advocatemmmohan
Crime and Justice
Section 31 of Cr.P.C. – the sentences imposed were ordered to run consecutively – not run concurrently on ground of previous criminal history – offences done in single transaction – Confirmed by High court – Apex court held No = Manoj @ Panu … Appellant vs. State of Haryana … Respondent = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41057
Section 31 of Cr.P.C. – the sentences imposed were ordered to run consecutively – not run concurrently on ground of previous criminal history – offences done in single transaction – Confirmed by High court – Apex court held No = Whether the sentences imposed were ordered to run consecutively on the ground that the accused Manoj was a … Continue reading
Whether the absence of a viscera report is fatal to the prosecution ? – No.; Whether the punishment can be given under sec. 304 B and sec.306 I.P.C. ? – Yes = Bhupendra .…..Appellant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh …..Respondent= Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40956
Whether the absence of a viscera report is fatal to the prosecution ? – No.; Whether the punishment can be given under sec. 304 B and sec.306 I.P.C. ? – Yes = Absence of a viscera report = 22. Normally, the viscera are preserved and submitted for chemical analysis under the following circumstances: (1) … Continue reading
Service – matter = Disproportionate punishment to the negligence proved – Dismissal orders quashed – directed to pay retire benefits and pension as he was dismissed just 6 days prior to his retirement date = GIRISH BHUSHAN GOYAL APPELLANT Versus B.H.E.L. & ANR. RESPONDENTS = Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40954
Service – matter = Disproportionate punishment to the negligence proved – Dismissal orders quashed – directed to pay retire benefits and pension as he was dismissed just 6 days prior to his retirement date = “25(1). No order imposing any of the major penalties specified in Clause (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j) … Continue reading
Sec. 302,498 A etc., – Husband died pending trial – No prima faice proof of conspiracy- The Accused are entitled for discharge = L. Krishna Reddy …..Appellant Versus State by Station House Officer & Ors. …..Respondents – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40898
Sec. 302,498 A etc., – Husband died pending trial – No prima faice proof of conspiracy- The Accused are entitled for discharge = whether the criminal proceedings could or should have been continued against his parents, namely Vidyasagar and Narasamma, who had preferred a Discharge Petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal … Continue reading
service matter – Departmental enquiry – dismissed from service – with out following procedure and with out supplying documents – Shobha Sinha …Appellant Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. ….Respondents – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40893
Departmental enquiry – dismissed from service – with out following procedure and with out supplying documents – single judge set the aside the order – remanded for fresh enquiry before review committee – committee constituted – Review committee found that the delinquent is careless in her duty only as she did in routine … Continue reading
In the absence of any specific overt acts no person should be convicted under sec.147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC – except for his role = PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY …. APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF A.P. & ETC. …. RESPONDENTS judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40884
In the absence of any specific overt acts no person should be convicted under sec.147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC – except for his role = Apex court confirmed the high court orders except modified the sentence from life to simple injury for one of the accused who had … Continue reading
sushil sharma death sentence was commuted in to life imprisonment = SUSHIL SHARMA Vs. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40866
sushil sharma death sentence was commuted in to life imprisonment = The appellant was the State President of the Youth Congress in Delhi. The deceased was a qualified pilot and she was also the State General Secretary of Youth Congress (Girls Wing), Delhi. She was an independent lady, who … Continue reading
Proliferation of arms and ammunition, whether licensed or not, in the country disrupts the social order and development, vitiates law and order situation, directly contributes towards lethality of violent acts which needs to be curbed. We are sorry to note the law enforcing agencies and to certain extent the courts in the country always treat the crimes lightly without noticing the havoc they can create – to the ordinary peace loving citizens of this country and to the national security and the integrity and the unity of this nation. We may indicate, the case in hand shows, how casually and lightly, these types of cases are being dealt with by the courts.- Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, he has necessarily to undergo the minimum mandatory sentence, prescribed under the Statute. 11. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has overlooked this vital fact and awarded only one year’s R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/-, which was confirmed by the Sessions Court. The High Court has made it worst by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, which was only seven days, in a case where the accused should have undergone a minimum sentence of three years and fine under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. 12. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of sentence passed by the High Court as well as the courts below and order that the respondent-accused has to undergo a minimum period of three years sentence as prescribed under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and also with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, another three months simple imprisonment.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1324 OF 2012 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5389 of 2011 State of M.P. … Appellant Versus Ayub Khan … Respondent J U D G M E N T K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Proliferation … Continue reading
SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA = excessive self defense =After a four day trial, you were convicted of the murder of Steven Warwick Leslie Hodges. You claimed you were acting in self-defence but in view of the fact that the victim was stabbed 11 times, three of those in the back, it is hardly surprising that the jury was satisfied that excessive self-defence was not available
[2011] WASCSR 179 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- CIANCIOSI [2011] WASCSR 179 CORAM : McKECHNIE J DATE OF SENTENCE : 25 NOVEMBER 2011 FILE NO/S : INS 35 of 2011 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AGAINST GARRET NICOLAS CIANCIOSI Offence(s): Murder … Continue reading
