//
archives

indian penal code

This tag is associated with 143 posts

Sec.376 (f)/302/201 I.P.C.- all sentences order to run consecutively – Sec. 31 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code – Apex court held that trial and High court committed error in view of Sec. 31(2) of Cr.P.C.- Section 31 of Cr.P.C. relates to sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial. Proviso to Sub Section (2) to Section 31 lays down the embargo whether the aggregate punishment of prisoner is for a period of longer than 14 years. In view of the fact that life imprisonment means imprisonment for full and complete span of life, the question of consecutive sentences in case of conviction for several offences at one trial does not arise. Therefore, in case a person is sentenced of conviction of several offences, including one that of life imprisonment, the proviso to Section 31(2) shall come into play and no consecutive sentence can be imposed.=DURYODHAN ROUT … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA … RESPONDENT= 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41715

Sec.376 (f)/302/201 I.P.C.- all sentences order to run consecutively – Sec. 31 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code – Apex court held that trial and High court committed error in view of Sec. 31(2) of Cr.P.C.- Section 31 of Cr.P.C. relates to sentence in cases  of  conviction  of several offences at one trial. Proviso to Sub  Section  (2) … Continue reading

Sec.498 A , 306 of I.P.C. – DISCHARGE OF REST OF ACCUSED – NO CASE AGAINST RELATIVES OF HUSBAND – ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE DISCHARGED THEM – HIGH COURT CONFIRMED – APEX COURT ALSO CONFIRMED AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL = Sherish Hardenia & Ors. …..Appellants Versus State of M.P. & Anr. …..Respondents = published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41091

  Sec.498 A , 306 of I.P.C. – DISCHARGE OF REST OF ACCUSED – NO CASE AGAINST RELATIVES OF HUSBAND – ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE DISCHARGED THEM – HIGH COURT CONFIRMED – APEX COURT ALSO CONFIRMED AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL = Whether it is quashing of an  FIR  or  a  Charge-Sheet,  or    summoning a party under Section 319,  CrPC,  this … Continue reading

Sec.377 of I.P.C. – constitutionally valid – Unnatural offences – Same sex marriage – Bombay high court declared the sec.377 as unconstitutional – Apex court set aside the orders of Bombay high court – and held that sec.377 is a valid one – marriage between same sex is an offence under sec.377 still – Notwithstanding this verdict, the competent legislature shall be free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the Attorney General. = Suresh Kumar Koushal and another … Appellants versus NAZ Foundation and others … Respondents = published in/ Cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41070

Sec.377 of I.P.C. – constitutionally valid – Unnatural offences – Same sex marriage –     Bombay high court declared the sec.377 as unconstitutional – Apex court set aside the orders of Bombay high court – and held that  sec.377 is a valid one – marriage between same sex is an offence under sec.377 still … Continue reading

Service matter – whether the respondent, who was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings, is liable to be reinstated on acquittal by a criminal court on the ground of identity of charges in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings. = Apex court held No = State of West Bengal & Ors. … Appellants Versus Sankar Ghosh … Respondent = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41023

whether   the     respondent,  who  was  dismissed   from   service   following   disciplinary   proceedings, is liable to be reinstated on acquittal by a criminal court  on   the ground of identity of charges in the departmental as  well  as  criminal   proceedings. = Apex court held No =     … Continue reading

Sec. 90 and Sec. 376 of I.P.C. = Consent obtained by playing fraud to marry her and committed sexual intercourse and later refused to marry her amounts to Rape as her consent was obtained by playing fraud on her = State of U.P. … Appellant VS. Naushad … Respondent = Published in http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp

Sec. 90 and Sec. 376 of I.P.C. = Consent obtained by playing fraud to marry her and committed sexual intercourse and later refused to marry her amounts to Rape as her consent was obtained by playing fraud on her =    Section 375 of the IPC defines the offence of rape, and enumerates six descriptions of the … Continue reading

Sanction to prosecution when necessary = whether sanction before prosecution is required from each of the competent authorities entitled to remove an accused from the offices held by him, in situations wherein the accused holds a plurality of offices. The second determination was in respect of the requirement of sanction, in situations where the accused no longer holds the office, which he is alleged to have abused/misused, for committing the offence (s) for which he is being blamed. In answer to the first query, it has unambiguously been concluded, that if an accused holds a plurality of offices, each one of which makes him a public servant, sanction is essential only at the hands of the competent authority (entitled to remove him from service) of the office which he had allegedly misused. This leads to the clear inference, that other public offices held by the accused wherein an accused holds a plurality of offices, are irrelevant for purposes of obtaining sanction prior to prosecution. On the second issue it was concluded, that sanction was essential only if, at the time of taking cognizance, the accused was still holding the public office which he had allegedly abused. If the legal position determined in the above judgments is taken into consideration, there is certainly no doubt, that in the facts and circumstances of this case, sanction if required, ought to have been obtained from the Governor of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The instant determination is premised on the fact, that the appellant is stated to have misused his position while discharging his responsibilities as a nominee Director of the MPSIDC. It is clear to us, specially from the deliberation recorded hereinabove, that the appellant’s participation in the Cabinet Review Meeting dated 28.1.1994, and in the relevant meetings of the Board of Directors (of the MPSIDC) had no nexus to the post of Industries Commissioner, Government of Madhya Pradesh, or the subsequent office held by him as Joint Secretary, Department of Heavy Industries, Government of India. Accordingly, in our considered view, sanction of the authorities with reference to the post of Industries Commissioner, Government of Madhya Pradesh and Joint Secretary, Department of Heavy Industries, Government of India held by the appellant, was certainly not required. We therefore, hereby reject the submission advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant, that since the appellant continued to hold the above-mentioned public office(s) in his capacity as a member of the IAS cadre, at the time the first charge sheet was filed on 24.9.2007, prosecution could be proceeded with, and cognizance taken, only upon sanction by the competent authority(ies) of the said two offices (Industries Commissioner, Government of Madhya Pradesh and Joint Secretary, Department of Heavy Industries, Government of India), as wholly misconceived.= We are of the view, that the last contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant is a mixed question of fact and law.- whether the accused is guilty of the accusation levelled against him. Therefore, it is neither proper nor possible for us to deal with the last contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant, at the present juncture.= we find no merit in the instant appeals. The same are accordingly hereby dismissed.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40781 “REPORTABLE” IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1454 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.61 of 2012) Ajoy Acharya … Appellant Versus State Bureau of Inv. against Eco. Offence … Respondent With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1455 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 400 of 2012) J … Continue reading

