2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2069
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Revision No.2224 of 2002
Amar Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 04/06/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.N. Kush, Advocate.
For the Respondent – State: Mr. Manish Deswal, DAG, Haryana.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.419, 420, 468 & 471--Cheating--Forgery--In view of categoric findings of Civil Court it cannot be said that alleged forged mutation was used for cheating or was fraudulently used as genuine--Therefore, petitioners are entitled to acquittal so far as offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC are concerned--If land was not mortgaged, then mutation dated 7.3.1983 whereby redemption of land was shown cannot be said that it was used for cheating--Therefore, offence under Section 420 IPC is also not made out--But since in mutation proceedings ‘H’ was impersonated, offence will fall under Section 419 IPC--Petitioners were taken into custody on 30.10.2002--They were ordered to be released on bail on 16.1.2003--They have undergone 2 months and 16 days of actual sentence--Appellate Court had reduced sentence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC to eight months RI--Alleged mutation pertained to year 1983--FIR was registered against petitioner-accused in year 1985--They are in corridors of Courts for last 25 years--Since offence has been converted to Section 419 IPC considering mental pain and agony of protracted trial suffered by petitioners, sentence already undergone by petitioners will serve purpose--Petitioners are acquitted of offence under Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC--They are held liable for offence under Section 419 IPC and awarded sentence of 2 months and 16 days, period already undergone by them. (Para 19, 20 & 21)
Showing posts with label Indian Penal Code. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indian Penal Code. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860
S.34--Common Intention--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.279 and 304-A--Rash and Negligent Driving--Proof of rashness or negligence are sine qua non for proving commission of an offence under Section 304-A.; Roshan Singh v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 875
S.302/34--Evidence Act, 1872, S.32--Murder--Dying declaration--Evidentiary value of--Death by burning--Deceased and accused (husband) married in the year 1990--No previous allegation of being harassed or treated with cruelty by accused or members of his family--Statement made by deceased inculpating accused after having been tutored, prompted and instigated by members of her family from parents side who were present there--In such circumstances, dying declaration can not constitute sole basis for recording conviction of accused in absence of any other reliable and trustworthy corroborative evidence--Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt.; Satpal Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 845
S.304, Part I, r/w 34--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 323--Culpable homicide--Sudden fight--Fight had take place regarding possession over land left by river--Occurrence was result of without any pre-mediation on spur of moment--Finding of trial court that two appellants shared common intention and knowledge with other accused who gave fatal blow to deceased liable to set aside--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal--Conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part I r/w 34 set aside--They are held liable for their individual act which fall under S.323.; Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.304, Part I--Culpable homicide--Conviction--Sentence--Reduction of--Occurrence took place on 23.4.1994--Appellant already suffered protracted trial of about 16 years--Appellant had suffered 11 injuries on his hand and is suffering from disability on his hand--Taking into consideration protracted trial and mitigating circumstances sentence of appellant reduced from 10 years to 6 years R.I.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.304, Part II and 323--Culpable Homicide--Acquittal--Hurt--Testimony of eyewitnesses and complainant surfaced that accused was empty handed--Accused and deceased had grappled with each other--Accused had given fist blows and deceased had died--No external mark of injury--All vital organs of body found health--Though alcohol was present in blood it can be given as cause of death--Possibility of death being natural death cannot be ruled out--Once prosecution failed to prove that death of deceased was homicide, accused cannot be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder--Accused acquitted of offence under Section 304-Part II--However, accused had caused fist blows, offence under Section 323 made out--Accused sentenced to 1 year R.I.; Swinder Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 814
S.304-A and 337--Rash and Negligent Driving--Acquittal--Neither investigating officer examined nor any site plan of place of occurrence proved by examining draftsman--No evidence that accused were driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner--Prosecution failed to prove identity of driver--Accused acquitted. ; Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 819
S.304-A--Rash and Negligent Driving--Four wheeler was coming on road on its correct side and turned towards right side to go to village--Scooter driven by deceased struck four wheeler on conductor side in cabin--It means four wheeler had almost taken turn and scooteris struck against left side of four wheeler--Solitary testimony of eyewitness uncorroborated qua negligence of accused--Moreover delay in lodging FIR further contributes to concoction in prosecution version--Material improvement in statement of eyewitness regarding identification of accused--Identification of accused never conducted by police--Both Courts could not make proper observations with regard to negligence of accused--No sufficient evidence found to make sure if accused was driving vehicle at time of accident benefit would go to accused--Accused acquitted.; Roshan Singh v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 875
S.306--Dowry Death--Abetment to Suicide--Death by hanging--Both complainant and accused were not belonging to affluent section of society--Demand of dowry first time made on 6.7.1996--Date of marriage was 21.6.1992--Relationship of accused husband with other women before marriage was cause of discord--Deceased would not accept the fact that his husband was having relations with any woman before marriage--It can be safely inferred that there is reason which prompted deceased to commit suicide--Once demand of dowry is ruled out offence under Section 304-A not made out--Death had taken place with in 7 years--Husband could not make his wife adjust and understand that life before marriage is not going to make difference and he had buried his past--Section 113-A of Evidence Act cause presumption that deceased was subjected to cruelty--Therefore, offence under Section 306 IPC alone made out against husband--Conviction of husband for offence under Section 304-B set aside--However, husband found guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to 5 years R.I.; Mohinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 863
S.307 r/w S.34--Attempt to murder--Delay in FIR--Acquittal--Occurrence had taken place on 10.5.1994 at 11.30 P.M.--Case registered at 6.05 P.M. on 11.5.1994--FIR recorded after 18 hours of incident--As per FIR one arm of injured was caught hold by appellant and other arm by his son who was acquitted giving benefit of doubt--Other son of appellant who caused injury died against whom substantive charge for offence under Section 307 was framed--Appellant caused no injury in occurrence--He was only stated to have raised lalkara--Taking delay into consideration and fact that witness improved their version in Court benefit of doubt is granted to appellant--Appellant acquitted.; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 855
S.323--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 304, Part I, r/w 34--Culpable homicide--Sudden fight--Fight had take place regarding possession over land left by river--Occurrence was result of without any pre-mediation on spur of moment--Finding of trial court that two appellants shared common intention and knowledge with other accused who gave fatal blow to deceased liable to set aside--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal--Conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part I r/w 34 set aside--They are held liable for their individual act which fall under Section 323.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.354 and 306--Abetment to Suicide--Outrage modesty of a woman--Conviction--Wife of complainant committed suicide by consuming poison due to attempt made by accused to outrage her modesty--Accused and complainant (husband of deceased) and PW-4 are collaterals--Taking benefit of fact that complainant had gone to mourn death of mother of another collateral accused went to their house and outrage modesty of deceased--Relations between parties were cordial--Complainant disclosed the incident to PW-4 next door neighbourer next morning--Complainant did not told any thing to anybody on next day on cremation--When he returned from cremation his wife had consumed poison--Contention that complainant did not gave information immediately to anybody cannot be used to brush aside his testimony--Conduct of complainant natural, probable and convicting--Conviction upheld--However, taking into consideration that accused suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for 13 years sentence awarded reduced from 4 years to 3 year R.I.; Sukhdev Singh alias Sewa v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 867
S.406, 498-A & 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Compromise--Allegations in FIR arising out of matrimonial dispute which is purely personal in nature--Matter compromised amicable between parties--Parties happily staying together in separate rented house--FIR under Section 406, 498-A and 506 quashed in interest of justice--2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FB) 2225 relied.; Sunil Kumar Joshi & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 841
S.420, 406, 323, 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.156(3)--Cheating--FIR--Cancellation Report--Complaint--Order was placed for purchase of chemicals and solvents from accused--Complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to respondent no.4 and he in turn signed a demand promissory note by way of security confirmation and acknowledgment of liability and repayment guarantee--Dispute is civil in nature--Merely because material was not supplied per se would not indicate commission of offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust--Complaint dismissed.; J.C. Khanna v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 840
S.498-A, 406 and 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Demand of dowry--Marriage of complainant was solemnized 3-4 years before lodging FIR--Complainant has a daughter aged 2 years--FIR recites that complainant has been living in her parental home and accused have not accepted her in matrimonial home since birth of daughter--FIR does not disclose entrustment of property to either of petitioners specifically or dishonest misappropriation of the property--No specific allegations made in regard to commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC--Cognizance of commission of offence is not spelt out from FIR or from averments made in reply filed on behalf of investigating agency as against petitioners--FIR qua petitioners quashed.; Mohinder Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 805
S.34--Common Intention--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.279 and 304-A--Rash and Negligent Driving--Proof of rashness or negligence are sine qua non for proving commission of an offence under Section 304-A.; Roshan Singh v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 875
S.302/34--Evidence Act, 1872, S.32--Murder--Dying declaration--Evidentiary value of--Death by burning--Deceased and accused (husband) married in the year 1990--No previous allegation of being harassed or treated with cruelty by accused or members of his family--Statement made by deceased inculpating accused after having been tutored, prompted and instigated by members of her family from parents side who were present there--In such circumstances, dying declaration can not constitute sole basis for recording conviction of accused in absence of any other reliable and trustworthy corroborative evidence--Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt.; Satpal Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 845
S.304, Part I, r/w 34--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 323--Culpable homicide--Sudden fight--Fight had take place regarding possession over land left by river--Occurrence was result of without any pre-mediation on spur of moment--Finding of trial court that two appellants shared common intention and knowledge with other accused who gave fatal blow to deceased liable to set aside--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal--Conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part I r/w 34 set aside--They are held liable for their individual act which fall under S.323.; Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.304, Part I--Culpable homicide--Conviction--Sentence--Reduction of--Occurrence took place on 23.4.1994--Appellant already suffered protracted trial of about 16 years--Appellant had suffered 11 injuries on his hand and is suffering from disability on his hand--Taking into consideration protracted trial and mitigating circumstances sentence of appellant reduced from 10 years to 6 years R.I.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.304, Part II and 323--Culpable Homicide--Acquittal--Hurt--Testimony of eyewitnesses and complainant surfaced that accused was empty handed--Accused and deceased had grappled with each other--Accused had given fist blows and deceased had died--No external mark of injury--All vital organs of body found health--Though alcohol was present in blood it can be given as cause of death--Possibility of death being natural death cannot be ruled out--Once prosecution failed to prove that death of deceased was homicide, accused cannot be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder--Accused acquitted of offence under Section 304-Part II--However, accused had caused fist blows, offence under Section 323 made out--Accused sentenced to 1 year R.I.; Swinder Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 814
S.304-A and 337--Rash and Negligent Driving--Acquittal--Neither investigating officer examined nor any site plan of place of occurrence proved by examining draftsman--No evidence that accused were driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner--Prosecution failed to prove identity of driver--Accused acquitted. ; Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 819
S.304-A--Rash and Negligent Driving--Four wheeler was coming on road on its correct side and turned towards right side to go to village--Scooter driven by deceased struck four wheeler on conductor side in cabin--It means four wheeler had almost taken turn and scooteris struck against left side of four wheeler--Solitary testimony of eyewitness uncorroborated qua negligence of accused--Moreover delay in lodging FIR further contributes to concoction in prosecution version--Material improvement in statement of eyewitness regarding identification of accused--Identification of accused never conducted by police--Both Courts could not make proper observations with regard to negligence of accused--No sufficient evidence found to make sure if accused was driving vehicle at time of accident benefit would go to accused--Accused acquitted.; Roshan Singh v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 875
S.306--Dowry Death--Abetment to Suicide--Death by hanging--Both complainant and accused were not belonging to affluent section of society--Demand of dowry first time made on 6.7.1996--Date of marriage was 21.6.1992--Relationship of accused husband with other women before marriage was cause of discord--Deceased would not accept the fact that his husband was having relations with any woman before marriage--It can be safely inferred that there is reason which prompted deceased to commit suicide--Once demand of dowry is ruled out offence under Section 304-A not made out--Death had taken place with in 7 years--Husband could not make his wife adjust and understand that life before marriage is not going to make difference and he had buried his past--Section 113-A of Evidence Act cause presumption that deceased was subjected to cruelty--Therefore, offence under Section 306 IPC alone made out against husband--Conviction of husband for offence under Section 304-B set aside--However, husband found guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to 5 years R.I.; Mohinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 863
S.307 r/w S.34--Attempt to murder--Delay in FIR--Acquittal--Occurrence had taken place on 10.5.1994 at 11.30 P.M.--Case registered at 6.05 P.M. on 11.5.1994--FIR recorded after 18 hours of incident--As per FIR one arm of injured was caught hold by appellant and other arm by his son who was acquitted giving benefit of doubt--Other son of appellant who caused injury died against whom substantive charge for offence under Section 307 was framed--Appellant caused no injury in occurrence--He was only stated to have raised lalkara--Taking delay into consideration and fact that witness improved their version in Court benefit of doubt is granted to appellant--Appellant acquitted.; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 855
S.323--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 304, Part I, r/w 34--Culpable homicide--Sudden fight--Fight had take place regarding possession over land left by river--Occurrence was result of without any pre-mediation on spur of moment--Finding of trial court that two appellants shared common intention and knowledge with other accused who gave fatal blow to deceased liable to set aside--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal--Conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part I r/w 34 set aside--They are held liable for their individual act which fall under Section 323.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.354 and 306--Abetment to Suicide--Outrage modesty of a woman--Conviction--Wife of complainant committed suicide by consuming poison due to attempt made by accused to outrage her modesty--Accused and complainant (husband of deceased) and PW-4 are collaterals--Taking benefit of fact that complainant had gone to mourn death of mother of another collateral accused went to their house and outrage modesty of deceased--Relations between parties were cordial--Complainant disclosed the incident to PW-4 next door neighbourer next morning--Complainant did not told any thing to anybody on next day on cremation--When he returned from cremation his wife had consumed poison--Contention that complainant did not gave information immediately to anybody cannot be used to brush aside his testimony--Conduct of complainant natural, probable and convicting--Conviction upheld--However, taking into consideration that accused suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for 13 years sentence awarded reduced from 4 years to 3 year R.I.; Sukhdev Singh alias Sewa v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 867
S.406, 498-A & 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Compromise--Allegations in FIR arising out of matrimonial dispute which is purely personal in nature--Matter compromised amicable between parties--Parties happily staying together in separate rented house--FIR under Section 406, 498-A and 506 quashed in interest of justice--2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FB) 2225 relied.; Sunil Kumar Joshi & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 841
S.420, 406, 323, 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.156(3)--Cheating--FIR--Cancellation Report--Complaint--Order was placed for purchase of chemicals and solvents from accused--Complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to respondent no.4 and he in turn signed a demand promissory note by way of security confirmation and acknowledgment of liability and repayment guarantee--Dispute is civil in nature--Merely because material was not supplied per se would not indicate commission of offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust--Complaint dismissed.; J.C. Khanna v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 840
S.498-A, 406 and 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Demand of dowry--Marriage of complainant was solemnized 3-4 years before lodging FIR--Complainant has a daughter aged 2 years--FIR recites that complainant has been living in her parental home and accused have not accepted her in matrimonial home since birth of daughter--FIR does not disclose entrustment of property to either of petitioners specifically or dishonest misappropriation of the property--No specific allegations made in regard to commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC--Cognizance of commission of offence is not spelt out from FIR or from averments made in reply filed on behalf of investigating agency as against petitioners--FIR qua petitioners quashed.; Mohinder Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 805
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860
S.34--Common Intention--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.279 and 304-A--Rash and Negligent Driving--Proof of rashness or negligence are sine qua non for proving commission of an offence under Section 304-A.; Roshan Singh v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 875
S.302/34--Evidence Act, 1872, S.32--Murder--Dying declaration--Evidentiary value of--Death by burning--Deceased and accused (husband) married in the year 1990--No previous allegation of being harassed or treated with cruelty by accused or members of his family--Statement made by deceased inculpating accused after having been tutored, prompted and instigated by members of her family from parents side who were present there--In such circumstances, dying declaration can not constitute sole basis for recording conviction of accused in absence of any other reliable and trustworthy corroborative evidence--Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt.; Satpal Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 845
S.304, Part I, r/w 34--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 323--Culpable homicide--Sudden fight--Fight had take place regarding possession over land left by river--Occurrence was result of without any pre-mediation on spur of moment--Finding of trial court that two appellants shared common intention and knowledge with other accused who gave fatal blow to deceased liable to set aside--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal--Conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part I r/w 34 set aside--They are held liable for their individual act which fall under S.323.; Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.304, Part I--Culpable homicide--Conviction--Sentence--Reduction of--Occurrence took place on 23.4.1994--Appellant already suffered protracted trial of about 16 years--Appellant had suffered 11 injuries on his hand and is suffering from disability on his hand--Taking into consideration protracted trial and mitigating circumstances sentence of appellant reduced from 10 years to 6 years R.I.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.304, Part II and 323--Culpable Homicide--Acquittal--Hurt--Testimony of eyewitnesses and complainant surfaced that accused was empty handed--Accused and deceased had grappled with each other--Accused had given fist blows and deceased had died--No external mark of injury--All vital organs of body found health--Though alcohol was present in blood it can be given as cause of death--Possibility of death being natural death cannot be ruled out--Once prosecution failed to prove that death of deceased was homicide, accused cannot be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder--Accused acquitted of offence under Section 304-Part II--However, accused had caused fist blows, offence under Section 323 made out--Accused sentenced to 1 year R.I.; Swinder Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 814
