(2) POCSO Act. The High Court suspended the sentence while the
Respondent No.2 had undergone imprisonment for a period of 1 year and 3 months.

Issue
The Court considered the scope of Section 389 CrPC providing for suspension of
sentence and relevant factors to be considered for such suspension

Findings
- “10. One would have expected the High Court hearing an application under
Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence to examine whether prima facie
there was anything palpable on the record to indicate if the accused had a fair
chance of overturning the conviction.”
- The Court relied upon Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary where it was
affirmed that ‘once the accused is held guilty, the presumption of innocence gets
erased’ and as such, there is a fine distinction between the prayer for bail at the
pre-conviction and post-conviction stage. It should be ascertained whether the
convict has fair chances of acquittal, and it is to be looked whether there is
something palpable, very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the
basis of which, the court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the
conviction may not be sustainable. The appellate court should not reappreciate
the evidence at the stage of Section 389 CrPC and try to pick up a few
lacunae..here or there in the case of prosecution. Such would not be a correct
approach.”
- The Court noted antecedents of the respondent no.2 who was involved in 11
criminal cases and held that ‘the High Court has not adverted to any of the
relevant factors for considering the case for suspension under Section 389 and
keeping in mind the antecedents, we are of the opinion that High Court was not
justified in suspending the sentence.’

Link : https://www.sci.gov.in/view-
pdf/?diary_no=513882024&type=j&order_date=2025-08-
06&from=latest_judgements_order

Prepared by : Sudhir Naagar, Advocate-on-Record, Ch.No.615, D-Block, Addl. Building

Complex, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi – 110001 Ph. 9811951070; 9911844445
Email : [email protected]
2. SHAIL KUMARI VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Case No. Crl Appeal No. 2189/2015 Neutral Citation 2025 INSC 936
Coram BR Gavai, CJI and K Vinod Chandran, J
Statute/ legal provisions/ points Criminal Law – circumstantial evidence
of law involved – appreciation of evidence - acquittal

Summary :

Appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed by High Court by dismissing the appeal.
The conviction was primarily on the basis of evidence of PW2 who had seen the
appellant with her two children going towards a water body. PW2, being suspicious,
asked a nearby Rickshaw Puller to go and see where the appellant was going. After
5-7 minutes, the Rickshaw Puller came back and stated that two children were
floating in the water body. PW-2 then saw the appellant on nearby railway track and
saw a train coming towards the appellant but somehow, he managed to drag her
away from the train tracks.

Findings

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction by holding that:-
- “7. The law laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) has been consistently
followed by this Court in a catena of judgments. In that view of the matter, the
conviction in the present case could be sustainable only if the prosecution is in a
position to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and also establish a chain of
events which is so connected to each other that it leads to no other conclusion
than the guilt of the accused.”
- The Court found that conviction was based solely on evidence of PW2, however,
the same was found to be not reliable. Court noted, ‘12…The perusal of the
cross-examination of PW-2 would reveal that he has fully improved his case in
his examination-in-chief. He has narrated what does not find place in his
statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. As such, his evidence is totally contradictory
and therefore totally unworthy.

- ‘13. Apart from the testimony of PW-2, there is nothing on record to connect the
present appellant with the crime in question.’

Link : https://www.sci.gov.in/view-
pdf/?diary_no=218112017&type=j&order_date=2025-08-
06&from=latest_judgements_order

Prepared by : Sudhir Naagar, Advocate-on-Record, Ch.No.615, D-Block, Addl. Building

Complex, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi – 110001 Ph. 9811951070; 9911844445
Email : [email protected]
3. KAVITA DEVI AND ORS VERSUS SUNIL KUMAR AND ANR.
Case No. SLP (C) Dy.No. 47258/2018 Neutral Citation 2025 INSC 938
Coram Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Aravind Kumar, JJ
Statute/ legal provisions/ points Motor Accident Claim– just compensation –
of law involved whether allowances are to be considered while
determining income of deceased
Summary :
The deceased was earning Rs. 6,500/- p.m. However, the Tribunal considered the
basic salary of the deceased as Rs. 3,665/- p.m. after excluding the HRA and other
allowances. The High Court enhanced the compensation but without taking into
consideration all the allowances.

Issue
Whether the HRA and the other allowances are to be deducted while determining
the income of the deceased in this case?
Findings
- The Court relied upon Sarla Verma where it was held that for the purpose of
computation, actual income of the deceased has to be taken into consideration.
It further relied upon National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and Others,
where this Court while interpreting the words ‘just compensation’ and ‘income’
had held that,
’19. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the
deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for
computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his
monthly income by way of contribution to the family as
contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit’
- It was held that if the allowances which are included in the component of salary
of the deceased, Tribunal has to take into consideration these allowances as they
were used for supporting the family. The claimants have to show that these
allowances were regularly received and used for the family’s benefit.

- No contrary evidence is produced by the Respondents to dispute the fact that

the allowances which is about 50% of the salary of the deceased should be
excluded from determination of the actual income.
The compensation was, thus, enhanced by including the allowances while
determining the ‘income’ of deceased. It is pertinent to note that delay of 1855 days
was condoned in preferring the appeal, although interest for period of delay was
excluded.

