advocatemmmohan
Capital punishment
whether the decree passed by the court of first instance on the basis of compromise had become enforceable or it had the status of a preliminary decree requiring completion of a final decree proceeding to make it executable and; whether the execution proceeding was untenable being hit by the law of limitation. = Compromise was acted upon as if it is a final decree – no separate final decree necessary and is a executable decree – as execution of it after 12 years barred by limitation = Bimal Kumar & Another … Appellants Versus Shakuntala Debi & Others = Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/helddis.aspx
DECREE: Final decree and Preliminary decree – Distinction between -Discussed. Preliminary decree – Compromise application – Tenor of application showed that the parties to the compromise settled the entire controversy and they were in separate and exclusive possession of the properties allotted to their respective shares – The compromise application did not contain any clause … Continue reading
Reduced the sentence from life to 10 years in sec. 304 B IPC Apex court held that same principles laid down in death cases- would apply with little modifications for assessing the sentences in other cases = SUNIL DUTT SHARMA Vs. STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI) published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/ ?filename=40877
Reduced the sentence from life to 10 years in sec. 304 B IPC applying the participles laid down in commuting death penalty to life imprisonment, even though there is no guide lines and separate rules for lessor sentences – other than death sentences ; Apex court held that same principles laid down in death cases- would … Continue reading
Section 432 Cr.PC for remission and Section 433 Cr.PC for commutation – No Sentence should be considered for remission and commutation before serving of the minimum sentence = All murders shock the community; but certain murders shock the conscience of the Court and the community. The distinguishing aspect of the latter category is that there is shock coupled with extreme revulsion. What should be the penological approach in that category is one question arising for consideration in this case. What is the scope of consideration of Death Reference by the High Court under Chapter XXVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’), is the other question. Whether there is any restriction on the exercise of power under Section 432 Cr.PC for remission and Section 433 Cr.PC for commutation in cases of minimum sentence is the third main issue.= In the present case, the respondent has been awarded life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC. Under Section 376 of IPC also he has been awarded life imprisonment. The third substantive sentence is under Section 201 of IPC. All these sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The sentence of life imprisonment is till the end of one’s biological life. However, in view of the power of the State under Sections 432 and 433 of Cr.PC, in the present case, we are of the view that the sentences shall run consecutively, in case there is remission or commutation. We further make it clear that the remission or commutation, if considered in the case of the respondent, shall be granted only after the mandatory period of fourteen years in the case of offence under Section 302 of IPC. Punishment has a penological purpose. Reformation, retribution, prevention, deterrence are some of the major factors in that regard. Parliament is the collective conscience of the people. If it has mandated a minimum sentence for certain offences, the Government being its delegate, cannot interfere with the same in exercise of their power for remission or commutation. Neither Section 432 nor Section 433 of Cr.PC hence contains a non-obstante provision. Therefore, the minimum sentence provided for any offence cannot be and shall not be remitted or commuted by the Government in exercise of their power under Section 432 or 433 of the Cr.PC. Wherever the Indian Penal Code or such penal statutes have provided for a minimum sentence for any offence, to that extent, the power of remission or commutation has to be read as restricted; otherwise the whole purpose of punishment will be defeated and it will be a mockery on sentencing. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we make it clear that in the event of State invoking its powers under Section 432 or 433 of Cr.PC, the sentence under Section 376 of IPC shall not be remitted or commuted before seven years of imprisonment. In other words, in that eventuality, it shall be ensured that the respondent will first serve the term of life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC. In case there is any remission after fourteen years, then imprisonment for a minimum period of seven years under Section 376 of IPC shall follow and thereafter three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 of IPC. The sentence on fine and default as awarded by the Sessions Court are maintained as such.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40836 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 659 OF 2006 State of Rajasthan … Appellant (s) Versus Jamil Khan … Respondent (s) J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.: 1. All murders shock the community; but certain murders shock the conscience of the Court and … Continue reading
Death and if not life, death or life, life and if not death, is the swinging progression of the criminal jurisprudence in India as far as capital punishment is concerned. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, under Section 367(5) reads: “If the accused is convicted of an offence punishable with death, and the Court sentences him to any punishment other than death, the Court shall in its judgment state the reason why sentence of death was not passed.”= Imprisonment for life of a convict is till the end of his biological life as held by the Constitution Bench in Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others[37] case (supra). Hence, there is no point in saying that the sentences would run consecutively. However, we make it clear that in case the sentence of imprisonment for life is remitted or commuted to any specified period (in any case, not less than fourteen years in view of Section 433A of the Cr.PC.), the sentence of imprisonment under Section 307 of IPC shall commence thereafter.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40743 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 165-166 OF 2011 Sunil Damodar Gaikwad … Appellant (s) Versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent (s) J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.: 1. Death and if not life, death or life, life and if not death, … Continue reading
