S.279 and 338--Motor Accident--Rash and Negligent Driving--Acquittal--Prosecution case consistent to the fact that bus hit three-wheeler from behind--Report given after mechanical examination of three-wheeler indicates only a scratch at back side which in opinion of PW-9, mechanic who is an expert witness examined by prosecution was not possible on account of accident at instance of bus--Eye-witness account is contrary to account given by mechanic, PW-9--If bus could not have hit three-wheeler from behind as opined incident as stated in prosecution case was not possible--Prosecution failed to prove that driver of bus committed offence as alleged--Driver of bus acquitted.; Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 737
S.302, 201, 120-B & 34--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Bail--Murder--First version by way of DDR does not implicate anybody--FIR lodged after delay of 10 days--Extra judicial confession made by petitioner, wife of deceased after 7 months of lodging FIR--Two of accused left out by prosecution from array of accused--As per medico legal report deceased used to consumption of heavy quantity of alcohol--No definite opinion in regard to any homicidal act--None of witnesses recorded--Bail granted.; Sanjay & Gandhi v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 760
S.302, 304 Part II--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304, Part- II--Evidence Act, 1872, S.32--Murder--Dying declaration--Deceased specifically stated that accused pushed him into chemical tank--No enmity to falsely implicate accused--Statement free from suspicion, tutoring or prompting and being truthful worthy of full evidence--Learned trial Court rightly relied on dying declaration to record finding that accused caused death of deceased--However, in view of fact that accused in agitated state merely pushed deceased resulting into fall in chemical tank, it cannot be said that he had intention to kill--Held; that case is covered under exception 4 of Section 300 IPC--Accused is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder--Conviction of accused under Section 302 set aside--He is convicted under Section 304, Part II--In view of his having undergone more than 4 years of imprisonment sentence modified to period already undergone.; Rajneesh Pandey v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 757
S.302, 307, 323, 148, 149, 120-B--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Arms Act,1959 S.25 & 27--Bail--Murder--Attempt to murder--Petitioners not attributed any role in FIR--However in statement before trial Court they have alleged to have armed with weapon--But no injury caused by them--Keeping in view role attributed to petitioners in occurrence and fact that they have been in custody for last one year and two months and also that trial in the case is likely to take time it would be just expedient to grant concession of bail.; Harphool Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 736
S.304, Part- II--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, 304 Part II--Evidence Act, 1872, S.32--Murder--Dying declaration--Deceased specifically stated that accused pushed him into chemical tank--No enmity to falsely implicate accused--Statement free from suspicion, tutoring or prompting and being truthful worthy of full evidence--Learned trial Court rightly relied on dying declaration to record finding that accused caused death of deceased--However, in view of fact that accused in agitated state merely pushed deceased resulting into fall in chemical tank, it cannot be said that he had intention to kill--Held; that case is covered under exception 4 of Section 300 IPC--Accused is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder--Conviction of accused under Section 302 set aside--He is convicted under Section 304, Part II--In view of his having undergone more than 4 years of imprisonment sentence modified to period already undergone.; Rajneesh Pandey v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 757
S.304-B--Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S.6(3)--Dowry Death--Custody of dowry article after death of woman--Whether husband even if he is acquitted of charge under section 304-B IPC could retain dowry articles on death of her wife--Held No.; Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 799
S.304-B--Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S.6(3)--Dowry Death--Custody of dowry article after death of a woman--Deceased died within 7 years of marriage--She died an unnatural death other than normal circumstances--Her husband acquitted of charge under Section 304-B IPC giving benefit of doubt--Dowry article which is in custody of appellant, father of deceased shall remain in his custody--Application of husband for cancellation of superdari in favour of appellant dismissed.; Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 799
S.307--Attempt to murder--Conviction--Complainant, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 including two other suffered injuries--Complainant party arrived at village of accused for handing over Bhat (customary gifts from maternal side) in marriage for daughter of their sister--They would be last persons to falsely implicate accused--Trial Court already acquitted four accused giving benefit of doubt--Five persons from complainant party were injured in occurrence whereas on side of accused only two persons were injured--Injuries on accused persons are abrasion, complain of pain and simple in nature--Seat of injury is on non-vital parts of body--Accused not entitled to right of self defence from number and nature of injuries--Offence under Section 307 made out--Conviction upheld--However, in interest of justice sentence reduced from 5 years to 3 years R.I.; Mohinder & Anr. v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 769
S.323/506--Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, S.3(1)(x) (xi)--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of complaint--Allegations of commission of offence under S.C. and S.T. are not made out--Complaint filed not for reason that petitioner has committed an offence rather with some ulterior motive--There was some dispute in regard to path--Both sides were trying to take possession of that path--In malafide exercise Criminal complaint filed so as to pressurize petitioner in matter of possession of the path--This is when on repeated complaints and three enquiries investigation agency concluded that no offence under S.C. and S.T. Act had been committed--Factum of conclusion drawn by police authorities or enquires intentionally not disclosed in complaint--In such circumstance, continuance of these proceedings shall result in abuse of process of Court--Complaint quashed.; Dilbagh Singh & Ors. v. Sukhjinder Kaur, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 729
S.366 and 376--Kidnapping--Rape--Prosecutrix was 16 years, 10 months and 27 days on date of occurrence--Testimony of prosecutrix reveal that she had herself left house and had met accused in Bazar--From there she accompanied accused in auto-rickshaw to bus stand where tickets were purchased--She herself boarded the bus--There was police post at bus stand and number of persons were also roaming at bus stand--Prosecutrix had not made complaint to anybody--She not raised any grievance in bus also--She remained in house of accused for three days--From conduct of prosecutrix it can be safely concluded that she herself had accompanied appellant and she had consented for sexual intercourse--No offence under Section 376 made out against appellant--However prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age--She was taken away from lawful custody of her parents--Therefore offence under Section 363 and 366 IPC made out--Conviction and sentence under Section 376 set aside but conviction and sentence under Section 363 and 366 maintained.; Dinesh v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 787
S.376 and 452--Rape--House Trespass--Acquittal--Delay in lodging FIR--Occurrence had taken place on 28.4.99 at 6.30 P.M.--Report lodged on next day on 29.4.99 at 10.00 A.M.--To explain delay it was stated that talks of compromise were going on--No person from Panchayat examined--Further, prosecutrix stated that when door was opened villagers were standing out side--But nobody from village examined--From circumstances, contention that performance of sexual intercourse was due to consent seem probable--Appellant acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.; Jafar Iqbal v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 765
S.406, 420 & 120-B--Cheating--Misappropriation of funds--Chit fund business--Accused running chit fund business--Accused misappropriated amount of prize money of subscriber for their personal use and gain--Grievance of complainant that he has been cheated to tune of Rs.15,000/- by accused--Witnesses, who are also subscribers in categoric terms stated that they paid amount on promise made by accused and when they demanded amount back it was refused--Entrustment is proved--Offence under Section 406 IPC made out against accused--Witnesses were made to understand that scheme was approved by RBI--Offence under Section 420 IPC also made out--A wrongful loss was caused to witnesses with dishonest intention on part of accused--Once testimony of witnesses aspire confidence documents not necessary for corroboration--Conviction upheld--However, since accused suffered mental pain and agony of 27 years of protracted trial sentence of two years reduced to nine months.; Varinder Kumar & Anr. v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 776
S.420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Cheating--Quashing--Allegation that accused no. 1 to 6 in collusion with each other got sale deed executed and registered in favour of accused no.2 in regard to land that had already gifted to complainant and her son by her father-in-law--Accused no.2 witnessed sale deeds although he was in full knowledge of gift deeds since time of their execution and registration--Considering nature of allegations, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavit to disprove facts alleged in complaint--Petitioner would have right to lead evidence in defence to negate allegations--In view of disputed facts no grounds for quashing impugned complaint and summoning order made out.; Paramjit Singh v. State Of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 746