DEATH CONFIRMED = Herein, A1 and A2 have committed a cold blooded murder in a pre-ordained fashion without any provocation whatsoever. The motive behind the gruesome act was to avenge the act of informant in approaching the machinery of law enforcement inspite of threats by the appellants. The victims were five innocent children and wife of the informant who were sleeping unalarmed when the appellants came and locked them inside their house while it was set ablaze. Further, wrath of A1 and A2 is reflected in their act of first gagging the informant, thereafter attempting to burn him alive and later, when he tried to escape, firing at him thereby leaving no stone unturned in translating their threats into reality. As a result of the aforesaid incident, having witnessed the threats of burning given by the A1 to the informant tuned into reality, none but the family of the deceased-informant came forth to depose against the appellant-accused persons during the trial. The crime, enormous in proportion having wiped off the whole family, is committed so brutally that it pricks and shocks not only the judicial conscience but even the collective conscience of the society. It demands just punishment from the Court and the Court is bound to respond within legal parameters. The demand for justice and the award of punishment have to be in consonance with the legislative command and the discretion vested in the Courts. “…the punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrong doing; and, in order to maintain respect for the law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishments as being a deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else… The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not.” 90. In light of the aforesaid, having regard to the gravity of the offence committed, we are of the considered opinion that with regard to A1 and A2 this case falls into the category of rarest of the rare cases and is not a case where imprisonment for life is an adequate sentence and thus, constrained to reach the inescapable conclusion that death sentence imposed on A1 and A2 be confirmed. 91. Therefore, the sentence of death imposed on A1 and A2 is confirmed and the sentence awarded to A3 is commuted to life imprisonment till the rest of his life. 92. The order of stay on the execution of the capital punishment of A1 and A2 is vacated.

punishable in    http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40794          REPORTABLE     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.249-250 OF 2011       DEEPAK RAI Appellant(s)   VERSUS   STATE OF BIHAR Respondent(s)   WITH   CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1747-1748 OF 2011       JAGAT RAI AND ANR. Appellant(s) … Continue reading

What emerges from the above discussion can be summarized in the form of following directions: (i) The voter has the elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in the Parliament/Assemblies and such right to get information is universally recognized. Thus, it is held that right to know about the candidate is a natural right flowing from the concept of democracy and is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. (ii) The ultimate purpose of filing of affidavit along with the nomination paper is to effectuate the fundamental right of the citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The citizens are supposed to have the necessary information at the time of filing of nomination paper and for that purpose, the Returning Officer can very well compel a candidate to furnish the relevant information. (iii) Filing of affidavit with blank particulars will render the affidavit nugatory. (iv) It is the duty of the Returning Officer to check whether the information required is fully furnished at the time of filing of affidavit with the nomination paper since such information is very vital for giving effect to the ‘right to know’ of the citizens. If a candidate fails to fill the blanks even after the reminder by the Returning Officer, the nomination paper is fit to be rejected. We do comprehend that the power of Returning Officer to reject the nomination paper must be exercised very sparingly but the bar should not be laid so high that the justice itself is prejudiced. (v) We clarify to the extent that Para 73 of People’s Union for Civil Liberties case (supra) will not come in the way of the Returning Officer to reject the nomination paper when affidavit is filed with blank particulars. (vi) The candidate must take the minimum effort to explicitly remark as ‘NIL’ or ‘Not Applicable’ or ‘Not known’ in the columns and not to leave the particulars blank. (vii) Filing of affidavit with blanks will be directly hit by Section 125A(i) of the RP Act However, as the nomination paper itself is rejected by the Returning Officer, we find no reason why the candidate must be again penalized for the same act by prosecuting him/her. 28) The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions.

published in     http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40768  REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 1 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 121 OF 2008 Resurgence India …. Petitioner (s) Versus Election Commission of India & Anr. …. Respondent(s) 2 J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam, CJI. 1) This writ petition, under Article 32 of … Continue reading

“438. -anticipatory bail = whether the condition of depositing an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in fixed deposit for anticipatory bail is sustainable in law and whether such condition is outside the purview of Section 438 of the Code?= “438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest:- (1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non- bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:- i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application. (1A) Where the Court grants an interim order under sub-section (1), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the Court. (1B) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may thinks fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub- section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. (3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub- section (1).” = However, the appellant-accused has to fulfill the following conditions: i) The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii) The appellant shall furnish his address to the Investigating Officer who shall verify it and submit it to the trial Court under his signature. In case of change of address, it must be communicated to the Investigating Officer who shall verify it and intimate the same to the court concerned under his signature; and iv) The appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court. 18) The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.

published in   http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40770    REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1436 OF 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2013)   Sumit Mehta …..Appellant(s) Versus State of N.C.T. of Delhi …. Respondent(s) 2 J U D G M E N T   P.Sathasivam,CJI. 1) … 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

Blog Stats

  • 2,867,169 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,904 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com