Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | May 13 2008
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus
 

Login

  
Support | Info | Renew

Free Demo

Database Updates
Search by Database
Resources
Subject Modules
Database updates


Judgments

Tarakanath Kar vs Lipika Kar  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 07 May 2008]
CrPC, 1973, s. 125 - SDJM dismissed application u/s. 125 filed by Applicant-Respondent holding that Chandana is the legally married wife of Appellant and Respondent is not legally married of the appellant - Single Judge set aside the order and given certain directions in revision for initiation of departmental proceedings- Application to clarify the order dismissed - Appeal against - Held, direction is beyond the scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Code - High Court was clearly in error in directing initiation , while dealing with an application for revision in the matter relating to s. 125 - Appeal partly allowed.
Lalit Kumar Sharma and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 06 May 2008]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, s. 138 - Application for setting aside the order summoning appellants dismissed - Appeal against - Held, second cheque was issued in terms of the compromise - It did not create a new liability - As the compromise did not fructify, the same cannot be said to have been issued towards payment of debt - There was only one transaction between Directors of the Company and the complainant and they have already been punished - Question of entertaining the second complaint did not arise - Appeal allowed.
Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and Others vs State of Bihar  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 05 May 2008]
Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 324 and 307 r/w 34 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Held, it will be erroneous to lay down as a rule of universal application that non examination of a public witness by itself gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution or that the testimony of a relative of the victim, which is otherwise credit-worthy, cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by public witnesses - Merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterized as an "interested" witness - Mere delay in lodging the first information report is not by itself fatal to the case of the prosecution - It is a relevant factor of which the Court is obliged to take notice and examine whether any explanation for the delay has been offered and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not - Nothing substantial has been shown to persuade us to interfere with the conviction of the appellants - Sentences awarded to the appellants reduced - Appeal partly allowed.
Madhuban vs State of Uttar Pradesh  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 05 May 2008]
Indian Penal Code, ss. 302, 323 and 394 r/w 34 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Held, appellant was unable to argue the case due to swelling on vocal cord infected with influenza - An affidavit in support of such assertion was also filed in the High Court and it is very much there in the record and proceedings - Set aside the order passed by the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law - Order accordingly.
(1) Harendra Sarkar; (2) Kailash Gour and Others vs State of Assam  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 02 May 2008]
Murder - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Held, in view of the difference of opinion matter referred to larger bench.
Jagdish and Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 01 May 2008]
Appeal to challenge conviction and sentence - Appellants convicted for offences u/ss 304 Part-II/149 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and further convicted u/ss 147 and 148 IPC, 1860 for which no separate sentence awarded - All appellants except appellant no.4 had remained in custody for 4 years whereas appellant no.4, aged 70 years had been in custody for 2 years - Held, ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone and each one of them is directed to pay fine of Rupees ten thousand - Appeal disposed of.
Sudhir Kumar Bhalla vs Jagdish Chand, Etc  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 01 May 2008]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 - Whether order of High Court could be set aside on ground that the legal questions raised were not answered? - Held, Single Judge of HC has not addressed himself on the legal question raised before him by the appellant that the criminal liability of the appellant under the provisions of s. 138 of the NI Act, 1881 are attracted only on account of the dishonour of the cheques issued in discharge of liability or debt, but not on account of issuance of security cheques - Single Judge has also not given cogent, satisfactory and convincing reasons for disbelieving and discarding the pre-charge evidence of the appellant corroborated by the evidence of the expert opinion in regard to the interpolation in and fabrication of the cheques by adding one more figure '0' to make Rs.30, 000/- to Rs.3, 00, 000/- and similarly adding one more figure '0' to make Rs.40, 000/- to Rs.4, 00, 000/- - Judgments and orders of the HC cannot be sustained on the premise that the HC has not addressed itself on the above-said two legal questions raised by the appellant and, therefore, the impugned judgments and orders are set aside - Appeal disposed of.
