advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
and appellate jurisdiction.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Death of appellant’s wife due to cyanide poisoning – Allegation that appellant had mixed up cyanide in a cold drink bottle of Limca and given it to his wife to drink – Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, acquitted him of the charge under s.302 – Appeal by State Government – High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal and, convicted the appellant under s.302 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life – Justification of – Whether on the basis of the materials on record, the view taken by the trial Court, was so wrong and unreasonable as to warrant interference and reversal by the High Court – Held: There was hardly anything in the prosecution evidence to establish the charge against the appellant – The facts and circumstances of the case may give rise to a strong suspicion against the appellant but suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take place of proof – Testimony of PW6 (on the issue of appellant mixing up cyanide in the cold drink bottle of Limca and giving it to the deceased to drink) was not reliable – Prosecution case on recovery of the Limca bottle from the residence of appellant was also highly suspect – There was no proof of the appellant’s guilt and on the basis of the evidence on record it would be quite unsafe to hold him guilty of murder and to send him to imprisonment for life – Trial court had taken the perfectly correct view in the matter – High Court arrived at a completely erroneous conclusion regarding the appellant’s guilt – Judgment passed by the trial court accordingly restored. The wife of the appellant died of cyanide poisoning. It was alleged by the prosecution that the appellant had mixed up cyanide in a cold drink bottle of Limca and given it to his wife to drink. Apart from the doctor (PW14) and the forensic expert (PW17), 16 more witnesses were examined to prove the culpability of the appellant. Out of them PWs 1 and 2 were the father and the brother respectively of the deceased. The trial Court on a consideration of all the evidence produced before it found that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It, therefore, acquitted him of the charge under section 302 IPC. Against the judgment of the trial Court, the State Government preferred appeal. The High Court allowed the government appeal, reversed the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court and, accordingly, convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. In the instant appeal, the question which arose for consideration was whether on the basis of the materials on record, the view taken by the trial Court, was so wrong and unreasonable as to warrant interference and reversal by the High Court. =Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. PW7 was the landlady in whose house the appellant and the deceased lived on rent, and PW3 was her maid. These two witnesses stated before the Court how they had found the appellant’s wife lying unconscious in a chair and had shifted her to Hospital for treatment. PW3 further stated that at that time the accused was not present in the house but he came to the hospital an hour after the deceased was admitted there. In her cross- examination by the defence, she stated that the deceased was suffering from some kind of disease, and at that stage she was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW7 similarly stated that on receiving a telephone call she went to the portion of the house occupied by the deceased and found her there lying unconscious in a chair. She, then, called her maid PW3 and with her help, shifted her to hospital. She did not know what had happened to the deceased. In her cross examination she stated that the accused and the deceased were living amicably prior to the date of the incident. [Para 27] [624-G-H; 625-A-C] 2. PW4 was the goldsmith, from whom the appellant is supposed to have obtained the cyanide as per his confessional statement. In his deposition before the Court, PW4 stated that he was threatened and cajoled by the police to say that the appellant had obtained cyanide form him on the pretext of cleaning the computer parts. He stated before the court that he and his brother were brought to the Police Station where they were kept for 10 days and were threatened that they would be implicated in the case, unless they made statements as directed by the police. In the end, finding no way out, he yielded and made the statement before the police and the Magistrate as he was asked to do. He was declared hostile and was cross- examined by the prosecution, in course of which he bluntly denied that his statement under section 161 of Cr. P. C. was given voluntarily and not under coercion. The deposition of PW4 is a major blow to the prosecution case as regards the source of cyanide to the appellant and his access to the poison. [Para 28] [625-D-G] 3.1. On the issue of the appellant mixing up cyanide in the cold drink bottle of Limca and giving it to the deceased to drink, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW6, the owner of a general store, and the recovery of the empty Limca bottle from one of the rooms in the occupation of the appellant and the deceased. PW6 deposed before the court that more than a year ago, at about 2.30 or 3 p.m., the accused went to his store and purchased a Limca bottle. Apart from the price of the cold drink, he was asked to deposit Rs.5 for the bottle. He paid Rs.15 and took away the bottle of Limca, but he didn’t return the empty bottle. He did not know where and in which house the accused resided. In cross-examination, he stated that his store was a big shop and a number of customers came there. He remembered some customers and the articles purchased by them but didn’t remember most of the customers or the articles purchased by them on a particular day. He also said that most of the time he went out for the purchase of supply for the shop and at those times his brother sat in the shop. He also said that he was a social worker and a reputed person in the locality. And he went to the police station whenever some disputes arose in the locality and tried to settle them amicably by compromise. [Para 29] [625-H; 626-A-D] 3.2. In appreciating the evidence of PW6, two or three things need to be kept in mind. First, though it is not impossible for a busy shop keeper to recall a person who is not a regular customer of the shop but comes there by chance for purchasing a bottle of cold drink, it is certainly a little unusual. Secondly, PW6 claimed himself to be a social worker and a reputed person in the locality. He was quite familiar with the police and used to visit the police station for settlement of the disputes arising in the locality. Thirdly, and most importantly, the appellant was presented before him after allegedly making the confessional statement before the police and the punch witnesses. The whole story was, thus, out in the open and the police had brought the culprit before him `for a simple confirmation’ that he would indeed do in order to oblige the police without any difficulty. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is very reluctant in accepting the testimony of PW6. [Para 30] [626-E-H] 4. As regards the recovery of the empty Limca bottle from one of the rooms at the appellant’s residence that was found by the forensic laboratory to contain cyanide, the appellant’s residence was thoroughly searched soon after the death of Laxmi Kumari. The `Scene of Offence Panchnama’ is in considerable detail and it describes the appellant’s residence and the articles found there. On the `sajja’ of the appellant’s bedroom, suit cases and some miscellaneous articles were found and on shelves there were portraits of goddesses, weekly magazines, other books and some clothes. It is rather strange, that in course of such a detailed examination, the Sub- Inspector should have missed out the empty Limca bottle that is shown to be recovered three days later from the same shelf. The seizure memo does not state that the bottle was taken out by the appellant from some hidden place from where normally it could not be recovered without his assistance. The seizure memo was prepared in presence of panchas. Only one of them was examined by the prosecution as PW12. He denied that any recovery was made in his presence. On the contrary he stated that police obtained his signatures on some papers of which some were written and some were blank. He denied that in his presence the appellant had led the police to his house and had produced the Limca bottle, that the police had seized it under the seizure memo, and that he and another panch attested the panchnama. Thirdly, it is in the seizure report under the column details of seizure what is stated is `One empty Limca Bottle-300ml.’ Thus, at the time of seizure there was no white powder visible inside the bottle as is mentioned in the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Also, the bottle reached the Forensic Science Laboratory much later and there is absolutely no evidence as to where and with whom the bottle remained during this period. All these circumstances make the prosecution case on recovery of the Limca bottle from the residence of the appellant highly suspect. [Para 31] [627-A-H; 628-A] 5.1. There appears to be hardly anything in the prosecution evidence to establish the charge against the appellant. The facts and circumstances of the case may give rise to a strong suspicion against the appellant but suspicion, howsoever strong, can not take place of proof. There is no proof of the appellant’s guilt and on the basis of the evidence on record it would be quite unsafe to hold him guilty of murder and to send him to imprisonment for life. [Para 32] [628-B-C] 5.2. The trial court had taken the perfectly correct view in the matter. The High Court was unable to keep aside the so called confessional statement made by the appellant. On the contrary, it put the confessional statement at the centre and proceeded to examine all other evidences in its back drop and, thus, reached to a completely erroneous conclusion regarding the appellant’s guilt. The confessional statement was completely repudiated by the appellant before the trial court. Further, the statement was supposedly made in presence of `panchas,’ and it was shown to have been signed by them as witnesses along with the investigating officer (PW18). Of the two panchas, only one was examined as PW12, but he did not support the prosecution case either in regard to the appellant’s confessional statement or the Seizure Report of the Limca bottle and was declared hostile. It was only PW18, the investigating officer, who stated before the trial court that the accused voluntarily made the confessional statement and voluntarily produced the empty Limca bottle from the `sajja’ at his residence. The confessional statement, disowned by the appellant and not supported even by the witness, is of no use for judging the appellant’s guilt and must be kept out of consideration. The impugned judgment of the High Court is, accordingly, set aside and the judgment passed by the trial court is restored. [Paras 25, 33] [623-H; 624-A-D; 628-D-E] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1449 of 2007. From the Judgment & Order dated 13.9.2007 of the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1009 of 2005. Sushil Kumar, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Vinita Sasidharan, Aditya Kumar (for Lawyer’s Knit & Co.) for the Appellant. D. Mahesh Babu, Ramesh Allan, D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1449 OF 2007 M. Nageshwar Rao ….Appellant Versus State of Andhra Pradesh ….Respondent JUDGMENT AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated September 13, 2007 passed by the High Court of … Continue reading
private complaint under sec.195 and 120B of I.P.C.= The question which, therefore, arises for consideration in this appeal is that even if the Rent Controller is held not to be a “Court”, whether any private complaint would be maintainable in respect of statements alleged to have been falsely made before it.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2225 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.5625 of 2007) IQBAL SINGH NARANG & ORS. … APPELLANTS VS. VEERAN NARANG … RESPONDENT O R D E R ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. On 3rd August, 1998, the Appellant No.1 filed an … Continue reading
trade marks =selling gutka, pan masala, supari, supari mix, zarda, etc. in the name of “Manikchand”, – phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s mark “Malikchand” – and thereby passing off their goods as and for plaintiff’s goods.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10112 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 27180 of 2008) Rasiklal Manickchand Dhariwal & Anr. …. Appellants Versus M/s. M.S.S. Food Products ….Respondent JUDGMENT R.M. Lodha, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal, by special leave, raises questions of legality of … Continue reading
