//
archives

respondent state

This tag is associated with 17 posts

“Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme= the petitioners claimed that they took part in the freedom movement and were, therefore, entitled to the benefits which the Government has announced with the proclamation of the “Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme”. = In the present case, it is stated at the cost of the repetition that apart from the affidavits of other freedom fighters, no other document is produced. 24. We, thus, allow these appeals and set aside the orders of the High Court and dismiss the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents. No costs.

published in    http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40741  [REPORTABLE] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 7899-7901/2013 (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.26441-26443 of 2012) State of Maharashtra & Ors. ……….Appellants Vs. Namdeo etc.etc. ………Respondents   J U D G M E N T A.K.SIKRI,J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The three respondents herein were the … Continue reading

Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1979: Contraven- tion of by partnership firm–Prosecution of all partners–Maintainability of. Essential Commodities Act, 1955: ss. 7 & 10–Contraven- tion of Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1979 by partnership firm-Liability for–Held, no vicarious liability in criminal law unless statute so specifies. The short supply of levy rice to the State Government by licensed millers is a contravention of the Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1979 made under s. 3 of the Essen- tial Commodities Act, 1955. The said contravention is pun- ishable under s. 7 of the Act. Under s. 10(1) of the Act a person is deemed to be guilty of contravention of such an order, if he was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Under the proviso thereto, a person is, however, not liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention. Under explanation (a) to the section the term “company” includes a firm or other association of individuals. The appellants, partners of a firm running a rice mill, were convicted for contravention of the provisions of the procurement order read with s. 7 of the Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. In this appeal by special leave, it was contended for the appellants that there was no evidence adduced by the prosecution that they were in charge of the business of the firm when the offence was committed and in the absence of any such evidence the conviction could not be sustained. Partly allowing the appeal, 887 HELD: 1. There is no vicarious liability in criminal law unless the statute takes that also within its fold. Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act does not provide for such liability. It does not make all the partners liable for the offence whether they do business or not. [890C] 2.1 The obligation for the accused to prove under the proviso to s. 10(1) that the offence took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such offence, arises only when the prosecution establishes that the requisite condition mentioned in sub-s. 1 that the partner was responsible for carrying on the business and was during the relevant time in charge of the business, is satisfied. [890E] 2.2 In the instant case PW 1 had deposed that the state- ment regarding purchase of paddy and supply of levy rice was signed by appellant No. 3 as partner on behalf of the firm. There is no other evidence on record to indicate that other partners were also conducting the business of the firm when the offence was committed. [890G-891A] The conviction and sentence of appellant No. 3 are, therefore, maintained. The conviction and sentence of appel- lant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are set aside. They are acquitted from all the charges. [891C] -1989 AIR 1982, 1989( 3 )SCR 886, 1989( 4 )SCC 630, 1989( 2 )SCALE446 , 1989( 3 )JT 523

PETITIONER: SHAM SUNDAR & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA DATE OF JUDGMENT21/08/1989 BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) PANDIAN, S.R. (J) CITATION: 1989 AIR 1982 1989 SCR (3) 886 1989 SCC (4) 630 JT 1989 (3) 523 1989 SCALE (2)446 ACT: Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1979: Contraven- tion of by partnership … Continue reading

Law relating to bonded labour explained. Direction issued to constitute Legal aid clinics and provide socio-economics reliefs.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD  ?Court No. – 46 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. – 70403 of 2011 Petitioner :- Sageer & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Suresh Kumar Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Amar Saran,J. Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha,J. “……………. Poverty and destitution are … Continue reading

Full Bench Judgement on Land Acquisition Matter of Greater NOIDA & NOIDA=When the need for law is apparent and found and the legislature is slow to respond then the judiciary particularly the higher judiciary has to play a role akin to that of law maker. Of course, it is done through interpretation and within the bounds. In extreme situations, the bounds may be stretched but they are never to be broken. It is said that great events do not leave great people standing by. The Judges also cannot remain oblivious of and unaffected with the resentment shown by public against some law. It is said that the best judge is he who understands the society best. In the matter of land acquisition, the Supreme Court realized the importance of the resentment of the people at an early stage. Without waiting for the flames to rise, fire fighting efforts were initiated immediately after seeing the smoke during last couple of years. It is always easier to cure an illness at its earlier stage. Either provide a safety valve and an outlet or be ready for burst. However, it is heartening to note that Parliament is also responding promptly and it has given clear indications that it intends to modify Land Acquisition Act in near future by providing more to those persons whose lands are acquired (double or four times the market value). Some States have already taken corrective measures. In view of the above, we have directed payment of something more than market value to those persons whose lands have been acquired for secondary public purposes in order to make them sharer in the profit which is to be earned by industrialists and builders. Date:21.10.2011 NLY