(1) A.Ravishankar Prasad; (2) A.Manohar Prasad; (3) Ravi Shankar Films Private Limited, Chennai; (4) Gemini Arts Private Limited, Chennai; (5) Gemini Pictures Circuits Private Limited, Chennai; (6) Prasad Properties and Investments Private Limited, Chennai vs State By Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Banking Securities and Fraud Cell, Bangalore  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Apr 2008]
Whether initiation of criminal proceedings by Bank against petitioners for recovery of dues Bank after receiving the due amount with interest in a settlement before DRT was correct? - Held, in commercial ventures, borrowal, repayment and failure to make due payments on account of certain fiscal exigencies are quite common - Dispute between the Indian Bank and the petitioners herein was essentially civil in nature - Criminal complaint has been lodged by the Bank after a lapse of one year from the date of laying the civil suit only out of frustration that they could not recover whopping dues from the petitioners even after the civil litigation was laid as against them - Though the petitioners have so far faced the trial for about seven long years, they will have to face the ordeal of trial for another two or three years for conclusion of the trial of the case, therefore, it is not a case where the petitioners have come before this court at the fag end of the trial of the case - When the witnesses have not spoken any thing about the role of these petitioners and the materials exhibited also do not indicate the involvement of these petitioners in any of the cases and the petitioners have already settled the dues to the Indian Bank and the Indian Bank has also withdrawn the applications, the continuance of the trial which is only an exercise in futility will be a harassment to the petitioners -
Viswanathan and Others vs State Represented By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Apr 2008]
Appeals to challenge conviction and sentence - Appellants convicted u/s. 376(2)(g) of IPC - Prosecutrix was found lying naked in an unconscious condition and she had named four persons, namely, accused Nos.1 to 4 in the FIR, but only accused Nos. 1 to 3 in her deposition and had not named accused nos. 5 and 6 either in FIR or in her disposition, only accused No.1, Babu, had been named by PW7 and none other - Held, in absence of any Test Identification Parade having been held or they having been identified in court, the accused Nos.4 to 6 cannot be held guilty of commission of the said offence - Common intention of all the accused need not be supported by the fact that each one of them took part in actual commission of the offence; very fact that they came on cycles and dashed with the cycle of PW7 would clearly show that they had a common intention to commit the offence - If they had the common intention of committing the offence, they although were charged u/s. 376 in general, they could be convicted also u/s. 376(2)(g) as the latter is merely a graver form of the offence of rape - Evidence of PW6 is cogent and convincing and has been corroborated by PW7 who not only is a witness of the events which took place immediately prior to the actual occurrence of rape but also a witness to the scene of occurrence where he found his sister lying naked in an unconscious state - Appeals disposed of
S. Rama Krishna vs S. Rami Reddy (D) By His Lrs. and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Apr 2008]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 256 - Appeal to challenge order setting aside the order of acquittal on ground that any lis between the parties shall be decided on merits rather than on technicalities - Complainant filing complaint u/s. 138 r/w s. 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 expired and no order was passed in application filed by respondents for substitution of their name in place of complainant and counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant started representing the proposed heirs of complainant and Magistrate noticing that the respondents had not been attending the court for a long time, had acquitted appellant in exercise of his jurisdiction u/s. 256 of Cr.P.C. - Respondents had remained absent continuously for about 15 dates fixed for hearing - Held, matter remained pending for more than five years; it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to press their application for substitution - Conduct of the complainant is of immense significance, he cannot allow a case to remain pending for an indefinite period - Speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused - Orders passed by the competent court of law as also the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure must be construed having regard to the Constitutional scheme and the legal principles in mind, High Court, therefore, misdirected itself in passing the impugned judgment - Appeal allowed.