S.304-A and 337--Rash and Negligent Driving--Acquittal--Neither investigating officer examined nor any site plan of place of occurrence proved by examining draftsman--No evidence that accused were driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner--Prosecution failed to prove identity of driver--Accused acquitted. ; Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 819
S.304-A--Rash and Negligent Driving--Four wheeler was coming on road on its correct side and turned towards right side to go to village--Scooter driven by deceased struck four wheeler on conductor side in cabin--It means four wheeler had almost taken turn and scooteris struck against left side of four wheeler--Solitary testimony of eyewitness uncorroborated qua negligence of accused--Moreover delay in lodging FIR further contributes to concoction in prosecution version--Material improvement in statement of eyewitness regarding identification of accused--Identification of accused never conducted by police--Both Courts could not make proper observations with regard to negligence of accused--No sufficient evidence found to make sure if accused was driving vehicle at time of accident benefit would go to accused--Accused acquitted.; Roshan Singh v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 875
S.306--Dowry Death--Abetment to Suicide--Death by hanging--Both complainant and accused were not belonging to affluent section of society--Demand of dowry first time made on 6.7.1996--Date of marriage was 21.6.1992--Relationship of accused husband with other women before marriage was cause of discord--Deceased would not accept the fact that his husband was having relations with any woman before marriage--It can be safely inferred that there is reason which prompted deceased to commit suicide--Once demand of dowry is ruled out offence under Section 304-A not made out--Death had taken place with in 7 years--Husband could not make his wife adjust and understand that life before marriage is not going to make difference and he had buried his past--Section 113-A of Evidence Act cause presumption that deceased was subjected to cruelty--Therefore, offence under Section 306 IPC alone made out against husband--Conviction of husband for offence under Section 304-B set aside--However, husband found guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to 5 years R.I.; Mohinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 863
S.307 r/w S.34--Attempt to murder--Delay in FIR--Acquittal--Occurrence had taken place on 10.5.1994 at 11.30 P.M.--Case registered at 6.05 P.M. on 11.5.1994--FIR recorded after 18 hours of incident--As per FIR one arm of injured was caught hold by appellant and other arm by his son who was acquitted giving benefit of doubt--Other son of appellant who caused injury died against whom substantive charge for offence under Section 307 was framed--Appellant caused no injury in occurrence--He was only stated to have raised lalkara--Taking delay into consideration and fact that witness improved their version in Court benefit of doubt is granted to appellant--Appellant acquitted.; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 855
S.323--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 304, Part I, r/w 34--Culpable homicide--Sudden fight--Fight had take place regarding possession over land left by river--Occurrence was result of without any pre-mediation on spur of moment--Finding of trial court that two appellants shared common intention and knowledge with other accused who gave fatal blow to deceased liable to set aside--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal--Conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part I r/w 34 set aside--They are held liable for their individual act which fall under Section 323.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.354 and 306--Abetment to Suicide--Outrage modesty of a woman--Conviction--Wife of complainant committed suicide by consuming poison due to attempt made by accused to outrage her modesty--Accused and complainant (husband of deceased) and PW-4 are collaterals--Taking benefit of fact that complainant had gone to mourn death of mother of another collateral accused went to their house and outrage modesty of deceased--Relations between parties were cordial--Complainant disclosed the incident to PW-4 next door neighbourer next morning--Complainant did not told any thing to anybody on next day on cremation--When he returned from cremation his wife had consumed poison--Contention that complainant did not gave information immediately to anybody cannot be used to brush aside his testimony--Conduct of complainant natural, probable and convicting--Conviction upheld--However, taking into consideration that accused suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for 13 years sentence awarded reduced from 4 years to 3 year R.I.; Sukhdev Singh alias Sewa v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 867
S.406, 498-A & 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Compromise--Allegations in FIR arising out of matrimonial dispute which is purely personal in nature--Matter compromised amicable between parties--Parties happily staying together in separate rented house--FIR under Section 406, 498-A and 506 quashed in interest of justice--2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FB) 2225 relied.; Sunil Kumar Joshi & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 841
S.420, 406, 323, 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.156(3)--Cheating--FIR--Cancellation Report--Complaint--Order was placed for purchase of chemicals and solvents from accused--Complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to respondent no.4 and he in turn signed a demand promissory note by way of security confirmation and acknowledgment of liability and repayment guarantee--Dispute is civil in nature--Merely because material was not supplied per se would not indicate commission of offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust--Complaint dismissed.; J.C. Khanna v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 840
S.498-A, 406 and 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Demand of dowry--Marriage of complainant was solemnized 3-4 years before lodging FIR--Complainant has a daughter aged 2 years--FIR recites that complainant has been living in her parental home and accused have not accepted her in matrimonial home since birth of daughter--FIR does not disclose entrustment of property to either of petitioners specifically or dishonest misappropriation of the property--No specific allegations made in regard to commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC--Cognizance of commission of offence is not spelt out from FIR or from averments made in reply filed on behalf of investigating agency as against petitioners--FIR qua petitioners quashed.; Mohinder Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 805
S.279 and 304-A--Rash and Negligent Driving--Proof of rashness or negligence are sine qua non for proving commission of an offence under Section 304-A.; Roshan Singh v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 875
S.302/34--Evidence Act, 1872, S.32--Murder--Dying declaration--Evidentiary value of--Death by burning--Deceased and accused (husband) married in the year 1990--No previous allegation of being harassed or treated with cruelty by accused or members of his family--Statement made by deceased inculpating accused after having been tutored, prompted and instigated by members of her family from parents side who were present there--In such circumstances, dying declaration can not constitute sole basis for recording conviction of accused in absence of any other reliable and trustworthy corroborative evidence--Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt.; Satpal Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 845
S.304, Part I, r/w 34--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 323--Culpable homicide--Sudden fight--Fight had take place regarding possession over land left by river--Occurrence was result of without any pre-mediation on spur of moment--Finding of trial court that two appellants shared common intention and knowledge with other accused who gave fatal blow to deceased liable to set aside--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal--Conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part I r/w 34 set aside--They are held liable for their individual act which fall under S.323.; Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.304, Part I--Culpable homicide--Conviction--Sentence--Reduction of--Occurrence took place on 23.4.1994--Appellant already suffered protracted trial of about 16 years--Appellant had suffered 11 injuries on his hand and is suffering from disability on his hand--Taking into consideration protracted trial and mitigating circumstances sentence of appellant reduced from 10 years to 6 years R.I.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.304, Part II and 323--Culpable Homicide--Acquittal--Hurt--Testimony of eyewitnesses and complainant surfaced that accused was empty handed--Accused and deceased had grappled with each other--Accused had given fist blows and deceased had died--No external mark of injury--All vital organs of body found health--Though alcohol was present in blood it can be given as cause of death--Possibility of death being natural death cannot be ruled out--Once prosecution failed to prove that death of deceased was homicide, accused cannot be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder--Accused acquitted of offence under Section 304-Part II--However, accused had caused fist blows, offence under Section 323 made out--Accused sentenced to 1 year R.I.; Swinder Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 814
S.304-A and 337--Rash and Negligent Driving--Acquittal--Neither investigating officer examined nor any site plan of place of occurrence proved by examining draftsman--No evidence that accused were driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner--Prosecution failed to prove identity of driver--Accused acquitted. ; Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 819
S.304-A--Rash and Negligent Driving--Four wheeler was coming on road on its correct side and turned towards right side to go to village--Scooter driven by deceased struck four wheeler on conductor side in cabin--It means four wheeler had almost taken turn and scooteris struck against left side of four wheeler--Solitary testimony of eyewitness uncorroborated qua negligence of accused--Moreover delay in lodging FIR further contributes to concoction in prosecution version--Material improvement in statement of eyewitness regarding identification of accused--Identification of accused never conducted by police--Both Courts could not make proper observations with regard to negligence of accused--No sufficient evidence found to make sure if accused was driving vehicle at time of accident benefit would go to accused--Accused acquitted.; Roshan Singh v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 875