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 30.09.2011. Delivered on 21.10.2011. Group-1 (Writ petitions relating to village Patwari) (1)Case :- WRIT – C No. – 37443 of 2011 Petitioner :- Gajraj And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others With (2)Case :- WRIT – C No. – 48089 of 2011 Petitioner :- Meghraj … Continue reading

Direction given to police & Magistrates on manner of remanding accused in offences punishable upto 7 years in accordance with newly introduced section

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT ALLAHABAD  Court No. 46 Case: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17410 of 2011 Petitioner: Shaukin Respondent: State of UP and others Petitioner counsel: Mrs. Tabassum Hashimi, Ashwani Kumar Srivastava Respondent counsel: Government Advocate Hon’ble Amar Saran, J. Hon’ble Kalimullah Khan, J. 1.A personal affidavit of the DGP, U.P. dated 11.10.11 has … Continue reading

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Ss. 451 and 452-Custody or disposal during inquiry or trial of properly seized by police-Valuable articles, currency notes, vehicles, liquor, narcotic drugs etc. -Directions given for custody arid disposal of such articles so that no loss is caused either to State exchequer or to the owner of the property or to the Insurance company because of keeping them for a long time either in Police Malkhanas or at Police Stations. =CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 2745 of 2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.6 2002 of the Gujarat High Court in Crl. R.A. No. 241 of 2002. WITH S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 2755 of 2002. Ujwal Kumar Jha, Aslam Ahmed, Ranjan Kumar Jha, Nakul Dewan and Ejaz Maqbool for the Petitioners. S.K. Dholakia and Ms. Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent. =2003 AIR 638 , 2002(3 )Suppl.SCR39 , 2002(10 )SCC283 , 2002(9 )SCALE153 , 2002(10 )JT80

  CASENO.: Special Leave Petition (crl.) 2745 of 2002 PETITIONER: SUNDERBHA1 AMBALAL DESAI RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/10/2002 BENCH: M.B. SHAH & D.M. DHARMADHIKARI JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2002 Supp(3) SCR 39 The following Order of the Court was delivered : In these two petitions filed by the police inspectors serving the Gujarat State, … Continue reading