Dr. Narendra K Amin vs State of Gujarat and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 28 Apr 2008]
Appeal to challenge order canceling bail - Appellant convicted for offences punishable u/ss. 302, 364, 365, 368, 193, 197, 201, 120B, 420, 342 r/w s. 34 of IPC and u/ss. 25 (1)(b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1950 - Whether bail can be cancelled if the trial Court while granting bail acts on irrelevant materials or takes into account irrelevant materials? - Held, parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different - Even though the re-appreciation of the evidence as done by the Court granting bail is to be avoided the Court dealing with an application for cancellation of bail u/s. 439(2) can consider whether irrelevant materials were taken into consideration, because it is not known as to what extent the irrelevant materials weighed with the Court for accepting the prayer for bail - Irrelevant materials should be of a substantial nature and not of a trivial nature - Once it is found that bail was granted on untenable grounds, same can be cancelled - Order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference - Appeal dismissed.
Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State of Maharashtra  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 28 Apr 2008]
Appeals to challenge order rejecting application filed by appellants u/s. 227 of Cr.P.C. - Appellants A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-7, A-11 and A-12 accused of offences u/ss. 302 and 120B of IPC whereas accused A-7 to A-10 and A-13 to A-16 had been prosecuted for offences u/s. 302 r/w s. 120B under the Arms Act - Prosecution submitted that accused A-1 to A-5, A-11 and A-12 had hatched the conspiracy; acted in concert to give effect to their plan to get Kunal murdered and in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, the other accused facilitated commission of the said crime - High Court had opined that the circumstances, relied upon by the prosecution, even if accepted in its entirety, only created suspicion of motive, which was not sufficient to bring home an offence of murder and by its order had discharged appellant's mother, sister and two close associates, accused Nos.2, 4, 11 and 12 respectively and Supreme Court had dismissed SLP filed to challenge order passed by the Sessions Judge discharging the father (A-1) of the appellant, stated to be the mastermind behind the entire conspiracy, for offences under Sections 120B and 302 I.P.C. - Held, offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable even if an offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement - Contention of the prosecution to the effect that the parents, sister and friends of the appellants had entered into a criminal conspiracy stands rejected by virtue of the orders of discharge - On same set of circumstances and accusations, no sufficient ground survives to proceed against the appellant for the aforementioned offences - Appeal allowed.
Suneet Gupta vs (1) Anil Triloknath Sharma and Others; (2) Swami Raote and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 28 Apr 2008]
Appeals to challenge order allowing petitions u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR lodged against respondents for offences punishable u/ss. 468, 406 r/w s. 120B of IPC - Appellant submitted that he with Shashi Kant Mangla had formed partnership firm and Shashi Kant Mangla had become one of the partners of other partnership firm and dues of his partnership firm which were to be paid by M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd., in collusion with others, was paid to other firm of which Shashi Kant Mangla was partner and thus High Court was also not right, in holding that it was a civil dispute and there was abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant in initiating criminal proceedings - Held, civil dispute 'pure and simple - between the parties was sought to be converted into a criminal offence only by resorting to pressure tactics and by taking police help which was indeed abuse of process of law - Appeals dismissed.
Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) vs State of Gujarat  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 28 Apr 2008]
Appeal to challenge order canceling bail - Appellant convicted for offences punishable u/ss. 302, 364, 365, 368, 193, 197, 201, 120B, 420, 342 r/w s. 34 of IPC and u/ss. 25 (1)(b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1950 - Whether bail can be cancelled if the trial Court while granting bail acts on irrelevant materials or takes into account irrelevant materials? - Held, parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different - Even though the re-appreciation of the evidence as done by the Court granting bail is to be avoided the Court dealing with an application for cancellation of bail u/s. 439(2) can consider whether irrelevant materials were taken into consideration, because it is not known as to what extent the irrelevant materials weighed with the Court for accepting the prayer for bail - Irrelevant materials should be of a substantial nature and not of a trivial nature - Once it is concluded that bail was granted on untenable grounds, the plea of absence of supervening circumstances has no leg to stand - Order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference - Appeal dismissed.