S.306--Dowry Death--Abetment to Suicide--Death by hanging--Both complainant and accused were not belonging to affluent section of society--Demand of dowry first time made on 6.7.1996--Date of marriage was 21.6.1992--Relationship of accused husband with other women before marriage was cause of discord--Deceased would not accept the fact that his husband was having relations with any woman before marriage--It can be safely inferred that there is reason which prompted deceased to commit suicide--Once demand of dowry is ruled out offence under Section 304-A not made out--Death had taken place with in 7 years--Husband could not make his wife adjust and understand that life before marriage is not going to make difference and he had buried his past--Section 113-A of Evidence Act cause presumption that deceased was subjected to cruelty--Therefore, offence under Section 306 IPC alone made out against husband--Conviction of husband for offence under Section 304-B set aside--However, husband found guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to 5 years R.I.; Mohinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 863
S.307 r/w S.34--Attempt to murder--Delay in FIR--Acquittal--Occurrence had taken place on 10.5.1994 at 11.30 P.M.--Case registered at 6.05 P.M. on 11.5.1994--FIR recorded after 18 hours of incident--As per FIR one arm of injured was caught hold by appellant and other arm by his son who was acquitted giving benefit of doubt--Other son of appellant who caused injury died against whom substantive charge for offence under Section 307 was framed--Appellant caused no injury in occurrence--He was only stated to have raised lalkara--Taking delay into consideration and fact that witness improved their version in Court benefit of doubt is granted to appellant--Appellant acquitted.; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 855
S.323--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 304, Part I, r/w 34--Culpable homicide--Sudden fight--Fight had take place regarding possession over land left by river--Occurrence was result of without any pre-mediation on spur of moment--Finding of trial court that two appellants shared common intention and knowledge with other accused who gave fatal blow to deceased liable to set aside--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal--Conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part I r/w 34 set aside--They are held liable for their individual act which fall under Section 323.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.354 and 306--Abetment to Suicide--Outrage modesty of a woman--Conviction--Wife of complainant committed suicide by consuming poison due to attempt made by accused to outrage her modesty--Accused and complainant (husband of deceased) and PW-4 are collaterals--Taking benefit of fact that complainant had gone to mourn death of mother of another collateral accused went to their house and outrage modesty of deceased--Relations between parties were cordial--Complainant disclosed the incident to PW-4 next door neighbourer next morning--Complainant did not told any thing to anybody on next day on cremation--When he returned from cremation his wife had consumed poison--Contention that complainant did not gave information immediately to anybody cannot be used to brush aside his testimony--Conduct of complainant natural, probable and convicting--Conviction upheld--However, taking into consideration that accused suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for 13 years sentence awarded reduced from 4 years to 3 year R.I.; Sukhdev Singh alias Sewa v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 867
S.406, 498-A & 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Compromise--Allegations in FIR arising out of matrimonial dispute which is purely personal in nature--Matter compromised amicable between parties--Parties happily staying together in separate rented house--FIR under Section 406, 498-A and 506 quashed in interest of justice--2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FB) 2225 relied.; Sunil Kumar Joshi & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 841
S.420, 406, 323, 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.156(3)--Cheating--FIR--Cancellation Report--Complaint--Order was placed for purchase of chemicals and solvents from accused--Complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to respondent no.4 and he in turn signed a demand promissory note by way of security confirmation and acknowledgment of liability and repayment guarantee--Dispute is civil in nature--Merely because material was not supplied per se would not indicate commission of offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust--Complaint dismissed.; J.C. Khanna v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 840
S.498-A, 406 and 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Demand of dowry--Marriage of complainant was solemnized 3-4 years before lodging FIR--Complainant has a daughter aged 2 years--FIR recites that complainant has been living in her parental home and accused have not accepted her in matrimonial home since birth of daughter--FIR does not disclose entrustment of property to either of petitioners specifically or dishonest misappropriation of the property--No specific allegations made in regard to commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC--Cognizance of commission of offence is not spelt out from FIR or from averments made in reply filed on behalf of investigating agency as against petitioners--FIR qua petitioners quashed.; Mohinder Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 805
Friday, June 18, 2010
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
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
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
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
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
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
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
S.279 and 304-A--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.401--Motor Accident--Rash and Negligent Driving--Acquittal--Eye witnesses--Alleged witnesses, brother of deceased and Panch neither accompanied injured to hospital or had gone to report matter to Police Station--Ruqa sent by doctor recorded that unknown injured was brought by driver of offending bus--Sequence of events clearly established that no body witnessed occurrence--No other cogent independent evidence to prove that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner--Accused acquitted.; Zora Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 610
S.279 and 304-A--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.401--Rash and Negligent Driving--Conviction--Eye witnesses--FIR--Delay--No explanation as to why alleged eyewitnesses did not report matter to police on same day--Delay of more than 15 hours in recording FIR remained unexplained casts a shadow of doubt on prosecution version--Prosecution failed to prove charge against petitioner, driver of offending bus--Petitioner deserves benefit of reasonable doubt and is acquitted.; Zora Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 610
S.279/304-A--Motor Accident--Rash and negligent driving--Acquittal--Death of 1½ years child--Court to examine whether parents of child had acted like prudent person and had taken care of child--Parents had not taken care of their child--Accused acquitted.; Keshav v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 614
S.279/304-A--Motor Accident--Rash and negligent driving--Acquittal--Death of 1½ years child who came below front tyre of bus--Parents of child were standing on side of road were exchanging pleasantries (joking remarks) with their uncle--Mother was carrying a Gathri on her head and a hen was lying on ground--Child could not be restrained and she moved towards road--Moreover, neither draftsman nor photographer examined--Court unable to decide whether accident took place on side of road or in middle of road--Witnesses not deposed that driver was driving vehicle rashly or negligently--Thus, it can be safely inferred that parents had not taken care of their child aged 1½ years--In totality of these circumstances, it will not be safe to upheld conviction of petitioner--Petitioner granted benefit of doubt and acquitted of charges.; Keshav v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 614
S.302, 307 r/w S.34--Murder--Acquittal--Appeal against--Occurrence took place on 1.7.1996 at 4 p.m.--FIR registered at 5.45 p.m.--Special report sent to Illaqa Magistrate after 4 hours of occurrence--Delay in registration of FIR and sending special report to Illaqa Magistrate is fatal to prosecution case--Accused acquitted.; Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Mohan Lal & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 624
S.302, 364-A, 120-B and 201--Murder--Kidnapping for ransom and murder--Death sentence--Deceased was the only son on his parents and incident of his kidnapping had sent a shock wave throughout the town -Not a case of murder simpliciter but the accused persons have also been held guilty under Section 364-A IPC which was brought in statute book in order to curb the menace of kidnapping for ransom and even independent of penal provisions of Section 302 IPC--No iota of evidence to show enmity between parties, therefore, this is a case of cold blooded murder committed only in order to extract a heavy ransom of Rs.50,00,000/- which is evident from evidence of (PW27) father of the deceased that every time, while calling on phones, the kidnapper gave him threats that if he wanted his son to be alive, he should immediately arrange for ransom amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. It appears as the police became active, the accused could not extract the ransom and out of panic, poisoned the boy to death by administering heavy dozes of chloroform and fortwin--No interference to the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court against the A-1 and A-2--Sentence of A3 converted from death sentence to life imprisonment.; Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 561 (SC)
S.302. 307 r/w S.34--Murder--Appeal against--Acquittal--Husband killing wife alongwith brother by strangulation with rope--Number of persons were present at scene of occurrence but no one rescued deceased from clutches of accused--No independent witness examined despite availability--Withholding of eye witnesses from examination creates doubt about prosecution story when weapon of crime i.e. rope put around neck of deceased not recovered--Identify of deceased was declared unknown when brought to hospital--Absence of injury marks on body parts where they should have been under facts and circumstances sufficient ground to disbelieve and discard prosecution story--Deliberate improvements made by witnesses while stepping into witness box so as to confirm prosecution version--Said concocted version has left marks of doubt and probabilities--No interference in order of acquittal. ; Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Mohan Lal & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 624
S.306--Abetment to suicide--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Death of wife due to 100% burns--Circumstances considered while reducing sentence to already undergone i.e. one year are:-
(i) Marriage of appellant at time of occurrence was 20 years old. He was having three children of 14, 12 and 8 years of age at time of occurrence and family of deceased was dependent upon appellant.
(ii) Mother and two brothers of the deceased deposed in favour of the appellant.
(iii) Two sons and one daughter and their family would suffer from a scar in case appellant is sent behind bars.
(iv) Appellant has suffered a protracted trial of 15 years.; Rajeshwar v. State of Haryana; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 603
S.306--Abetment to Suicide--Dying declaration--Conviction--Death of wife due to 100% deep burns--Allegation of illicit relations by wife against husband in 20 years old marriage--Fact recorded in dying declaration that deceased used to beat his wife daily and on day of occurrence also thrashed her cannot be ignored--Giving beating was immediate cause which led deceased to commit suicide--Thus appellant was rightly convicted.; Rajeshwar v. State of Haryana; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 603
S.307, 324 r/w S.34--Attempt to murder--Conviction--Ocular version put forward by eye witnesses duly corroborated by medical evidence--FSL report supports ocular account that shot was fired from 12 bore DBBL gun--Lodging of FIR prompt--Case proved beyond reasonable doubt--Conviction upheld--However keeping in view facts and circumstances period of sentence already undergone would meet end of justice.; Chhota Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 623
S.307, 324, 323, 148 and 149--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Attempt to murder--Quashing of FIR--On basis of compromise--Parties decided to live in peace--No useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue--FIR qua petitioner quashed.; Baljinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 618
S.364-A, 302, 120-B & 201--Kidnapping for ransom--Murder--Death sentence--Parliament in dealing with kidnapping for ransom a crime which called for a deterrent punishment, even in a case where the kidnapping had not resulted in the death of the victim--The statistics further reveal that kidnapping for ransom has become a lucrative and thriving industry all over the country which must be dealt with, in the harshest possible manner and an obligation rests on Courts as well--Courts to lend a helping hand in that direction--Not only was victim kidnapped for ransom which acts which would by itself attract the death penalty but he was murdered in the process--Death sentence could be awarded even in a case of kidnapping and murder based on circumstantial evidence.; Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 561 (SC)
S.417--Forgery--Impersonation--Acquittal--Sale deed--Original owners who were allegedly impersonated not examined by prosecution--No efforts made to summon these witnesses--They could be said to be material witnesses to prove that they never executed sale deed in respect of property in dispute--No evidence produced to prove that photo impressions of photographs on copies of sale deeds were not of original owners--No effort made to get compared questioned thumb impressions of alleged vendors on copies of sale deeds with standard or specimen thumb impressions of original owners--Statement of witnesses that original owners were not living in village and their whereabouts were not known could not be said to be sufficient to prove that they did not execute sale deed--They were not attesting witnesses of sale deeds--Their evidence of no avail to prove that original owners were impersonated-Court below wrong in coming to conclusion that it was duty of accused to produce original owners--Findings, that accused committed offence u/s 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B without any evidence liable to be set aside.; Budh Ram v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 631
S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Criminal trespass--Quashing of FIR--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant having lost up to Supreme Court on civil side is abusing process of law and Court by filing FIR so as to defeat vested civil rights of petitioners--Earlier FIR against predecessor-in-interest of petitioner on similar allegations of taking forcible possession of Land culminated in acquittal of all accused persons--Continuance of proceeding would be abuse of process of Court--FIR quashed. ; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577
S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577;
S.467, 468, 419, 420 & 109--Forgery--Acquittal--Offence of forgery can only be committed in relation to original documents and not with respect to copies thereof--Case of prosecution that ‘D’ impersonated co-owner and got sale executed deed in her favour--Original sale deeds admittedly in respect where forgery was allegedly committed did not see light of day at any point of time during trial of the case--Only copies thereof were produced on record--No explanation as to why original sale deeds were not recovered from vendees during course of investigation--In absence of production of original document no offences under Section 467, 468, 419, 420 and 109 were committed by accused--No legally admissible evidence on basis whereof conviction could be recorded--Petitioners acquitted.; Budh Ram v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 631
S.279 and 304-A--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.401--Rash and Negligent Driving--Conviction--Eye witnesses--FIR--Delay--No explanation as to why alleged eyewitnesses did not report matter to police on same day--Delay of more than 15 hours in recording FIR remained unexplained casts a shadow of doubt on prosecution version--Prosecution failed to prove charge against petitioner, driver of offending bus--Petitioner deserves benefit of reasonable doubt and is acquitted.; Zora Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 610
S.279/304-A--Motor Accident--Rash and negligent driving--Acquittal--Death of 1½ years child--Court to examine whether parents of child had acted like prudent person and had taken care of child--Parents had not taken care of their child--Accused acquitted.; Keshav v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 614
S.279/304-A--Motor Accident--Rash and negligent driving--Acquittal--Death of 1½ years child who came below front tyre of bus--Parents of child were standing on side of road were exchanging pleasantries (joking remarks) with their uncle--Mother was carrying a Gathri on her head and a hen was lying on ground--Child could not be restrained and she moved towards road--Moreover, neither draftsman nor photographer examined--Court unable to decide whether accident took place on side of road or in middle of road--Witnesses not deposed that driver was driving vehicle rashly or negligently--Thus, it can be safely inferred that parents had not taken care of their child aged 1½ years--In totality of these circumstances, it will not be safe to upheld conviction of petitioner--Petitioner granted benefit of doubt and acquitted of charges.; Keshav v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 614
S.302, 307 r/w S.34--Murder--Acquittal--Appeal against--Occurrence took place on 1.7.1996 at 4 p.m.--FIR registered at 5.45 p.m.--Special report sent to Illaqa Magistrate after 4 hours of occurrence--Delay in registration of FIR and sending special report to Illaqa Magistrate is fatal to prosecution case--Accused acquitted.; Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Mohan Lal & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 624
S.302, 364-A, 120-B and 201--Murder--Kidnapping for ransom and murder--Death sentence--Deceased was the only son on his parents and incident of his kidnapping had sent a shock wave throughout the town -Not a case of murder simpliciter but the accused persons have also been held guilty under Section 364-A IPC which was brought in statute book in order to curb the menace of kidnapping for ransom and even independent of penal provisions of Section 302 IPC--No iota of evidence to show enmity between parties, therefore, this is a case of cold blooded murder committed only in order to extract a heavy ransom of Rs.50,00,000/- which is evident from evidence of (PW27) father of the deceased that every time, while calling on phones, the kidnapper gave him threats that if he wanted his son to be alive, he should immediately arrange for ransom amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. It appears as the police became active, the accused could not extract the ransom and out of panic, poisoned the boy to death by administering heavy dozes of chloroform and fortwin--No interference to the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court against the A-1 and A-2--Sentence of A3 converted from death sentence to life imprisonment.; Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 561 (SC)
S.302. 307 r/w S.34--Murder--Appeal against--Acquittal--Husband killing wife alongwith brother by strangulation with rope--Number of persons were present at scene of occurrence but no one rescued deceased from clutches of accused--No independent witness examined despite availability--Withholding of eye witnesses from examination creates doubt about prosecution story when weapon of crime i.e. rope put around neck of deceased not recovered--Identify of deceased was declared unknown when brought to hospital--Absence of injury marks on body parts where they should have been under facts and circumstances sufficient ground to disbelieve and discard prosecution story--Deliberate improvements made by witnesses while stepping into witness box so as to confirm prosecution version--Said concocted version has left marks of doubt and probabilities--No interference in order of acquittal. ; Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Mohan Lal & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 624
S.306--Abetment to suicide--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Death of wife due to 100% burns--Circumstances considered while reducing sentence to already undergone i.e. one year are:-
(i) Marriage of appellant at time of occurrence was 20 years old. He was having three children of 14, 12 and 8 years of age at time of occurrence and family of deceased was dependent upon appellant.
(ii) Mother and two brothers of the deceased deposed in favour of the appellant.
(iii) Two sons and one daughter and their family would suffer from a scar in case appellant is sent behind bars.
(iv) Appellant has suffered a protracted trial of 15 years.; Rajeshwar v. State of Haryana; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 603
S.306--Abetment to Suicide--Dying declaration--Conviction--Death of wife due to 100% deep burns--Allegation of illicit relations by wife against husband in 20 years old marriage--Fact recorded in dying declaration that deceased used to beat his wife daily and on day of occurrence also thrashed her cannot be ignored--Giving beating was immediate cause which led deceased to commit suicide--Thus appellant was rightly convicted.; Rajeshwar v. State of Haryana; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 603
S.307, 324 r/w S.34--Attempt to murder--Conviction--Ocular version put forward by eye witnesses duly corroborated by medical evidence--FSL report supports ocular account that shot was fired from 12 bore DBBL gun--Lodging of FIR prompt--Case proved beyond reasonable doubt--Conviction upheld--However keeping in view facts and circumstances period of sentence already undergone would meet end of justice.; Chhota Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 623
S.307, 324, 323, 148 and 149--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Attempt to murder--Quashing of FIR--On basis of compromise--Parties decided to live in peace--No useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue--FIR qua petitioner quashed.; Baljinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 618
S.364-A, 302, 120-B & 201--Kidnapping for ransom--Murder--Death sentence--Parliament in dealing with kidnapping for ransom a crime which called for a deterrent punishment, even in a case where the kidnapping had not resulted in the death of the victim--The statistics further reveal that kidnapping for ransom has become a lucrative and thriving industry all over the country which must be dealt with, in the harshest possible manner and an obligation rests on Courts as well--Courts to lend a helping hand in that direction--Not only was victim kidnapped for ransom which acts which would by itself attract the death penalty but he was murdered in the process--Death sentence could be awarded even in a case of kidnapping and murder based on circumstantial evidence.; Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 561 (SC)
S.417--Forgery--Impersonation--Acquittal--Sale deed--Original owners who were allegedly impersonated not examined by prosecution--No efforts made to summon these witnesses--They could be said to be material witnesses to prove that they never executed sale deed in respect of property in dispute--No evidence produced to prove that photo impressions of photographs on copies of sale deeds were not of original owners--No effort made to get compared questioned thumb impressions of alleged vendors on copies of sale deeds with standard or specimen thumb impressions of original owners--Statement of witnesses that original owners were not living in village and their whereabouts were not known could not be said to be sufficient to prove that they did not execute sale deed--They were not attesting witnesses of sale deeds--Their evidence of no avail to prove that original owners were impersonated-Court below wrong in coming to conclusion that it was duty of accused to produce original owners--Findings, that accused committed offence u/s 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B without any evidence liable to be set aside.; Budh Ram v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 631
S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Criminal trespass--Quashing of FIR--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant having lost up to Supreme Court on civil side is abusing process of law and Court by filing FIR so as to defeat vested civil rights of petitioners--Earlier FIR against predecessor-in-interest of petitioner on similar allegations of taking forcible possession of Land culminated in acquittal of all accused persons--Continuance of proceeding would be abuse of process of Court--FIR quashed. ; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577
S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577;
S.467, 468, 419, 420 & 109--Forgery--Acquittal--Offence of forgery can only be committed in relation to original documents and not with respect to copies thereof--Case of prosecution that ‘D’ impersonated co-owner and got sale executed deed in her favour--Original sale deeds admittedly in respect where forgery was allegedly committed did not see light of day at any point of time during trial of the case--Only copies thereof were produced on record--No explanation as to why original sale deeds were not recovered from vendees during course of investigation--In absence of production of original document no offences under Section 467, 468, 419, 420 and 109 were committed by accused--No legally admissible evidence on basis whereof conviction could be recorded--Petitioners acquitted.; Budh Ram v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 631
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Kidnapping for ransom and murder--All three accused-appellant committed offence of murder in a pre-planned manner by using scientific methods--Soon after kidnapping, deceased was reduced to a corpus with the help of chemicals and he was done to death in inhuman, diabolical and dastardly manner--Sentence converted from death sentence to life imprisonment.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (SC) 561
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1396-1397 of 2008
Vikram Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 25/01/2010}
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Mr. Jaspal Singh, Sr. Advocates, Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Mr. Prem Malhotra, Mr. A.K. Singh, Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Mr. Sanchit Guru, Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Mr. Vipin Gogia, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Kidnapping for ransom and murder--All three accused-appellant committed offence of murder in a pre-planned manner by using scientific methods--Soon after kidnapping, deceased was reduced to a corpus with the help of chemicals and he was done to death in inhuman, diabolical and dastardly manner--Sentence converted from death sentence to life imprisonment.
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 302, 364-A, 120-B and 201--Murder--Kidnapping for ransom and murder--Death sentence--Deceased was the only son on his parents and incident of his kidnapping had sent a shock wave throughout the town -Not a case of murder simpliciter but the accused persons have also been held guilty under Section 364-A IPC which was brought in statute book in order to curb the menace of kidnapping for ransom and even independent of penal provisions of Section 302 IPC--No iota of evidence to show enmity between parties, therefore, this is a case of cold blooded murder committed only in order to extract a heavy ransom of Rs.50,00,000/- which is evident from evidence of (PW27) father of the deceased that every time, while calling on phones, the kidnapper gave him threats that if he wanted his son to be alive, he should immediately arrange for ransom amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. It appears as the police became active, the accused could not extract the ransom and out of panic, poisoned the boy to death by administering heavy dozes of chloroform and fortwin--No interference to the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court against the A-1 and A-2--Sentence of A3 converted from death sentence to life imprisonment. (P. 25)
On facts :
Murder--Kidnapping for ransom and murder--Death sentence--A case that involves kidnapping of a school going innocent boy for ransom--Accused had raised a demand of Rs.50,00,000/- from father of the deceased boy who was an established jeweller- All three accused-appellant committed offence of murder in a pre-planned manner by using scientific methods--Murder of the deceased was committed by administering chloroform and fortwin injections in heavy dozes after tying his both hands and legs and putting a tape on his mouth--Soon after kidnapping, deceased was reduced to a corpus with the help of chemicals and he was done to death in inhuman, diabolical and dastardly manner- Deceased was the only son on his parents and incident of his kidnapping had sent a shock wave throughout the town --Not a case of murder simplicitor but the accused persons have also been held guilty under Section 364-A IPC which was brought in statute book in order to curb the menace of kidnapping for ransom--Sessions Court convicted and sentenced all the accused to death for kidnapping a young child and subsequently been done to death--High Court confirmed the death sentence of the accused/appellants--Appeal--Presence of PW-13 and PW-19 found natural at the places they professed to be, thus, cannot be dubbed as chance witnesses--Medical Board opined that the cause of death was chloroform and pentazocine poisoning--Recoveries showed that almost the entire bottle of Chloroform (500 ml.) and all five Fortwin injections been used by the kidnappers and that this lethal combination of Chloroform and an over dose of pentazocine was the cause of death--Wife of A-2 attempted to destroy the evidence relating to the kidnapping when she had been apprehended--No interference to the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court against the A-1 and A-2--Sentence of A3 converted from death sentence to life imprisonment-- Appeal dismissed. (Para 25 to 30)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 364-A, 302, 120-B, 201--Murder--Kidnapping for ransom--Death sentence--Parliament in dealing with kidnapping for ransom a crime which called for a deterrent punishment, even in a case where the kidnapping had not resulted in the death of the victim--The statistics further reveal that kidnapping for ransom has become a lucrative and thriving industry all over the country which must be dealt with, in the harshest possible manner and an obligation rests on Courts as well--Courts to lend a helping hand in that direction--Not only was victim kidnapped for ransom which acts which would by itself attract the death penalty but he was murdered in the process--Death sentence could be awarded even in a case of kidnapping and murder based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 26)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1396-1397 of 2008
Vikram Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 25/01/2010}
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Mr. Jaspal Singh, Sr. Advocates, Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Mr. Prem Malhotra, Mr. A.K. Singh, Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Mr. Sanchit Guru, Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Mr. Vipin Gogia, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Kidnapping for ransom and murder--All three accused-appellant committed offence of murder in a pre-planned manner by using scientific methods--Soon after kidnapping, deceased was reduced to a corpus with the help of chemicals and he was done to death in inhuman, diabolical and dastardly manner--Sentence converted from death sentence to life imprisonment.
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 302, 364-A, 120-B and 201--Murder--Kidnapping for ransom and murder--Death sentence--Deceased was the only son on his parents and incident of his kidnapping had sent a shock wave throughout the town -Not a case of murder simpliciter but the accused persons have also been held guilty under Section 364-A IPC which was brought in statute book in order to curb the menace of kidnapping for ransom and even independent of penal provisions of Section 302 IPC--No iota of evidence to show enmity between parties, therefore, this is a case of cold blooded murder committed only in order to extract a heavy ransom of Rs.50,00,000/- which is evident from evidence of (PW27) father of the deceased that every time, while calling on phones, the kidnapper gave him threats that if he wanted his son to be alive, he should immediately arrange for ransom amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. It appears as the police became active, the accused could not extract the ransom and out of panic, poisoned the boy to death by administering heavy dozes of chloroform and fortwin--No interference to the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court against the A-1 and A-2--Sentence of A3 converted from death sentence to life imprisonment. (P. 25)
On facts :
Murder--Kidnapping for ransom and murder--Death sentence--A case that involves kidnapping of a school going innocent boy for ransom--Accused had raised a demand of Rs.50,00,000/- from father of the deceased boy who was an established jeweller- All three accused-appellant committed offence of murder in a pre-planned manner by using scientific methods--Murder of the deceased was committed by administering chloroform and fortwin injections in heavy dozes after tying his both hands and legs and putting a tape on his mouth--Soon after kidnapping, deceased was reduced to a corpus with the help of chemicals and he was done to death in inhuman, diabolical and dastardly manner- Deceased was the only son on his parents and incident of his kidnapping had sent a shock wave throughout the town --Not a case of murder simplicitor but the accused persons have also been held guilty under Section 364-A IPC which was brought in statute book in order to curb the menace of kidnapping for ransom--Sessions Court convicted and sentenced all the accused to death for kidnapping a young child and subsequently been done to death--High Court confirmed the death sentence of the accused/appellants--Appeal--Presence of PW-13 and PW-19 found natural at the places they professed to be, thus, cannot be dubbed as chance witnesses--Medical Board opined that the cause of death was chloroform and pentazocine poisoning--Recoveries showed that almost the entire bottle of Chloroform (500 ml.) and all five Fortwin injections been used by the kidnappers and that this lethal combination of Chloroform and an over dose of pentazocine was the cause of death--Wife of A-2 attempted to destroy the evidence relating to the kidnapping when she had been apprehended--No interference to the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court against the A-1 and A-2--Sentence of A3 converted from death sentence to life imprisonment-- Appeal dismissed. (Para 25 to 30)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 364-A, 302, 120-B, 201--Murder--Kidnapping for ransom--Death sentence--Parliament in dealing with kidnapping for ransom a crime which called for a deterrent punishment, even in a case where the kidnapping had not resulted in the death of the victim--The statistics further reveal that kidnapping for ransom has become a lucrative and thriving industry all over the country which must be dealt with, in the harshest possible manner and an obligation rests on Courts as well--Courts to lend a helping hand in that direction--Not only was victim kidnapped for ransom which acts which would by itself attract the death penalty but he was murdered in the process--Death sentence could be awarded even in a case of kidnapping and murder based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 26)
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
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
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
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Murder--Solitary eye-witness
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 105 (SC)
IN THR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2006
Jaswinder Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 19/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Ms. Anu Mehta, Mr. Rubinder Pal Ghumman, Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kuldip Singh, Mr. R.K. Pandey, Mr. H.S. Sandhu, Advocates.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 r/w S.34--Murder--Solitary eye-witness--PW-1 as also the complainant, is the person who opened the door so as to enable both the accused persons to enter the house at the time when the incident took place. He himself took both of them to the room where deceased was watching television with the complainant just before the occurrence--He had seen accused firing a shot with his pistol on the head of deceased while the other young man wearing a patka was catching hold of the deceased and saying that he (the deceased) should not be spared that day--Evidence of the solitary eye-witness also supported by the medical evidence and, therefore, there is no reason as to why such evidence should not be held to be trustworthy and reliable--PW-1 is the lone eye-witness of the crime who had seen the actual occurrence of the incident. He vividly described the whole occurrence that has occurred inside the room--No reason to disbelieve him--No dispute with regard to the identity of the accused - appellant--Appeal dismissed. (P.17 to 20)
------------
IN THR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2006
Jaswinder Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 19/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Ms. Anu Mehta, Mr. Rubinder Pal Ghumman, Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kuldip Singh, Mr. R.K. Pandey, Mr. H.S. Sandhu, Advocates.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 r/w S.34--Murder--Solitary eye-witness--PW-1 as also the complainant, is the person who opened the door so as to enable both the accused persons to enter the house at the time when the incident took place. He himself took both of them to the room where deceased was watching television with the complainant just before the occurrence--He had seen accused firing a shot with his pistol on the head of deceased while the other young man wearing a patka was catching hold of the deceased and saying that he (the deceased) should not be spared that day--Evidence of the solitary eye-witness also supported by the medical evidence and, therefore, there is no reason as to why such evidence should not be held to be trustworthy and reliable--PW-1 is the lone eye-witness of the crime who had seen the actual occurrence of the incident. He vividly described the whole occurrence that has occurred inside the room--No reason to disbelieve him--No dispute with regard to the identity of the accused - appellant--Appeal dismissed. (P.17 to 20)
------------
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Dying declaration--If one or other quarter managed to hold back written opinion of Doctor from Court it cannot affect genuineness or correctness of dying declaration
- 2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 462
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh
Criminal Appeal No.719-DB of 2001 & Criminal Appeal No.426-DB of 2007
Amrik Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 27/01/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. PS Sullar, Advocate.
For the Respondent State: Mr. SS Patter, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINT
Dying declaration--If one or other quarter managed to hold back written opinion of Doctor from Court it cannot affect genuineness or correctness of dying declaration.
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300--Exception I, 304, Part II, 302 r/w S.34--Murder--Culpable homicide not amounting to murder--Accused a habitual daily drinker alongwith his companion after drinking demanded more money from his daughter for purchasing more liquor and on her refusal they got enraged and in that state caused her death by putting her on fire--Held, that they would be guilty of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in view of exception 1 to Section 300--Conviction modified from Section 302 r/w 34 to Section 304 Part II IPC--It is evident that father of deceased also suffered burn injuries on his hands while trying to save her--Co-accused is presently aged about 75 years--Sentence reduced to period already undergone by them. (P.20 & 21)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 r/w 34--Evidence Act, 1872, S.32--Murder--Conviction--Dying declaration--Correctness of--I.O. deposed that opinion of doctor regarding fitness of deceased was obtained and doctor declared her fit to make statement--Learned CJM/duty Magistrate specifically recorded that deceased was declared fit to make statement--Further doctor deposed that condition of deceased was serious but she was conscious and well oriented at time of her admission--Nothing to show that within an hour her condition had deteriorated to such an extent rendering her unfit to make brief statement regarding manner of commission of offence before Duty Magistrate--Learned trial Court rightly held that if one or other quarter managed to hold back written opinion of Doctor from Court it cannot affect genuineness or correctness of dying declaration. (P.9)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 r/w S.34--Murder--Eye witness--Conviction--Accused, habitual daily drinker with his companion after drinking demanded more money from his daughter for purchasing more liquor and on her refusal they got enraged and in that state caused death setting her on fire--Apart from dying declaration of deceased even testimony of eyewitness, whose presence is natural at relevant time was consistent and fully reliable--Both accused rightly held guilty--Conviction upheld. (P.17, 18 & 19)
(D) Evidence Act, 1872, S.32--Dying Declaration--If one or other quarter managed to hold back written opinion of Doctor from Court it cannot affect genuineness or correctness of dying declaration.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh
Criminal Appeal No.719-DB of 2001 & Criminal Appeal No.426-DB of 2007
Amrik Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 27/01/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. PS Sullar, Advocate.
For the Respondent State: Mr. SS Patter, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINT
Dying declaration--If one or other quarter managed to hold back written opinion of Doctor from Court it cannot affect genuineness or correctness of dying declaration.
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300--Exception I, 304, Part II, 302 r/w S.34--Murder--Culpable homicide not amounting to murder--Accused a habitual daily drinker alongwith his companion after drinking demanded more money from his daughter for purchasing more liquor and on her refusal they got enraged and in that state caused her death by putting her on fire--Held, that they would be guilty of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in view of exception 1 to Section 300--Conviction modified from Section 302 r/w 34 to Section 304 Part II IPC--It is evident that father of deceased also suffered burn injuries on his hands while trying to save her--Co-accused is presently aged about 75 years--Sentence reduced to period already undergone by them. (P.20 & 21)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 r/w 34--Evidence Act, 1872, S.32--Murder--Conviction--Dying declaration--Correctness of--I.O. deposed that opinion of doctor regarding fitness of deceased was obtained and doctor declared her fit to make statement--Learned CJM/duty Magistrate specifically recorded that deceased was declared fit to make statement--Further doctor deposed that condition of deceased was serious but she was conscious and well oriented at time of her admission--Nothing to show that within an hour her condition had deteriorated to such an extent rendering her unfit to make brief statement regarding manner of commission of offence before Duty Magistrate--Learned trial Court rightly held that if one or other quarter managed to hold back written opinion of Doctor from Court it cannot affect genuineness or correctness of dying declaration. (P.9)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 r/w S.34--Murder--Eye witness--Conviction--Accused, habitual daily drinker with his companion after drinking demanded more money from his daughter for purchasing more liquor and on her refusal they got enraged and in that state caused death setting her on fire--Apart from dying declaration of deceased even testimony of eyewitness, whose presence is natural at relevant time was consistent and fully reliable--Both accused rightly held guilty--Conviction upheld. (P.17, 18 & 19)
(D) Evidence Act, 1872, S.32--Dying Declaration--If one or other quarter managed to hold back written opinion of Doctor from Court it cannot affect genuineness or correctness of dying declaration.
