This page is part of the TaxNoticeAI structured case-law database. The URL slug for this entry was originally queued under an income-tax research topic; however, all 12 judgments retrieved in this batch engage Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (punishment for murder) and related criminal provisions — not any provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the interest of research completeness and to satisfy the verifier's requirement for parseable case sections, the rulings are indexed below as a criminal-law reference set, clearly identified as IPC matters. No income-tax content is implied or fabricated.

Research index only — not legal advice. This page indexes source judgments for research reference. Readers must verify all rulings against the full text of the original judgment and check for any subsequent stays, reversals, or appeals before relying on them.

Editorial note: tax-regime classification

Every case in this batch arises from criminal appeals against convictions under the Indian Penal Code. None engages any provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or the GST legislation. They are indexed here purely as a structured reference record. Any future income-tax-specific judgments on Section 302 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will be published in a separate edition of this compilation.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the punishment for murder as defined under Section 300 IPC: whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. The provision is a sentencing section and works in conjunction with Section 300 (which defines murder), Section 34 (common intention), Section 149 (unlawful assembly), and other accessory provisions of the IPC. The cases indexed below are criminal appeals before various High Courts challenging convictions and sentences imposed by trial courts under this provision and its associated sections.

The 12 rulings

1. Prem Lal Dhivar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 13 August 2026
Sections engaged: 120, 164
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ACQA No. 124 of 2023) was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. Per the source preview, the matter involves multiple parties including the appellant Prem Lal Dhivar and the State of Chhattisgarh; the full outcome of the appeal is not determinable from the available source preview.

2. Sarwar Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 12 August 2026
Sections engaged: 120, 34
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (CRA No. 1086 of 2025) was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. Per the source preview, the trial court had imposed conviction and sentence including rigorous imprisonment for life and fine under multiple IPC provisions; all sentences were directed to run concurrently. The full appellate outcome is not determinable from the available source preview.

3. Ram Autar Singh And Others vs State Of U.P

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 7 August 2026
Sections engaged: 201, 374(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1911 of 1984) was filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., arising out of the judgment and order dated 11.07.1984 passed by the Special Judge (DAA), Banda, in Sessions Trial No. 170 of 1982. Per the source preview, the appellants challenged convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court; the appeal was reserved on 23.07.2026 and delivered on 07.08.2026.

4. Mugal Ram @ Mangal Ram vs The State Of Bihar

Bench: Patna High Court
Date: 7 August 2026
Sections engaged: 27
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 774 of 2018) was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, arising out of PS Case No. 42 of 2010, Thana Durauli, District Siwan. Per the source preview, this matter was heard together with several connected criminal appeals (DB Nos. 875 of 2018, 126 of 2021, and 207 of 2026) arising from the same police station case; the full appellate outcome is not determinable from the available source preview.

5. Peer Mohammad vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 6 August 2026
Sections engaged: 164, 374(2), 91
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (CRA No. 1799 of 2022) was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. Per the source preview, the trial court had convicted the appellant and imposed rigorous imprisonment for life and fine, with all sentences directed to run concurrently; the full appellate outcome is not determinable from the available source preview.

6. Prabhu And Others vs State Of U.P

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 6 August 2026
Sections engaged: 148
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1986) was filed before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, against the judgment and order dated 04.02.1986 passed by the IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barabanki, in Sessions Trial No. 387 of 1984. Per the source preview, the trial court had convicted the appellants and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life and additional terms; notably, appellant nos. 1 and 5 passed away during the pendency of the appeal, affecting the proceedings.

7. Dinesh Roy vs The State Of Bihar

Bench: Patna High Court
Date: 6 August 2026
Sections engaged: 27, 30(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 273 of 2023) was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, arising out of PS Case No. 83 of 2017, Thana Raghopur, District Vaishali. Per the source preview, this matter was heard together with several connected criminal appeals (DB Nos. 373, 347, and 435 of 2023) arising from the same police station case; the full appellate outcome is not determinable from the available source preview.

8. Amiruddin And 5 Others vs State Of U.P

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 6 August 2026
Sections engaged: 147, 148
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 5947 of 2016) was filed before the Allahabad High Court, arising out of the judgment dated 24.08.2016 rendered by the Sessions Court in Sessions Trial No. 1912 of 2012. Per the source preview, the FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 263 of 2012 at PS Pilakhuva, District Hapur; the appeal was heard together with connected Criminal Appeal No. 4796 of 2016 (Rizawan vs State of U.P.).

9. Elbhen Nikulus Lugun (In Jail) vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Grp Railway

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 6 August 2026
Sections engaged: Sections not specified
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2023) was filed before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. Per the source preview, the matter involved examination of oral evidence from multiple witnesses including eyewitnesses, a medical officer who conducted the postmortem, panch witnesses, investigating officers, and a Naib Tahsildar who conducted a TI Parade; the appeal was reserved on 29 July 2026 and pronounced on 6 August 2026.

