INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
S.300, 304--Murder--Conviction--Culpable homicide not amounting to murder--Deceased was an alcoholic and to meet his expenses sold land measuring 2½ acres and agreed to sell remaining land--On coming to know this there was heated exchange of arguments between deceased and his accused son--In that heat of moment accused inflicted injuries with ghotna to deceased on his head and legs resulting into his death--With passage of time both eyewitnesses, wife and daughter-in-law of deceased turned hostile--But both of them sufficiently explained genesis of occurrence--No illegality in judgment of trial Court holding death of deceased took place at hands of accused--However, in view of nature of weapon i.e. wooden ghotna and single blow on head of deceased which resulted in haemotama accused cannot be held guilty of offence covered under definition of murder given in Section 300 IPC--Accused is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in view of exception 4 to Section 300 punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC--Sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him modified to that of already undergone.; Kulwant Singh @ Kanti v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 518
S.302--Murder--Eye Witness--Mere fact that witnesses have not removed deceased from place of occurrence for purpose of treatment to hospital does not warrant any adverse inference.; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 498
S.302 & 34--Murder--Acquittal--Accused not linked with other accused either by relation or otherwise--He said to be in possession of gandhali, but no such weapon recovered from him--No penetrating wound caused by gandhali--Keeping in view the fact that he is resident of village which is 50 kms away from place of occurrence, his involvement in commission of crime, is doubtful--He is acquitted of all charges framed granting benefit of doubt.; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 498
S.302 & 34--Murder--Conviction--Eye witness--Reliance on--Occurrence took place at night in fields--Though witnesses and deceased were in fields for purpose of irrigation but at the time of incident deceased or witnesses were not actually involved in process of irrigation--PW-6 called deceased and his son to bring cot--PW-6 and father of deceased are proved to be members of joint family--Land also owned jointly--Process of irrigation cannot be carried out by single person and assistance of family member is required--Therefore presence of witness for purpose of irrigation in middle of night is expected--Moreover, electricity is supplied on rotational basis particularly for purposes of irrigation during night hours--Deceased died on a account of injuries received therefore he was not removed to hospital more than 20 kms away during night--Mere fact that witnesses have not removed deceased from place of occurrence for purpose of treatment to hospital does not warrant any adverse inference.; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 498
S.302 & 34--Murder--Conviction--Motive--Prosecution proved motive as propounded against accused ‘B’ and ‘J’ whose grand father was accused of theft of eucalyptus trees in which father of deceased was witness--Eye witness, uncle of deceased, supported prosecution case in its entirety--Statement of PW-7 also similar--Thus motive as propounded by prosecution proved.; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 498
S.302 & 34--Murder--Conviction--Prosecution proved not only motive of assailants but on basis of eye witness account, able to connect appellants with crime--Conviction upheld.; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 498
S.307/34--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.324/34--Attempt to murder--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Injuries caused to brother of complainant--Elder brother of accused was having matrimonial dispute with sister of complaintant--Occurrence had taken place on 6.12.1995 at 11.30 A.M.--Statement of complainant recorded at Medical College Rohtak at 10.00 P.M.--Injured was taken from Dadri to Rohtak which was 90 K.M. away--First anxiety of complainant was to provide medical care to injured brother--Very nature of injuries suffered rule out any false complication--Both accused young lads facing trial for 14 year could not comprehend consequences of their act--Therefore, sentence awarded on appellant reduced from five years to three years for offence under Section 307--Appellant ‘V’ caused no injury his sentence reduced from five years to 3 years RI for offence under S.307/34.; Vijay Kumar alias Dhariya & Anr. v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 516
S.307, 341, 148 and 149--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Arms Act, 1959, S.25 and 27--Attempt to murder--Bail--Murder--Unlawful assembly--Petitioner no.1 and 2 stopped tractor of complainant and attacked them with their gandasis--Their role similar to that of accused ‘K’ who attacked tractor with his dang granted bail--Beside, accused ‘G’ who was holding double barren gun and stated to have fired also granted bail as in supplementary inquiry and statement no specific role had been attributed to him--Petitioners who alleged to got money are in custody since December, 2008-Out of 29 witnesses citied by prosecution only three have been examined--Trial in the case likely to take time--Petitioner admitted to bail.; Sukhjinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 510