Link : https://www.sci.gov.in/view-
pdf/?diary_no=472852018&type=j&order_date=2025-08-
06&from=latest_judgements_order

Prepared by : Sudhir Naagar, Advocate-on-Record, Ch.No.615, D-Block, Addl. Building

Complex, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi – 110001 Ph. 9811951070; 9911844445
Email : [email protected]
4. LOKESH B VERSUS SURYANARAYANA RAJU JAGGARAJU & ANR.
Case No. SLP (C) No. 22050-51/2023 Neutral Citation 2025 INSC 939
Coram Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Aravind Kumar, JJ
Statute/ legal provisions/ points Motor Accident Claim– just compensation –
of law involved disability – future prospects
Summary :
The appellant sustained grievous head and bodily injuries, including skull fractures,
optic nerve trauma with resultant visual impairment, and bilateral wrist fractures.
The Tribunal and High Court calculated the compensation by taking disability as 35%
and the High Court did not award any amount towards future prospects.

Issue
“6...Whether the High Court erred in excluding future prospects and adopting a lower
percentage of disability, thereby resulting in less compensation being awarded.”

Findings
The Court awarded amount towards future prospects by holding that :-

“7...Though the appellant is self-employed, the law is now well settled that such
claimants are entitled to future prospects. In Santosh Devi v. National Insurance
Company Limited and Others, this Court extended future prospects to self-
employed persons. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
Others, this view was reiterated. We therefore add 40% towards future
prospects.”

As regards disability, the Court held as under :-

“8. As regards disability, the evidence of PW3 Dr. Prathibha Sharan,

Neuropsychologist from NIMHANS, who assessed neuro-behavioural and
cognitive disability at 41.77% using validated testing (NIMHANS Battery), was
neither rebutted nor doubted. There was no contrary medical evidence. The
Tribunal and High Court adopted 35% without any reasoning. We therefore take
the functional disability at 41.77%”

The Court, thus, recalculated the compensation awarded to the appellant.

Link : https://www.sci.gov.in/view-
pdf/?diary_no=382672023&type=j&order_date=2025-08-
06&from=latest_judgements_order

Prepared by : Sudhir Naagar, Advocate-on-Record, Ch.No.615, D-Block, Addl. Building

Complex, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi – 110001 Ph. 9811951070; 9911844445
Email : [email protected]
5. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case No. WP (C) No. 104 of 2014 Neutral Citation 2025 INSC 937
Coram PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ
Statute/ legal provisions/ points Electricity Act – tariff determination; regulatory asset -
of law involved duty of Commission and Appellate Tribunal explained
Summary :
The Court examined the issue relating to ‘regulatory asset’, its position in the
regulatory regime for determination of tariff, the duties and accountability of the
regulators - the Regulatory Commissions and then powers of the Appellate Tribunal
for Electricity to avert a regulatory failure. The Court laid down ten sutras in para 70,
few of which are as under :-

“III. The statutory regulators, i.e. the Central and State Regulatory Commissions
alongwith Union and State Governments and other stakeholders are equally bound by
the mandate under Part-IV of the Constitution for its equitable distribution. This duty is
predicated on the independent, efficient, objective functioning of the electricity
commissions. They must guard themselves against ‘regulatory failure’ and in particular
‘regulatory capture’. The interpretation of the powers and function of the Regulatory
Commissions have to be such that there is no regulatory vacuum, in that there is no
unallocated residue of power of regulation.”

“IV. Tariff determination is a regulatory function and it is the exclusive province of the
Regulatory Commissions. Tariff determination involves multiple variables requiring the
regulators to act with expertise and also with certain amount of flexibility. Creation of
regulatory asset is a ‘measure’ that the Commission adopts for good governance of tariff.
It is also a recognition of revenue recoverable by distribution companies, and as such, it
is an enforceable right, though only through tariff determination for later years.”

“V. Disproportionate increase and long pending regulatory asset depict a ‘regulatory
failure’. It has serious consequences on all stakeholders and the ultimate burden is only
on the consumer.”
“VIII. Apart from examining the legality and propriety of the orders of the Commissions
in appeal, the APTEL has extraordinary powers under Section 121 to issue orders,
instructions or directions for effective enforcement of the regulatory regime. This is one
of the most important powers allocated to APTEL by the Parliament.”
“IX. We have affirmed the limits of creation, continuation and liquidation of the
regulatory asset, recognised the obligations of the Regulatory Commissions, and
directed that they will be accountable and subject to such orders, instructions or
directions as the APTEL may issue in this regard under Section 121.”

Link : https://www.sci.gov.in/view-
pdf/?diary_no=145532015&type=j&order_date=2025-08-
06&from=latest_judgements_order

Prepared by : Sudhir Naagar, Advocate-on-Record, Ch.No.615, D-Block, Addl. Building

Complex, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi – 110001 Ph. 9811951070; 9911844445
Email : [email protected]