Penal Code, 1860: ss. 498A and 406-Framing of charges under-FIR by wife alleging commission of offence u/s 498A and 406/34 by in-laws and husband, on basis of complaint before Women Cell-Charges framed against in-laws and husband u/s 498A and 406/34-Challenge to- Held: There was no allegation of entrustment of property by complainant-wife to her in-laws and husband and its misappropriation by them-Also no allegation of harassment of wife by in-laws with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand except husband-Thus, charges u/s 406 against in-laws and husband, and u/s 498A against in-laws quashed-However, charges framed against husband u/s 498A upheld. ss. 498 A and 406-Ingredients for-Explained. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss 227, 228, 239, 240 and 245 -Duty of court while framing of charges-General guidelines-Held: Court is to evaluate materials on record to find out if facts at their face value disclose existence of ingredients for constituting the alleged offence-It is to consider whether there is a ground for presuming that offence has been committed and not that the ground for convicting the accused is made out-Probative value of materials on record cannot be gone into. There was some matrimonial dispute between the complainant-wife and the appellant no. 3-husband. The complainant filed a complaint in the Crime against Women Cell against appellant no 1 and 2-in laws and appellant no 3, alleging harassment by them. However, the parties entered into a compromise and the complainant joined her husband. Next month the complainant came back to her paternal home for her delivery. The complainant then filed another complaint against the appellants. She recorded a statement alleging misbehavior on part of her in-laws and dowry demand made by them and that they refused to return her Stridhan. FIR was lodged under sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. against the appellants. The charge sheet was filed. The Metropolitan Magistrate held that no case was made out against all the appellants u/s 406 and appellant no. 1 and 2 for offences u/s 498A and discharged all of them. In Revision Petition, the Sessions Court held that the case u/s 406 and 498A was made out and directed the trial court to frame charges accordingly. Appellants then filed Criminal Revision Petition for quashing the charge sheet and consequential proceedings arising out of FIR. High Court upheld the order of Sessions Court. Hence the present appeal =Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. At the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. [Para 11] [723-D-F] State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy , [1977] 2 SCC 699; State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa and Ors., [1996] 4 SCC 659 and State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni, [2000] 6 SCC 338, relied on. 2. According to Section 405 I.P.C., the offence of criminal breach of trust is committed when a person who is entrusted in any manner with the property or with any dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriates it or converts it to his own use, or dishonestly uses it, or disposes it of, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be discharged, or of any lawful contract, express or implied, made by him touching such discharge, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do. Thus, in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust, two distinct parts are involved. The first consists of the creation of an obligation in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired by the accused. The second is a misappropriation or dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the terms of the obligation created. [Para 16] [724-G-H; 725-A] The Superintendent and remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. S.K. Roy, [1974] 4 SCC 230, relied on. 3.1. Section 498A I.P.C. was introduced with the avowed object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives. [Para 19] [726-D-E] 3.2. The term “cruelty”, which has been made punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. has been defined in the explanation appended to the said Section, to mean: (i) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of the woman; or (ii) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Therefore, the consequences of “cruelty”,which are either likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury, danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman or the harassment of a woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand are required to be established in order to bring home an offence under Section 498A I.P.C. [Para 17] [725-C-E] 4.1. In the instant case, from a plain reading of the second complaint filed by the complainant, it is clear that the facts mentioned in the complaint, taken on their face value, do not make out a prima facie case against the appellants for having dishonestly misappropriated the Stridhan of the complainant, allegedly handed over to them, thereby committing criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. It is manifestly clear from the afore-extracted complaint as also the relevant portion of the charge-sheet that there is neither any allegation of entrustment of any kind of property by the complainant to the appellants nor its misappropriation by them. Furthermore, it is also noted in the charge-sheet itself that the complainant had refused to take articles back when this offer was made to her by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the very pre-requisite of entrustment of the property and its misappropriation by the appellants are lacking in the instant case. The Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court erred in law in coming to the conclusion that a case for framing of charge under Section 406 I.P.C. was made out. The charges framed against all the appellants under section 406 I.P.C. are quashed. [Paras 18 and 20] [725-F-H; 726-A-F] 4.2. As regards the applicability of Section 498A I.P.C., in the complaint dated 8.11.1994 there is not even a whisper of a wilful conduct of appellants No. 1 and 2 of harassment of the complainant at their hands with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand by them so as to attract the provisions of Section 498A read with Explanation thereto. The complaint refers to the talk the complainant purports to have had with her husband, appellant No. 3, who is alleged to have told her to come to Bijnore if she apologizes to his father; keeps him happy; obeys his sister and talks to her father (complainant’s) to give her Rs. 50,000/- and V.C.R. and brings these articles to Bijnore. The allegation of misbehaviour on the part of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and the demand of Rs. 50,000/- and V.C.R. by them made by the complainant in her subsequent statement, dated 4.4.1995, was an after thought and not bona fide. Having carefully glanced through the complaint, the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, the charge under Section 498A I.P.C. is not brought home insofar as appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned and are quashed. However, charge framed against appellant No. 3 under Section 498A I.P.C. is upheld. [Paras 19 and 20] [726-B-F] Onkar Nath Mishra Appellant-In-Person. Pramod Swarup, Saket Singh (for D.S. Mahra), Nalin Tripathi and Anurag Sharma (Rameshwar Prasad Goyal) for the Respondents. =, 2007(13 )SCR716 , 2008(2 )SCC561 , 2007(14 )SCALE403 , 2008(1 )JT20

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1716 of 2007 PETITIONER: ONKAR NATH MISHRA & ORS. RESPONDENT: STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/2007 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & D.K. JAIN JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 2516 of 2007) D.K. JAIN, J.: Leave granted. 2. This … 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

Criminal Law: Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302 and 307. Murder of wife and two children-Attempt to murder other three children- Provocation-Absence of-Commission of crime-Premediated one-Not due to sudden provocation or mental derangement-Held : offence gruesome, cold- blooded, heinous, atrocious and cruel -No mitigating circumstances but only aggrevating circumstances-“Rarerest of rare cases”-Death sentence imposed by courts below upheld. Epistolary jurisdiction-Exercise of by Supreme Court-Letter Petition from convict facing death sentence-Treating of as Special Leave Petition-Grant of leave and hearing of the criminal appeal. The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to death. According to the prosecution, the appellant committed murder of his wife and two daughters at night by inflicting several injuries by sword. He further caused grievous injuries to his daughter and two sons with intend to commit murder. However, these three survived. On receiving information that many persons have sustained injuries and some of them have died at the residence of the appellant, P.W. 3, the Police officer, reached the spot and found the appellant’s daughter and sons in a seriously injured condition. A blood stained sword was recovered on the spot He was arrested on the same day and during investigation, it was found that he made extra judicial confession of having committed murder of his wife and children before, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7. A case was registered and a post-mortem was held. On the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the Prosecution the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the appellant was fully established. The death sentence was confirmed by the High Court. In this appeal it was contended that the murder was not a pre-planned one and was on account of sudden provocation; and that the death sentence should be reduced to one of life imprisonment. On behalf of the respondent-State it was contended that the appellant had committed murder of his wife and children without any provocation against helpless dependents during night; and that the death sentence awarded to the appellant did not call for any interference. =Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The appellant-accused had caused in all 64 sword injuries to all the six persons including the three deceased persons viz., his wife and two children and those injuries speak for themselves about the gruesome nature of the crime committed by the accused. There was no provocation and there is nothing to suggest that there was any quarrel between the accused and his wife or among any one of the family members. The way in which the crime was executed clearly shows that it was a premeditated one and not on account of sudden provocation or any mental-derangement. [1166-E-F] 1.2. The crime indulged in by the accused is undoubtedly gruesome, cold blooded, heinous, atrocious and cruel. On the facts established, there appears to be no mitigating circumstances whatsoever, but only aggravating circumstances which justify the imposition of death sentence. Looking into the manner in which the crime was committed the weapon used, the brutality of the crime, number of persons murdered, the helplessness of the victims, there can be no other conclusion except the one, the Sessions Judge and the High Court arrived at to award the capital sentence to the appellant. [1166-G-H; 1167-A-B] Anshad and Others v. State of Karnataka, [1994] 4 SCC 381 Jshubha Bharatsinh Gohil& Others v.State of Gujarat, [1994] 4 SCC 353 and Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Punjab, [1985] Supp. 1 SCC 80, relied on. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 1995.