Rajesh vs State Represented By Inspector of Police, Thanjavur  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Apr 2008]
Whether the trial court was right in convicting sole accused charged u/ss 302(3 counts), 506(ii), 427 and 324 IPC, 1860 and awarding capital punishment of death sentence for 3 counts u/s 302 IPC, 1860 (3 counts), 2 years S.I. u/s 506(ii) IPC, 1860, 2 years S.I. u/s 427 IPC, 1860 and 2 years S.I. u/s 324 IPC, 1860? - Whether trial is vitiated where legal aid counsel is appointed after framing of charges? - Held, prosecution has not only the ocular testimony, which was fully corroborated by the medical evidence, but also the recovery of weapon of crime pursuant to the confessional statement and also the scientific evidence, which would point to the nexus of the accused with the crime - Circumstances, denying partition of the properties and also the cruel treatment meted out to him led him to do such a crime; it was not a case of provocation, but it was intentionally done, therefore, it is a case of murder, even if it is the rarest of rare case, it is not a fit case where the death penalty could be imposed - Since after framing of charges, he denied all the charges and pleaded that he was not guilty, it would be quite clear that there was no prejudice that was caused to the appellant - Death sentence imposed by trial court u/s 302 IPC, 1860 (3 counts) is modified to one of life imprisonment (3 counts) - Appeal dismissed.
Anjani Kumar vs State of Bihar and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 24 Apr 2008]
Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 465, 466, 468, 469 and 471; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 197 - Prayer for quashing the order taking cognizance of offences dismissed - Appeal against - Held, official duty implies that act or omission must have been done by public servant in course of his service and such act or omission must have been performed as part of duty which further must have been official in nature - Once it is established that act or omission was done by the public servant while discharging his duty then the scope of its being official should be construed so as to advance the objective of the Section in favour of the public servant - If on facts, it is prima facie found that the act or omission for which the accused was charged had reasonable connection with discharge of his duty then it must be held to be official to which applicability of s. 197 cannot be disputed - Appeal allowed.
T. Nagappa vs Y.R. Muralidhar  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 24 Apr 2008]
Negotiable Instruments Act, s. 138 - Appellant filed an application under s. 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wrongly mentioned as s. 293 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for referring the cheque in question for examination by the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory for determining the age of his signature - Application dismissed - Appeal dismissed - Held, non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of provision of law would not be of any relevance, if the Court had the requisite jurisdiction to pass an order - Appeal allowed.
Latifkhan vs (1) State of Maharashtra; (2) Nasiroddin; (3) Bismillabi  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 23 Apr 2008]
Appeal to challenge order granting bail to respondents on furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs. 25, 000/- each with one surety - Consistent dying declarations against respondents 2 and 3 - Held, material on record, prima facie, shows that the respondents No. 2 and 3 are involved in a serious offence punishable u/s. 498-A and 302 of the I.P. Code; respondent No. 2 is a Police Constable, his remaining away on bail is likely to influence the prosecution witnesses - Bail order which is rendered in ignorance of basic requirements may be cancelled - While considering bail application, only prima facie assessment of evidence needs to be made - Impugned bail order is unsustainable to the extent of the respondent No. 2; as regards the respondent No. 3, it may be said that she is entitled to benefit of Proviso u/s. 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code being a woman, it is unlikely that she would misuse the liberty, she is not influential so as to tamper with the prosecution evidence - Appeal partly allowed.
Noorjahan vs State, Represented By D.S.P  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 23 Apr 2008]
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 498-A - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Held, consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman is required to be established in order to bring home the application of s. 498A - Evidence is inadequate to show that appellant was party to any demand for dowry - Prosecution has failed to establish the accusations against the appellant - Appeal allowed.
Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao and Others vs State, Represented By Public Prosecutor  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 22 Apr 2008]
Indian Penal Code, ss. 148, 449, 302 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149 and 427 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Held, mere relationship of the witnesses cannot be the sole basis to discard or disbelieve their evidence if it is otherwise found to be believable and trustworthy - If the evidence of any interested witness or a relative on a careful scrutiny is found to be consistent and trustworthy, free from infirmities or any embellishment there is no reason not to place reliance on the same - Evaluation of the findings recorded by the High Court do not suffer from any manifest error and mis- appreciation of evidence on record - Appeal dismissed.