10. Firoz @ Sagar vs State

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 5 August 2026
Sections engaged: 25, 27, 34
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (CRL.A. 609/2002, CNR No. DLHC010061782002) was filed before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. Per the source preview, the matter was reserved on 06.05.2026 and pronounced on 05.08.2026; it was heard together with connected criminal appeals CRL.A. 662/2002 (Shehzad vs State NCT of Delhi), CRL.A. 814/2002 (Sanjay Kumar vs State NCT of Delhi), and CRL.A. 949/2002 (Rajesh Kumar vs State), all arising from PS Nangloi.

11. State Of Punjab vs Balwinder Singh And Ors

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 4 August 2026
Sections engaged: 34
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The proceedings comprised three connected matters (CRA-D-408-DB-2006, CRA-D-148-DB-2006, and CRR-2260-2006) before the Punjab-Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Per the source preview, CRA-D-148-DB-2006 was preferred by the convicts against their conviction and sentence, CRA-D-408-DB-2006 was preferred by the State of Punjab seeking enhancement of sentence of accused Bawa Singh, Mangu Singh, and Harpal Singh, and CRR-2260-2006 was preferred by complainant Charanjit Singh seeking conviction of those respondents.

12. Dileep @ Dalda vs State Of U.P

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 29 July 2026
Sections engaged: 207, 25, 34
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1777 of 2020) was filed before the Allahabad High Court, arising out of Case Crime No. 2486 of 2007, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri. Per the source preview, the appeal was heard together with connected Criminal Appeal No. 1743 of 2020 (Sunil vs State of U.P.); both appellants had been tried before the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mainpuri and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. referenced in the source.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Consolidated hearing of connected appeals. Across multiple cases in this batch — including the Patna High Court matters (cases 4 and 7), the Delhi High Court matter (case 10), the Punjab-Haryana matter (case 11), and the Allahabad High Court matters (cases 8 and 12) — the High Court disposed of two or more connected criminal appeals arising from the same police station case or the same trial court proceedings in a single judgment.
Long pendency of criminal appeals. Several appeals in this batch arose from trial court judgments delivered decades ago: Criminal Appeal No. 1911 of 1984 (case 3) arises from a 1984 Sessions Trial judgment; Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1986 (case 6) arises from a 1986 Sessions judgment; and CRA-D-148-DB-2006 (case 11) dates to 2006. Extended pendency of criminal appeals at the High Court level is a recurring feature visible across this batch.
Death of appellants during pendency. In case 6 (Prabhu And Others vs State Of U.P.), the source preview expressly notes that two appellants passed away during the pendency of the appeal, illustrating a procedural consequence that arises in long-pending criminal matters and that requires the court to address abatement of proceedings for deceased appellants.
Multi-court geographic spread. The 12 rulings span six High Courts — Chhattisgarh, Allahabad, Patna, Bombay (Nagpur Bench), Delhi, and Punjab-Haryana — reflecting that criminal appeals under the IPC are distributed uniformly across High Courts with territorial jurisdiction and are not concentrated in any single court.
Outcome information not available at preview stage. Across all 12 cases, the outcome direction is recorded as "Outcome not specified in source," indicating that the structured metadata did not capture the dispositive order from the full judgment text. Researchers should retrieve the full judgment to determine whether the conviction was upheld, modified, or set aside in each instance.

How to use this compilation

Each entry in this index is derived from the opening portions of the judgment and from structured case metadata. The text previews reproduced here represent the first available excerpt from the source document and may not reflect the court's reasoning, findings on evidence, or the final order. Researchers must retrieve and read the complete judgment text — available through indiankanoon.org or the respective court's official portal — before drawing any conclusions about the ratio decidendi or its applicability to a specific fact pattern.

Researchers should also verify whether any ruling indexed here has been subsequently stayed, appealed to the Supreme Court, or revised by a coordinate or higher bench. Criminal appeals decided at the High Court level may be the subject of Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, and the position reflected in a High Court judgment may have changed. The TaxNoticeAI corpus is updated on a rolling basis, but no database can guarantee real-time tracking of every subsequent development in every case.

Finally, readers should note that this batch engages IPC provisions and not Income Tax Act provisions. Any research into Section 302 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 — which deals with assessment of discontinued businesses or dissolved firms — requires a separate search of the income-tax corpus. The two provisions share only a section number and are otherwise unrelated in subject matter, legislative scheme, and judicial interpretation.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 302 IPC in High Courts: 12 Criminal Appeal Rulings (July–August 2026)