PETITIONER: UMASHANKAR PANDA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/02/1996 BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) ANAND, A.S. (J) CITATION: JT 1996 (2) 747 1996 SCALE (2)563 ACT: HEADNOTE:JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T K. Venkataswami.J. The appellant who is in Central Jail, Indore has sent through … Continue reading

Indian Penal Code, ss. 307, 146, 148 and 349-Miscreants firing shots on police party in darkness-No evidence that shots were fired in direction of members of police party- Offence of attempt to murder could not be said to be made out-Firing of such shots is not use of force as defined in s. 349-Offenders even though more than five do not commit a riot within meaning of s. 146-Cannot be held guilty of offence under s. 148. Evidence-Excessive similarity between evidence of two witnesses-Inference of tutoring can be drawn specially when the witnesses are clearly not independent. =The six appellants were challenged by a police party when they were proceeding towards Pakistan territory with contraband goods. Two of them, H and B, had fire-arms with which they fired shots. No member of the police party was injured. There was darkness except for a temporary illumination created by the firing of two shots from a light pistol. The police claimed to have recognised H and B, in this light even though they fled away from the scene. The remaining four persons were arrested ,on the spot. H and B, were arrested later and on their pointing out, two unlicensed arms were recovered. The Sessions Judge held H and B, to be guilty under s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as s. 25 of the Arms Act. The remaining four appellants were convicted under s. 307 read with s. 149 I.P.C. All the appellants were convicted under s. 148. The High Court maintained the convictions of the appellants though in the ,case of those without fire arms it reduced the sentences., With special leave the appellants filed appeals in this Court, HELD : (1) From the evidence it was quite clear that the shots which were fired by H and B, were not fired during the few seconds there was light as a result of the light pistol shots. In other words the shots were fired in complete darkness when it was not possible for any member of police party to see the direction in which they were fired or the aim which was taken by H and B. It was not possible to say from this evidence that H and B fired the shots in the direction of the police party or at them and the possibility that the shots were fired in the air could not be excluded. Thus the conviction under s.’307 of H and B and of the other appellants under s. 307 read with s. 149 could not be maintained.[678 B-D] (2)Rioting is defined by s. 146 which provides that whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly or any member thereof in prosecution of the common object of such assembly every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. Section 349 gives the meaning ,of the word ‘force’. In the present incident no force or violence was proved to have been used by the appellants in prosecution of the common ,object of the unlawful assembly of which they were members. With the exception of the firing of the shots in a direction which could not be deter- mined, no attempt was made by any of the appellants to use any force or 675 violence on any member of the police party. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under s. 148 must also be set aside. [678 F-G] (3)The discloure statements made by H and B in respect of fire arms recovered at their instance could not be acted upon because the two witnesses produced in this connection gave statement which by their similarity appeared to be tutored and unconvincing. These witnesses were associated with the police raids over a long period. The other witness was proved to be inimical to H and B. The High Court erred in ignoring these facts. The conviction of H and B under s. 25 of the Arms Act could not be sustained. [679 B-D]

PETITIONER: HAZARA SINGH & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT04/02/1971 BENCH: [K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] ACT: Indian Penal Code, ss. 307, 146, 148 and 349-Miscreants firing shots on police party in darkness-No evidence that shots were fired in direction of members of police party- Offence of attempt to … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,037 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com