P.D. Lakhani and Another vs State of Punjab and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 22 Apr 2008]
Applicability of s. 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Held, High Court committed a manifest error in so far as it held that the as the complaint was addressed to the SHO, he was the appropriate authority to lodge a complaint in respect of an offence punishable under s. 182 of IPC - No complaint could be lodged before the learned Magistrate by the Station House Officer - Appeal allowed.
Gampa Govindu vs State of Andhra Pradesh through Public Prosecutor  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 21 Apr 2008]
Indian Penal Code, s. 326 - Trial Court convicted the sole appellant under s. 326 - High Court in revision set aside conviction and sentence under s. 326 and appellant has been convicted under s. 324 - Held, joint petition of compromise has been filed wherein it has been stated that the parties have settled their disputes; as such, they be permitted to compound the offence - Prayer is just and must be granted - Appeal allowed.
(1) Chidambara Krishnan Alias Duraiappa Alias Durai; (2) Maharajan vs State, Represented By The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 21 Apr 2008]
Appeals filed u/ss. 374 and 374 (2) Cr.P.C. to challenge conviction and sentence - Appellants A1, A2 and A3 accused of offence punishable u/s. 302 I.P.C. and also u/s. 392 r/w s. and A4 under s. 411 I.P.C. - Oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was natural, clear and portraying the occurrence, their evidence were properly and duly corroborated by other circumstances, viz., the recoveries of material objects, scientific evidence, test identification parade and report produced by the finger print expert - Held, report of the finger print expert is reliable scientific evidence - All materials paves way to conclude that the accused were available in the scene of crime and with the intention of physically eliminating Murugarajan and committing robbery, they travelled in the bus and they successfully achieved their object - Sufficient materials are available to establish the guilt of the accused - Appeals dismissed.
(1) Thindan Alias Raj; (2) Alex Alias Alexander; (3) Sekar; (4) Moses; (5) Selvakumar; (6) Sebasthian Ramesh Albert; (7) Mohan; (8) Mariappan vs State, Represented By Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Tirunelveli  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 21 Apr 2008]
Appeals to challenge conviction and sentence - Deceased died out of homicidal violence - Held, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it would be quite clear that they have not identified any one of the accused, except A-1 to A-3, both the witnesses did not speak about the identity of A-4 to A-8, A-4 to A-8 were not armed with any weapons and they have not attacked the deceased and they have also not caused any injury on the deceased, nothing to show that A-4 to A-8 had any common object, in furtherance of which they have acted, hence A-4 to A-8 have got to be acquitted - Ocular testimony of P.Ws.1 and2 with respect to A-1 to A-3 stood fully corroborated with the medical evidence, arrest and recovery of weapons of crime from A-1 to A-3 pursuant to the confessional statements have also been proved - A-3 has not completed 21 years, therefore, he is an adolescent offender and he must be sent to Bookstall School till he completed the age of 23 years - Appeals disposed of.
V.Sasi vs State, Represented By Inspector of Police, Kulasekaran  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Apr 2008]
Appeal to challenge conviction and sentence - Appellant convicted for offence u/s. 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment - Held evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who witnessed the accused along with the knife at the time and place of occurrence, would be pointing to the guilt of the accused, leaving no doubt in the mind of the court; despite cross examination in full, the evidence of those witnesses remained intact and unshaken; their evidence stood fully corroborated with the medical evidence; recovery of M.O.2, knife pursuant to the confessional statement made by accused point out the nexus of the accused with the crime - Appellant who could not tolerate the torture of his son and being provoked, took the knife and stabbed the deceased, thus, it was neither intentional nor premeditated, but at the spur of moment and due to provocation, he has acted so and hence the act of the accused would not attract the penal provisions of murder, but it would be one culpable homicide, not amounting to murder, therefore, the act of the accused would attract the penal provision of s. 304 (I) IPC and awarding a punishment of 7 years R.I. would meet the ends of justice - Conviction and sentence modified - Appeal dismissed.


Copyright © 1997-2008 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer