S.302 and 34--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154--FIR--Delay in lodging--Police Station from place of occurrence or residential house where dead body was brought back not more than 2 furlongs--Complainant had access to a car in which injured was first taken to civil hospital and then to hospital to Amritsar and when he died his dead body was brought back during night--During entire night occurrence was neither disclosed to police nor to any Panchayat member--Co-villagers cited to witness in disclosure statements and recoveries of weapons of offence were in village--In such circumstances, conduct of witnesses in lodging FIR after such a delay is quite unnatural which raises legitimate inference that prosecution version is highly doubtful--Appellant acquitted.; Mehar Singh & Ors. v State of Punjab,; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 704
S.302 and 34--Murder--Acquittal--No bloodstained earth from place of occurrence lifted--Explanation given by I.O. that on intervening night of commission of offence there was rainfall not corroborated by any other witnesses--Neither electric wire which was being attached for kundi connection which was genesis of occurrence was not taken into possession nor doctor who allegedly examined injured at civil hospital and then referred him to hospital at Amritsar was joined investigation raising a doubt as to whether dead body was ever taken to civil hospital that night--Clothes of deceased were also not sent for chemical examination--Cited witnesses of recovery of weapon upon disclosure statements of accused were not got examined--Even weapons of offence namely balla, sickle, paawa and safeda stick are of kind which are easily available in villages--Thus, not proving the recoveries nor connecting these to accused person has resulted into being fatal to prosecution case--Appellant acquitted.; Mehar Singh & Ors. v State of Punjab,; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 704
S.302/34--Murder--Acquittal--Motive--As per evidence of complainant wife of deceased that remarriage of widow of brother of deceased to accused was not liked by her deceased husband as he had become incharge of property of brother of deceased--Other two accused were real sons of brother of deceased who were happily staying with accused and their mother--It is well accepted that motive is double edged sward--False complication of accused persons cannot be ruled out in view of such circumstances--Appellant acquitted.; Mehar Singh & Ors. v State of Punjab,; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 704
S.302/34--Murder--Acquittal--Prosecution was not able to prove their case against accused beyond reasonable doubt--Accused acquitted given benefit of doubt.; Mehar Singh & Ors. v State of Punjab,; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 704
S.302/307 read with Section 34--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439(2)--Arms Act, 1959, S.25, 27, 24, 54 & 59--Bail--Cancellation of bail--Application for--Locus Standi--Complainant is entitled to move application for cancellation of bail being an aggrieved person and important witness in case.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.376--Rape--Conviction--Occurrence had taken place on 30.3.1996 at 4.00 A.M.--Report to police made on same day i.e. 30.3.1996 at 1.40 P.M.--Special report sent to Illaqa Magistrate at 3.45 P.M.--Prosecutrix had given her version at earliest--Lodging of FIR and reaching of Special Report prompt and contain truthful version--Rape having been committed proved by medical evidence--Affidavits given by prosecutrix and his father in favour of accused will not absolve him of offence as he made an attempt to prevail upon witnesses to depose in his favour--However, witnesses withstood pressure and testified in Court--Even if a minor litigation was pending between parties same cannot be cause for implicating accused--Conviction upheld--However, sentence of 8 years reduced to 7 years RI as accused as he is facing suffering mental pain and agony of protracted trial for 14 years.; Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 654
S.406 and 498-A--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Abetment to suicide--Compromise between the parties--Accepted--Once the matter has been compromised no useful purpose shall be served, by proceeding with prosecution, as that would amount to sheer wastage of the time of the Court; harassment to the parties; and abuse of the process of Court.; Pawan Kumar @ Pappu & Ors. v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 672
S.409, 418, 420, 468, 477-A r/w Section 34 and 120-B--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Cheating--Complaint--Summoning order--Quashing of--Charging of alleged higher price of the goods supplied; invocation of the bank guarantee, for the recovery of the amount, allegedly due to the SAIL, against the complainant firms; and non-giving of rebate, to the complainant firms, on the goods supplied, by the SAIL, did not amount to deceiving the complainant firms, nor did it amount to the commission of offence of cheating--Allegations, contained in the complaint also, in any way, does not constitute the dishonest misappropriation of any money, by the SAIL--All these matters basically constituted civil dispute, between the parties, and civil suits, are already pending between them--None of the allegations, contained in the complaint, constituted a criminal offence--The complainant firms, converted a dispute of civil nature, into a dispute of criminal nature, so as to put pressure, upon the SAIL, and its officers, who could not be held to be liable vicariously, as per the provisions of the IPC, to come to the terms--The summoning orders and the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed.; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
S.420, 467, 468 and 471--Cheating--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Petitioner charged that he had withdrawn Rs.3500/- from account of ‘R’ by forging his signature on cheque--Said amount already deposited by petitioner with bank--Petitioner in custody since his appeal is dismissed--Keeping in view charges proved against petitioner lesser sentence of imprisonment imposed accordingly.; Rakesh v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 645