apex court set aside the high court order and confirmed the conviction of lower courts under cow slaughter’s actThe accused persons were convicted under Section 8 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 14.09.1998 in Crl. Case No.23/96. On Appeal, this order of conviction and sentence was confirmed and upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide order dated 01.06.2000 in Criminal Appeal No.20/98.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2203 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.372/2011) State of Haryana ….Appellant(s) – Versus – Rajmal & another ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment … Continue reading
Arbitration and conciliation act= The arbitrator was, therefore, not right in law in coming to the conclusion that the agreement between the appellant and the respondent No.2 was void and not enforceable as the consideration or object of the agreement was hit by the letter dated 31.08.1990 of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. This letter may be an instruction to the officers of the Defence Department to reject a tender where the rate quoted by the tenderor is more than 20% below the reasonable rates but the letter was not an Act of the legislature declaring that any supply made at a rate below 20% of the reasonable rates was unlawful. The finding of the arbitrator on Issue No.4 is thus patently illegal and opposed to public policy. In Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705 at page 727], this Court after examining the grounds on which an award of the arbitrator can be set aside under Section 34 of the Act has said: “31……However, the award which is, on the face of it, patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public interest. Such award/judgment/decision is likely to adversely affect the administration of justice. Hence, in our view in addition to narrower meaning given to the term “public policy” in Renusagar case it is required to be held that the award could be set aside if it is patently illegal.” 12. We accordingly set aside the Award of the arbitrator and the judgments of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2755 OF 2007 Union of India … Appellant Versus Col. L.S.N. Murthy & Anr. … Respondents J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of … Continue reading
Land Acquisition act = apex court confirmed the high court order in deducting 55 percent of the market value assessed on the basis of the exemplar sale deed, towards developmental charges, 5 percent towards waiting period, and 10 percent towards de-escalation.
1 “REPORTABLE” IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1743 OF 2006 Chandrashekar (D) by LRs. and Others …. Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Officer and Another …. Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8899-8901 OF 2011 Basappa (D) & by LRs. and Others …. Appellants Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gulbarga … Continue reading
The domestic enquiry found the delinquent employee guilty of all the charges. The enquiry report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and there is no grievance on behalf of the respondent-workman that statutory provisions/principles of natural justice have not been observed while conducting the enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service which cannot be held to be disproportionate or non-commensurate to the delinquency. The Labour Court after reconsidering the whole case came to the conclusion that the enquiry has been conducted strictly in accordance with law in a fair manner and charges have rightly been proved against the delinquent 1
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9933 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.7083 of 2010) The Divisional Controller, KSRTC …. Appellant Versus M.G. Vittal Rao …. Respondent J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been … Continue reading
whether the Award of the learned Arbitrator tantamounts to a decree or not, the language used in Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, makes it very clear that such an Award has to be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as it were a decree of the Court. The said language leaves no room for doubt as to the manner in which the Award of the learned Arbitrator was to be accepted.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9763 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.18509 of 2009) Leela Hotels Ltd. … Appellant Vs. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. … Respondent J U D G M E N T ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This Appeal has been … Continue reading
application of sec.324r/w 120 B of I.P.C.= there is nothing on record to establish meeting of minds between the appellant and the other accused. Assuming that the appellant had produced certain documents pertaining to the said auto rickshaw, it cannot be concluded on the basis thereof that he had entered into conspiracy with A1 to A3 to repossess the said auto rickshaw because the loan amount was not repaid and in pursuance thereto A1 to A3 murdered the driver of the said auto rickshaw. The evidence on record is totally inadequate to come to such a conclusion. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the impugned judgment.
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1221 OF 2005 SHERIMON … APPELLANT Versus STATE OF KERALA … RESPONDENT JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. The appellant (original accused 4) along with three others (original accused 1, 2 & 3) was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam in … Continue reading
contempt of court ?= In the present case, even before filing of the appeal the appellant has brought to the notice of the State Government the order passed by the learned Single Judge and sought its implementation. In the representation he had not voiced and could not have voiced any opinion on the appeal as the same was not filed till then. The Under Secretary while making recommendation also did not voice any opinion on the pending appeal. It has to be borne in mind that any attempt to influence the outcome of the matter pending before the court to prejudice the parties therein may prejudice or interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding but in our opinion, mere filing of the representation and
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. OF 2011 (@ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 844-847 of 2008) H.G. RANGANGOUD … APPELLANT VERSUS M/S.STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED & ORS. …RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. 1. Petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 