Section 367(5) reads= Death and if not life, death or life, life and if not death, is the swinging progression of the criminal jurisprudence in India as far as capital punishment is concerned. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, under Section 367(5) reads: “If the accused is convicted of an offence punishable with death, and the Court sentences him to any punishment other than death, the Court shall in its judgment state the reason why sentence of death was not passed.”= In the above facts and circumstances of the case, while upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 and Section 307 of IPC, we modify the sentence as follows: a) For offence under Section 302 of IPC, the appellant is sentenced to life imprisonment. b) For offence under Section 307 of IPC, the appellant is convicted to imprisonment for a period of seven years. 28. Imprisonment for life of a convict is till the end of his biological life as held by the Constitution Bench in Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others[37] case (supra). Hence, there is no point in saying that the sentences would run consecutively. However, we make it clear that in case the sentence of imprisonment for life is remitted or commuted to any specified period (in any case, not less than fourteen years in view of Section 433A of the Cr.PC.), the sentence of imprisonment under Section 307 of IPC shall commence thereafter. 29. The appeals are allowed as above.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40743 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 165-166 OF 2011 Sunil Damodar Gaikwad … Appellant (s) Versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent (s) J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.: 1. Death and if not life, death or life, life and if not death, … Continue reading
will deed= suspicious circumstances = alterations =Sections 63 and 71 of the Act which have bearing on the decision of the first question read as under: “63. Execution of unprivileged Wills.- Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:- (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7548 OF 2002 Dayanandi … Appellant Versus Rukma D. Suvarna and others … Respondents J U D G M E N T G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High … Continue reading
small cause suit – proof of promissory note-The plaintiff besides examined himself as P.W.1 examined attestor of the Ex.A.1-promissory note as P.W.2. Though the defendant denied the execution, he did not choose to make any application seeking expert opinion on the signatures of him appearing in Ex.A.1-promissory note. Indeed, the trial Court compared the signatures of the defendant appearing on the written statement, vakalat, deposition with the signature appearing on the Ex.A.1 promissory note and came to the conclusion that they are of the one and the same person. The plaintiff besides examining himself as P.W.1 examined attestor as P.W.2. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is cogent and consistent. Once the plaintiff is able to prove the execution of Ex.A.1-promissory note, it is for the defendant to move an application to get the signatures appearing on Ex.A.1 promissory note examined by an expert. Such course has not been adopted by the defendant. There is no flaw in the judgment impugned in the revision.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2837 of 2009 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-04-2009 passed in Small Cause Suit No.9 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Narayanpet, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil … Continue reading
ADMISSION IS THE CONCLUSIVE PROOF. -The 1960 deed describes status of the plaintiff as perpetual lessee and it further records that the question of nature of the Plaintiff’s right was reconsidered by the Defendant at the request of Laxman Das and after examining it they were satisfied that the Plaintiff held the land on lease in perpetuity. This is not only the admission on the part of the Defendant but the 1960 Deed also records that the Defendant had determined the status of the Plaintiff over the land after consideration. 79. This determination is admission of the Defendant. It is conclusive proof of the status of the Plaintiff as neither any explanation for the same has been offered, nor any action has been taken against Laxman Das.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. – 962 of 2004 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru’ Collector, Mathura Respondent :- Thakur Sri Radha Ramanji Maharaj Petitioner Counsel :- S.C. Respondent Counsel :- Shamim Ahmad,R.K.Jain,Vipin Sinha Hon’ble Yatindra Singh, J Hon’ble Dinesh Gupta, J (Delivered by Hon’ble Yatindra Singh, … Continue reading
The celebrated Judge of the Allahabad High Court Justice Mehmood quoted the following Urdu couplet in one of his judgments while deciding a murder appeal :- “Jo Chup Rahegi Zuban-e-khanjar, Lahu pukarega asteen ka” Issue notice to the respondent as to why the life sentence awarded to him by the High Court should not be enhanced to death sentence.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO…………..OF 2011 (CRLMP.NO(s). 16406/2011) STATE OF U.P. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ALOK VERMA Respondent(s) O R D E R Heard Mr. Pramod Swarup, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-State of U.P. The allegations against the respondent accused, which have been found true by the … Continue reading
Revocation of the gift deed – whether the gift in question had become complete under Section 123 of the TP Act? It is seen from the recitals of the gift deed that Motilal Gopalji gifted the property to the respondent. In other words, It was a conditional gift. There is no recital of acceptance nor is there any evidence in proof of acceptance. Similarly, he had specifically stated that the property would remain in his possession till he was alive. Thereafter, the gifted property would become his property and he was entitled to collect mesne profits in respect of the existing rooms throughout his life. The gift deed conferred only limited right upon the respondent-donee. The gift was to become operative after the death of the donor and he was to be entitled to have the right to transfer the property absolutely by way of gift or he would be entitled to collect the mesne profits. It would thus be seen that the donor had executed a conditional gift deed and retained the possession and enjoyment of the property during his life time. The recitals in the cancellation deed is consistent with the recitals in the gift deed. He had expressly stated that the respondent had cheated him and he had not fulfilled the conditions subject to which there was an oral understanding between them. Consequently, he mentioned that the conditional gift given to him was cancelled. He also mentioned that the possession and enjoyment remained with him during his life time. He stated, “I have to execute immediately this deed of cancelling the conditional gift deed between us. Therefore I hereby cancel the conditional gift deed 15-5-65 of Rs.9000/- in words rupees nine thousand presented at the Serial no. 2153 on 15-5-65 in the office of the Sub-Registrar Baroda for registration. Therefore, the said conditional gift deed dated 15-5-65 is hereby cancelled and meaningless. The property under the conditional gift has not been and is not to be transferred in your name.: Thus he expressly made it clear that he did not hand over the possession to the respondent nor did the gift become complete during the life time of the donor. Thus the gift had become ineffective and inoperative. It was duly cancelled. The question then is: whether the appellant would get the right to the property? It is not in dispute that after the cancellation deed dated June 9, 1965 came to be executed, duly putting an end to the conditional gift deed dated May 15, 1965, he executed his last will on May 17, 1965, and died two days thereafter.
PETITIONER: NARAMADABEN MAGANLAL THAKKER Vs. RESPONDENT: PRANJIVANDAS MAGANLAL THAKKER & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/09/1996 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R D E R This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court made in FA No. 421/74 on September … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 