S.324/34--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307/34—Hurt--Attempt to murder--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Injuries caused to brother of complainant--Elder brother of accused was having matrimonial dispute with sister of complainant--Occurrence had taken place on 6.12.1995 at 11.30 A.M.--Statement of complainant recorded at Medical College Rohtak at 10.00 P.M.--Injured was taken from Dadri to Rohtak which was 90 K.M. away--First anxiety of complainant was to provide medical care to injured brother--Very nature of injuries suffered rule out any false complication--Both accused young lads facing trial for 14 year could not comprehend consequences of their act--Therefore, sentence awarded on appellant reduced from five years to three years for offence under Section 307--Appellant ‘V’ caused no injury his sentence reduced from five years to 3 years RI for offence under S.307/34.; Vijay Kumar alias Dhariya & Anr. v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 516
S.406--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482—Dowry Article—Quashing of Complaint--Dowry article/istridhan given by parents to in-laws of deceased daughter at time of marriage of his daughter became her property--Daughter survived by her son living with her in-laws--Son of deceased daughter will be entitled to inherit property of her mother--Moreover, in-laws of deceased daughter already facing trial under Section 304-B IPC--They cannot be now again put to trial for offence under Section 406--Summoning order quashed.; Sanjeev & Ors. v. Sher Singh,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 538
S.406 and 420--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.439--Immigration Act, S.10--Cheating--Bail--Complainant spent Rs.7,22,000/- for sending his son aboard but boy returned to India even before expiry of six months--Petitioners who allegedly were in custody since 26.2.2009, 20.6.2009 and 27.6.2009 respectively--Challan in case has been filed on 13.10.2009--No prosecution witness examined till date--Trial likely to take time--Keeping in view facts and circumstances petitioners entitled to bail.; Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 494
S.406, 498-A, 506, 120-B--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.202--Quashing--Complaint--Summoning of accused--Process issued without holding any inquiry or getting complaint investigated in any manner--Process issued on basis of statements of complaintant, person who attended marriage of complainant and father of complainant--Impugned order set aside as it cannot be sustained being in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 202--Case remanded to pass fresh summoning order.; Tarsem Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 528
S.420, 120-B and 426--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 203--Fraud--Second Complaint--Complaint that appellants who own and possess his own house came into contact with the respondent and ultimately won the confidence of the respondent--It was alleged that the respondent an illiterate, innocent person with a poor village background and he was induced to purchase some land for and on behalf of the appellants--Thus the respondent entered into an agreement to sell different plots of land of about 60 acres--Various sale deeds were executed and registered and respondent was given the impression that those deeds were registered in the names of appellants and the respondent jointly--Fraud was thus played on the respondent by the appellants and when the respondent realized the same he filed a complaint--Police failed to take any step, the complaint was filed before the Magistrate--Challenging the order of the Magistrate, a revision petition was filed in the High Court--Revision petition was also dismissed--Whether after an order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant can file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal--Held; No--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which were raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable--Second complaint not covered within exceptional circumstances--High Court fell into an error in not appreciating the legal position in its correct perspective while allowing the revision petition of the respondent--Appeal allowed. ; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.420, 120-B and 426--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 203--Fraud--Second Complaint--Maintainability of--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which was raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.420, 120-B and 426--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 203--Fraud--Second Complaint--An order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant cannot file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 and 420--Immigration Act, S.10--Bail--Cheating--Complainant spent Rs.7,22,000/- for sending his son aboard but boy returned to India even before expiry of six months--Petitioners who allegedly were in custody since 26.2.2009, 20.6.2009 and 27.6.2009 respectively--Challan in case has been filed on 13.10.2009--No prosecution witness examined till date--Trial likely to take time--Keeping in view facts and circumstances petitioners entitled to bail.; Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 494