Penal Code-Sections 149 and 302-Murder with common object-Fight over removal of electric motor on a tube well-Some accused also suffering injuries-Before death, deceased discharged from hospital but admitted again on same day, and expiring after being operated upon-Conviction of accused by Trial Court-High Court finding that accused did not have common intention and acquitting them as injuries to accused were not explained and injury that ultimately proved fatal was caused to deceased after discharge from hospital-Correctness of-Held-As self defence was pleaded and there was possibility of accused version being correct, injuries on their person had to be explained-It was established that electric motor belonged to one of the accused and prosecution laid a false claim there over, and they cannot be said to have committed any offence if they were removing it from the well jointly owned by parties-Accused had no common object to cause death of deceased-Evidence of doctor was suggestive of possibility that deceased suffered head injury after discharge from hospital could not be ruled out, hence accused could not be found to be guilty of causing death of deceased. The appellant lodged FIR alleging that when he went to the tube well owned by his brother R, along with his son, the deceased, they found that the accused persons were removing the electric motor therefrom. On their asking the accused persons not to do so, fight broke out between the parties. Some of the respondents also suffered injuries. His son was admitted in the Civil Hospital. He was discharged from the said hospital but was again admitted in the hospital on the same day. He was operated upon by a doctor, P.W.8. and expired subsequently. The accused, respondents Nos. 2 to 6, were tried for alleged commission of various offences, and thereupon convicted by Trial Court. For causing the death of deceased under Section 302/149 I.P.C. they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine, and furthermore sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 307/149 I.P.C. for attempt to murder R. They were also convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced. On an appeal by the respondents the High Court set aside the conviction of respondents under Sections 148/149, 307/149 and 302/149 I.P.C. It was found that the injuries on the person of some of the respondents had not been explained. It was, therefore, concluded that there must have been a free-fight between the parties in which persons from both the sides were injured. It was also held that the injury which ultimately proved fatal was caused to deceased after the discharge from the Civil Hospital, but before his re-admission on the same night, that this injury could not have been caused on the date of the occurrence. Appellant contended that (i) the defence story that deceased had another fall from the staircase has been disbelieved by Trial Court by assigning cogent and sufficient reason (ii) seven injuries were found on the person of R and thus, there was a possibility that the said injuries could prove to be dangerous to life (iii) it was not necessary on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the respondents. Respondents contended that the injuries inflicted on the deceased as also upon the appellant and R in exercise of their right of self-defence. =Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. It may not be necessary for the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused in all circumstances, but, it is trite that when a plea of self defence is raised and the court opines that the version of the accused persons may be correct, the explanation of injuries on the person of the accused cannot be put to a back seat or cannot simply be ignored. [612-G-H] 2. The findings of the High Court to the effect that the respondents had not formed any common intention cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity. The fact that both parties caused injuries to the members of the other side is not in dispute. The fact that the well was situated on the land of the respondent, is also not in dispute. It has been found as of fact that the electric motor installed in the well belonged to one of the respondents. The prosecution laid a false claim. It is in this situation, the respondents cannot be said to have committed any offence if they had been removing the motor, which was installed by them, from the well, which is said to be jointly owned by the parties. If, on the other hand, defence version is to be accepted, the appellant and the other witnesses having no right over the said motor, could not have removed the same from the well. In any view of the matter, the dispute was in regard to removing of the motor from the well. The High Court, thus, cannot be said to have committed any error in arriving at the finding that the respondents had no common object either to cause death of the deceased or to attempt to cause murder of R. If two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below. Upon examination of the materials on record and in particular, evidence of P.W. 8, the view taken by the High Court is a possible view. [613-E-H, 614-A] 3. P.W. 8, doctor in his evidence, stated that the possibility of deceased having received head injury after the discharge at 8 A.M. on 25.9.1992 and before his re-admission on the same day at 9 P.M. in the Civil Hospital, cannot be ruled out. On his re-examination by the prosecution P.W. 8 categorically stated that as there was a head injury, he did not go into the detail. The evidence of P.W. 8 whereupon Trial Judge, inter alia, relied upon is suggestive of the fact that the possibility of the said deceased suffering a head injury after he was discharged from the hospital could not be ruled out. It is not in dispute that X-ray of the head of the deceased was taken when he was admitted in the hospital on 17.9.1992 but no such injury was detected. The subsequent explanation offered by the prosecution that a small fracture might not have been noticed in the X-ray machine, is a matter of surmise and conjecture. P.W. 8, who had operated upon the deceased, categorically stated that the fracture was significant. Even according to the doctor such a fracture might have been suffered by the deceased after he was discharged from the hospital. [612-H, 613-A-C] R.K. Kapoor, M.K. Verma, S.S. Yadav, Govind Kaushik and Anis Ahmed, Advs. for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 1387/1999 and Dr. Gajinder Chouhan & T.V. George, Advs. for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 1388/1999 and for the respondents in Crl. A. No. 1387/1999. Anoop G. Chaudhary, Sr. Adv., Rishi Malhotra and Prem Malhotra, Advs. with him for the Respondents in Crl. A. Nos. 1387 & 1388 of 1999.
CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1387 of 1999 PETITIONER: Umrao RESPONDENT: State of Haryana & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/05/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T WITH Criminal Appeal No.1388/1999 State of Haryana Appellant Versus Babu Lal & Ors. Respondents S.B. SINHA, J : The … Continue reading
