The Andhra Pradesh High Court ordered a DGP-rank CID officer to investigate the 2023 theft of offerings at the Tirumala temple, citing a “complete compromise” by the investigating officer and TTD officials.

Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna found lapses in not invoking Section 409 IPC against accused CV Ravi Kumar, a public servant, and criticised the Lok Adalat’s compounding of a non-compoundable offence.

The Court noted ₹14.5 crore worth of properties were accepted from the accused without due process and directed an Anti-Corruption Bureau DGP to probe his family’s assets. 

The Court also ordered administrative action against the Tirupati magistrate involved.

[M Sreenivasulu v The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others]

The Delhi High Court ruled that in cases initiated before the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the victim was below 16 years of age to sustain a conviction for rape.

The Court made this observation while acquitting a man convicted of allegedly raping an 11-year-old girl in 2005. The Court noted that at the time of the incident, the statutory age of consent was 16, not 18, as amended later.

Consequently, the prosecution was required to establish the victim’s age beyond a reasonable doubt to justify the conviction, which it had failed to do.

[Udai Pal v. State]

The Madras High Court imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty on three police officers for fabricating evidence and providing false testimony to secure a wrongful conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

The Court acquitted the accused, who had been convicted by a special court for allegedly possessing 24 kilograms of ganja, holding that the prosecution’s case was unreliable and unsupported by credible evidence.

Justice observed that the officers’ conduct amounted to a grave abuse of power and violated the accused’s constitutional right to a fair investigation and trial.

The penalty was directed to be recovered personally from the erring officials.

[Vignesh v State]

The Delhi High Court held that a minor victim changing clothes before a medical examination did not undermine the prosecution's evidence in sexual assault cases.

 Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed an appeal challenging a conviction under Section 18 read with Section 5(m)(n) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376AB IPC.

The appellant contended that the victim’s intact hymen and changed clothing created doubt about guilt. The Court ruled that medical findings must be assessed alongside corroborative evidence, including semen traces on the victim’s garments, and procedural irregularities could not negate the prosecution’s case.

The Court affirmed that such factors did not erode the credibility of the victim’s testimony.

[Jai Mangal Mehto v State (Govt NCT Of Delhi)]

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a rape case filed by a woman against a man she met on the dating app Bumble, holding that the relationship appeared consensual.

 The complainant alleged that the accused forced himself on her after she withdrew consent during intercourse in a hotel. The Court noted the man’s claim that police ignored chat records which, though indecent, reflected mutual intimacy.

The Court underscored the importance of distinguishing consensual sexual relationships from rape allegations. Finding the prosecution unsustainable, and held that continuing the trial would cause a miscarriage of justice and quashed the proceedings.

[Sampras Anthony v State of Karnataka]

The Delhi High Court ruled that the absence of videography during search and seizure operations under the NDPS Act did not automatically weaken the prosecution’s case if police testimony remained credible.

The Court observed that while technology improves transparency and efficiency in investigations, videography was not mandatory under the CrPC, and earlier officers often lacked access to such tools.

The Court emphasised that credible oral evidence regarding recovery can sufficiently establish the prosecution’s version beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The Court clarified that although electronic recording is desirable for fairness, reliable witness statements and procedural compliance can independently sustain narcotics-related convictions under the NDPS Act.

[Stanley Chimeizi Alasonye @Uka Chukwu v The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors]

The Supreme Court, while hearing a plea by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking contempt action against Advocate Rakesh Kishore for attempting to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice BR Gavai, questioned whether such proceedings could continue since the CJI had pardoned him.

The SCBA contended that despite being pardoned, Kishore had publicly glorified his conduct and vowed to repeat it, thereby warranting judicial intervention. The Bench, however, remarked that initiating contempt proceedings might only amplify his notoriety but agreed that preventive measures were necessary.

The Court stated it would consider framing guidelines to curb the glorification of contemptuous or violent acts targeting the judiciary.

The Delhi High Court discharged a lawyer in a criminal contempt case for misbehaving with and intimidating a woman judge by using derogatory and threatening language.

A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the lawyer and closed the contempt proceedings. The incident occurred in March before a Judicial Magistrate (NI Act), who later confirmed that the contemnor had appeared on September 18 and tendered a written apology.

The Bench accepted his apology, noting his remorse and assurance to uphold court decorum, while cautioning that such conduct must never recur in judicial proceedings.

[Court on its own motion v. Haresh Singh, Advocate]

A Sessions Court in Jammu and Kashmir sentenced a man to life imprisonment for raping, sexually assaulting, and impregnating his 15-year-old daughter. 

Pronouncing the verdict, Principal Sessions Judge Tahir Khurshid Raina characterised the offence as “a manifestation of extreme depravity and moral collapse,” observing that it should serve as a wake-up call on safeguarding children within homes.

The Court convicted the accused under Sections 376(3) and 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh per offence, and directed payment of at least ₹10 lakh in compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme.

[Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir v X]

The Karnataka High Court held that passport information of an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is personal and cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that disclosure could endanger the accused’s life and safety. The Court noted an exemption under Sections 8(1)(h) and 24(4), as information impeding investigation or about Special Branch units falls outside the Act’s applicability.

The petitioner had sought the accused’s passport and lookout circular. The Court rejected the petition, clarifying that procedural access could be sought in the NI Act proceedings. 

[Praskash Chimanlal Sheth v. State of Karnataka]

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition by a woman accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old boy, challenging Sections 3(1)(a)–(c), 4, and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, contending that gendered pronouns “he” and “his” rendered the provisions inapplicable to female offenders.

A Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma stayed further trial court proceedings and agreed to examine whether the Act is gender-neutral.

The petition arose from a Karnataka High Court judgment dated August 18, 2025, which had upheld the applicability of POCSO to female offenders, emphasising the protection of all children irrespective of gender 

[Archana Patil v State of Karnataka & Anr.]

The Kerala High Court held that information obtained from a single accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be used to connect multiple accused to an offence.

The petitioner, the second accused in a case of theft under Sections 457, 380, read with Section 34 of the IPC, challenged his conviction arising from a liquor theft.

Justice P.V. Balakrishnan noted that the investigating officer failed to record separate statements for each accused, making it impossible to attribute the information to all.

Subsequently, the Court set aside the conviction and released the petitioner.

[Selvan v State of Kerala]

[Selvan v. State of Kerala]