//
archives

RanjitSingh

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Section 193 Cr.P.C. =Constitution Bench for consideration. 4. The questions which require the consideration of the Constitution Bench are as follows: i) Does the Committing Magistrate have any other role to play after committing the case to the Court of Session on finding from the police report that the case was triable by the Court of Session? ii) If the Magistrate disagrees with the police report and is convinced that a case had also been made out for trial against the persons who had been placed in column 2 of the report, does he have the jurisdiction to issue summons against them also in order to include their names, along with Nafe Singh, to stand trial in connection with the case made out in the police report? iii) Having decided to issue summons against the Appellants, was the Magistrate required to follow the procedure of a complaint case and to take evidence before committing them to the Court of Session to stand trial or whether he was justified in issuing summons against them without following such procedure? iv) Can the Session Judge issue summons under Section 193 Cr.P.C. as a Court of original jurisdiction? v) Upon the case being committed to the Court of Session, could the Session Judge issue summons separately under Section 193 of the Code or would he have to wait till the stage under Section 319 of the Code was reached in order to take recourse thereto? vi) Was Ranjit Singh’s case (supra), which set aside the decision in Kishun Singh’s case(supra), rightly decided or not? = “193. Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session. – Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code.”= whether the decision in Ranjit Singh’s case (supra) was correct or not in Kishun Singh’s case (supra), is answered by holding that the decision in Kishun Singh’s case was the correct decision and the learned Session Judge, acting as a Court of original jurisdiction, could issue summons under Section 193 on the basis of the records transmitted to him as a result of the committal order passed by the learned Magistrate. 31. Consequent upon our aforesaid decision, the view taken by the Referring Court is accepted and it is held that the decision in the case of Kishun Singh vs. State of Bihar and not the decision in Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab lays down the law correctly in respect of the powers of the Session Court after committal of the case to it by the learned Magistrate under Section 209 Cr.P.C. 32. The matter is remitted to the Three-Judge Bench to dispose of the pending Criminal Appeals in accordance with the views expressed by us in this judgment.

 Reported in  http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40579 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 148 of 2003   1 2 DHARAM PAL & ORS. … APPELLANTS VS.   2 STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. … RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 865 of 2004, 1334 of 2005 and 537 of 2006     J … Continue reading

Section(s) 376(2)(g) and 366 of Indian Penal Code, = The trial Court itself has expressed its anguish as to how the accused had purposely delayed and dragged the examination of the prosecutrix and finally succeeded in their nefarious objective when the father of the prosecutrix died and the prosecutrix resiled on the last date of her cross-examination. The appellants belonged to a well-to-do family, while the prosecutrix came from poorest state of the society. Thus, a sudden change in their attitude is understandable A witness is a responsible citizen. It is his duty to support the case of the prosecution and should depose what he knows about the case. In the instant case, it is shocking that the mother of the prosecutrix had turned hostile and she repeatedly told the court that there had been some talks of compromise. In a case where an offence of this nature had been committed, we fail to understand as to how there can be a compromise between the parties. The conduct of the mother herself is reprehensible. 8. It is a settled legal proposition that statement of a hostile witness can also be examined to the extent that it supports the case of the prosecution.= Unfortunately, the trial court went against the spirit of law, while dealing with such a sensitive case of rape of a student by her teachers, by recording the statement of prosecutrix on five different dates. Thus, a reasonable inference can be drawn that defence had an opportunity to win her mother. The said proviso has been added by amendment vide Act 5 of 2009 w.e.f. 31.12.2009, but even otherwise, it was the duty of the trial court not to adjourn the proceedings for such a long period giving an opportunity to the accused to persuade or force, by any means, the prosecutrix and her mother to turn hostile. ; As there was a fiduciary relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix being in their custody and they were trustee, it became a case where fence itself eats the crop and in such a case the provisions of Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Evidence Act’) (which came into effect from 25.12.1983) are attracted. Undoubtedly it is a case which provides for a presumption against any consent in a case of rape even if the prosecutrix girl is major, however, every presumption is rebuttable, and no attempt had ever been made by any of the appellants or other accused to rebut the said presumption. : The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a part with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is ever more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding….” ; So far as the conviction is concerned, as it was case of gang rape by teachers of their student, the punishment of 10 years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial court is shocking, considering the relationship between the parties. It was a fit case where life imprisonment could have been awarded to all the accused persons. Unfortunately, Smt. Jasbir Kaur had been acquitted by the High Court, and State of Punjab did not prefer any appeal against the same. One of the accused, Ranjit Singh, had approached this court and his special leave petition has been dismissed. Thus, in such circumstances, we are not in a position even to issue notice for enhancement of the punishment to the accused. ;Seeking adjournments for postponing the examination of witnesses without any reason, amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of the advocate as it tantamounts to harassment and hardship to the witnesses. Tactics of filibuster, if adopted by an advocate is also a professional misconduct.

Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 878-879 OF 2011 MOHAN LAL & ANR Appellants VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 884 of 2011 O R D E R 1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.12.2010 passed … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,077 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com