advocatemmmohan
Sessions Court
Section 27 of Evidence Act – confessions leads to discovery of incriminating articles – when abduction proved , burden lies on the accused to discloses what happen next when victim found dead – Apex court held that What happened thereafter to deceased is especially within the knowledge of the appellants-accused nos.1 to 3. It was for the appellants-accused nos. 1 to 3 to explain what happened to Mani alias Parai Mani after they took him away but they failed to explain the same. Mani alias Parai Mani was found dead immediately thereafter.= PARAMSIVAM & ORS. … APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE … RESPONDENT = 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41714
Section 27 of Evidence Act – confessions leads to discovery of incriminating articles – when abduction proved , burden lies on the accused to discloses what happen next when victim found dead – Apex court held that What happened thereafter to deceased is especially within the knowledge of the appellants-accused nos.1 to 3. It was … Continue reading
Sec.498 A, 304 B of I.P.C.- A 1-husband acquitted – A 2 sentence was reduced – mitigating circumstances – A1 husband and A2 mother in law – In dying declaration and in her letter , the deceased said that A 1- husband is innocent and further gave credit marks in her letters – Apex court acquitted the husband A1- as far as mother-in-law concerned A2 – she has been demanding for gold chain – Apex court confirmed the one year sentence of imprisonment for sec.498 A and whereas for sec. 304B dispute was taken place on that night between A2 and deceased but not by A1 and so she committed suicide – but not burnt by A 2 – and further more deceased expressed unhappiness in respect of her marriage with A1 which was also one of the cause to commit suicide – Apex court Acquit the A1- husband from sec.304 B and reduced the sentence of A2 from 10 years to 7 years imprisonment and allowed the appeal partly = SATISH CHANDRA & ANR. Vs. STATE OF M.P. 2014 ( May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41506
Sec.498 A, 304 B of I.P.C.- A 1-husband acquitted – A 2 sentence was reduced – mitigating circumstances – A1 husband and A2 mother in law – In dying declaration and in her letter , the deceased said that A 1- husband is innocent and further gave credit marks in her letters – Apex court … Continue reading
Sec.304 B – Reason of Death not established – Non- examination of the Doctor – Non- production of Vicesar report – Police , Magistrate – Prosecution all committed grave mistake – resulted in Acquittal under sec. 304 B I.P.C. = Chhotan Sao & Another …Appellants Versus State of Bihar …Respondent = Published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41114
Sec.304 B – Reason of Death not established – Non- examination of the Doctor – Non- production of Vicesar report – filed charge sheet – Police , Magistrate – Prosecution all committed grave mistake – resulted in Acquittal under sec. 304 B I.P.C. = We are of the opinion that the conviction of the … 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
Dying declaration – if not died can be considered as sec.164 statement can be used for contradiction etc., under sec.157 ,sec.155- provided – a dying declaration – cum – sec.164 statement can not be called as full statement of witness – after regain, her full sec.161 statement was recorded – Apex court held no wrong = Veer Singh & Ors. .. Appellant(s) versus State of U.P. .. Respondent(s) = Published in / cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41065
Dying declaration – if not died can be considered as sec.164 statement can be used for contradiction etc., under sec.157 ,sec.155– provided – a dying declaration – cum – sec.164 statement can not be called as full statement of witness – after regain, her full sec.161 statement was recorded – Apex court held no wrong … Continue reading
Retrial – the trial court acquitted the case after full trial on benefit of doubt without considering the medical evidence, and due to non speaking of evidence clearly , due to hostile witnesses and due to improvements- Appellant court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for fresh trail on petition – High court in revision set aside the retrial order and also set aside the main order of appeal which found prima faice case, with out considering and assessing the medical evidence – Apex court on petition for retrial held that no retrial can be order and confirmed the view of high court – Apex court on SLP against revision held that High court committed wrong in allowing the revision with out considering material as to why the lower appellant court set aside the acquittal order – Apex court remanded the case to high court for fresh disposal on this point = MARY PAPPA JEBAMANI ..Appellant Versus GANESAN & ORS. ..Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41055
Retrial – the trial court acquitted the case after full trial on benefit of doubt without considering the medical evidence, and due to non speaking of evidence clearly , due to hostile witnesses and due to improvements- Appellant court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for fresh trail on petition … Continue reading
Whether the high court can compound the offence under sec.307 I.P.C on compound of parties – Apex court held No = State of Rajasthan .. Appellant Versus Shambhu Kewat and Another .. Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41024
Whether the high court can compound the offence under sec.307 I.P.C on compound of parties – Apex court held No = The Sessions Court, after hearing the parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused persons guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, but acquitted them … Continue reading
SEC. 304 B , 306 AND 498 A I.P.C. – When wife stated that she committed suicide as she was fed up with the acts of husband with out disclosing the activities – it can not be considered as an offence under sec. 304 B as there is no allegation that soon before her committing suicide the husband harassed her dowry etc., Apex court punished the husband under sec.306 and 498 A I.P.C. = Rajeev Kumar …… Appellant Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40946
SEC. 304 B , 306 AND 498 A I.P.C. – When wife stated that she committed suicide as she was fed up with the acts of husband with out disclosing the activities – it can not be considered as an offence under sec. 304 B as there is no allegation that soon before her committing suicide the … Continue reading
Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act – court can convert sentence into fine but at the same time no fine should be exceed twice the cheque amount ; Sec.357(3) has no application SOMNATH SARKAR Vs. UTPAL BASU MALLICK & ANR. published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40873
As per the Negotiable instrument Act – a penalty should be imposed twice the cheque amount but not more than that. Section 357(3), Cr.P.C no application in cheque bounce case. Court can impose sentence or fine or both. Appellant/ Revision court has got jurisdiction to convert the sentence into fine = The lower court sentenced 6 months imprisonment … 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