Dowry Death--Harassment for dowry--Conviction--Suspension of sentence of imprisonment during pendency of appeal
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.63357 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.2523-SB of 2008
Naresh Kumar & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 01/02/2010}
For the Applicant-appellant No.4-Bhateri Devi: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Pawan Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, 498-A and 201 r/w 34--Dowry Death--Harassment for dowry--Conviction--Suspension of sentence of imprisonment during pendency of appeal--Applicant-appellant no.4 undergone imprisonment of one year, four months and 19 days--Hearing of appeal likely to take time--Sentence of imprisonment of appellant no.2, husband of applicant-appellant no.4 suspended by order dated 20.8.2009 who was in custody for 10 months--Sentence of imprisonment of appellant no.3 was suspended by order dated 8.5.2009--Appellant no.1, husband of deceased is in custody--Appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in near future--In circumstances, sentence of imprisonment during pendency of appeal shall remain suspended. (P. 6 & 7)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.63357 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.2523-SB of 2008
Naresh Kumar & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 01/02/2010}
For the Applicant-appellant No.4-Bhateri Devi: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Pawan Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, 498-A and 201 r/w 34--Dowry Death--Harassment for dowry--Conviction--Suspension of sentence of imprisonment during pendency of appeal--Applicant-appellant no.4 undergone imprisonment of one year, four months and 19 days--Hearing of appeal likely to take time--Sentence of imprisonment of appellant no.2, husband of applicant-appellant no.4 suspended by order dated 20.8.2009 who was in custody for 10 months--Sentence of imprisonment of appellant no.3 was suspended by order dated 8.5.2009--Appellant no.1, husband of deceased is in custody--Appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in near future--In circumstances, sentence of imprisonment during pendency of appeal shall remain suspended. (P. 6 & 7)
Grevious Hurt--Attempt to murder--Two shot fired at injured which hit his right thigh
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mehtab S.Gill
Criminal Appeal No.472-SB of 1999
Nirbhai Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 22/01/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. H.S.Sangha, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.S.Gill, Additional A.G. Punjab.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.338--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307--Arms Act, S. 27--Grevious Hurt--Attempt to murder--Two shot fired at injured which hit his right thigh--Occurrence had taken place near house of complainant party--Medical evidence corroborates ocular account--Statements of eyewitness corroborate statement of injured--Dispute of trivial nature--Parties not having previous enmity and everything happend at spur of moment--Appellants rightly held guilty under Section 338 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act--They have been rightly acquitted of charge under Section 307 IPC--In interest of justice, sentence of appellants modified to extent already under gone by them. (P.5 & 7)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mehtab S.Gill
Criminal Appeal No.472-SB of 1999
Nirbhai Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 22/01/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. H.S.Sangha, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.S.Gill, Additional A.G. Punjab.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.338--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307--Arms Act, S. 27--Grevious Hurt--Attempt to murder--Two shot fired at injured which hit his right thigh--Occurrence had taken place near house of complainant party--Medical evidence corroborates ocular account--Statements of eyewitness corroborate statement of injured--Dispute of trivial nature--Parties not having previous enmity and everything happend at spur of moment--Appellants rightly held guilty under Section 338 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act--They have been rightly acquitted of charge under Section 307 IPC--In interest of justice, sentence of appellants modified to extent already under gone by them. (P.5 & 7)
Grevious Hurt--Conviction--Ocular version given by complainant and injured witness duly corroborated by medical evidence
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 427
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan
Criminal Appeal No.187-DB of 2001 & Criminal Appeal No.339-DBA of 2002
Nirmal Singh & Anr.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 15/01/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. J.S.Verka, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Addl. Advocate General Punjab.
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, 326, 324, 323 r/w S.34--Murder--Grevious Hurt--Conviction--Ocular version given by complainant and injured witness duly corroborated by medical evidence--Further, respective kirpans recovered in pursuance of disclosure statement suffered by appellants--Testimony of injured eye witness that deceased died a result of fatal blows at the hands of appellant no.1 corroborates medical evidence--Occurrence taken place on 20.10.1993 at 5.00 p.m.--Statement of complainant recorded and completed on 7.15 p.m.--Witnesses supported version given before Police--No contradictions in statements of eye witnesses--Accused party was aggressors having entered fields of complainant for committing said gruesome act--Thus, appellant no.1 was rightly convicted and sentenced by learned Trial Court. (P.22, 24 & 31)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, 326, 324, 323 r/w S.34--Murder--Grievous hurt--Conviction--No injury by appellant no.2 on person of deceased on any vital part of body except a kirpan blow on right leg of deceased which as per post mortem report of deceased was not cause of his death--Said injury admittedly was on non vital part of body--Further, admittedly no blow injury was inflicted by appellant no.2 either on injured or on the deceased twice which thus evidently shows lack of his sharing common intention with his other co-accused so as to attract penal provisions of Section 34 IPC--Injuries inflicted by appellant on vital parts of body of deceased as well as injured not being dangerous to life at the best falls within ambit of Section 326--In view of facts appellant no. 2 did not share common intention to kill with other co-accused--Occurrence related to year 1993--It would be appropriate to convict appellant no.2 for his individual act--Conviction of appellant no.2 recorded under S.302/324/323 IPC set aside--Conviction Section 326 IPC upheld--Sentence of five years under Section 326 reduced to three years. (P.32)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan
Criminal Appeal No.187-DB of 2001 & Criminal Appeal No.339-DBA of 2002
Nirmal Singh & Anr.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 15/01/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. J.S.Verka, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Addl. Advocate General Punjab.
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, 326, 324, 323 r/w S.34--Murder--Grevious Hurt--Conviction--Ocular version given by complainant and injured witness duly corroborated by medical evidence--Further, respective kirpans recovered in pursuance of disclosure statement suffered by appellants--Testimony of injured eye witness that deceased died a result of fatal blows at the hands of appellant no.1 corroborates medical evidence--Occurrence taken place on 20.10.1993 at 5.00 p.m.--Statement of complainant recorded and completed on 7.15 p.m.--Witnesses supported version given before Police--No contradictions in statements of eye witnesses--Accused party was aggressors having entered fields of complainant for committing said gruesome act--Thus, appellant no.1 was rightly convicted and sentenced by learned Trial Court. (P.22, 24 & 31)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, 326, 324, 323 r/w S.34--Murder--Grievous hurt--Conviction--No injury by appellant no.2 on person of deceased on any vital part of body except a kirpan blow on right leg of deceased which as per post mortem report of deceased was not cause of his death--Said injury admittedly was on non vital part of body--Further, admittedly no blow injury was inflicted by appellant no.2 either on injured or on the deceased twice which thus evidently shows lack of his sharing common intention with his other co-accused so as to attract penal provisions of Section 34 IPC--Injuries inflicted by appellant on vital parts of body of deceased as well as injured not being dangerous to life at the best falls within ambit of Section 326--In view of facts appellant no. 2 did not share common intention to kill with other co-accused--Occurrence related to year 1993--It would be appropriate to convict appellant no.2 for his individual act--Conviction of appellant no.2 recorded under S.302/324/323 IPC set aside--Conviction Section 326 IPC upheld--Sentence of five years under Section 326 reduced to three years. (P.32)
Murder--Acquittal--Eye-witness
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 422
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh
Criminal Appeal No.504-DB of 2001
Jaibir and Anr.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 13/01/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate.
For the Respondent State: Mr. S.S. Patter, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 r/w S.34--Murder--Acquittal--Eye-witness--It cannot be believed that a 21 year young son, a serving armed personnel along with 25 years old cousin would do nothing to intervene during and after occurrence and would rather run away from spot to hide themselves in their house--Conduct of two eye witnesses, son and nephew of deceased during and after occurrence raises serious doubt about their presence at time of occurrence rendering prosecution case doubtful--Accused ran away after inflicting injuries in a span of minutes--No reason given which prevented eye witnesses from taking any action during entire night reporting matter to police in morning--Inspite of eye witness account of complainant naming accused appellants, the circumstance of summoning “Dog Squad” further goes to make prosecution version highly doubtful--Witnesses to recoveries of weapons of offence and clothes of both accused are none else than relations of complainant party--In fact, deceased alongwith two other was convicted for murder of father of accused persons--No doubt motive could be attributed to accused but at same time it cannot be lost sight of that it is a double edged weapon and hence on same premise false implication of accused cannot be ruled out--Story put forth by eye witness highly unreliable and doubtful as their eye witness account stood shattered and cannot be made basis of upholding finding of conviction.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh
Criminal Appeal No.504-DB of 2001
Jaibir and Anr.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 13/01/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate.
For the Respondent State: Mr. S.S. Patter, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 r/w S.34--Murder--Acquittal--Eye-witness--It cannot be believed that a 21 year young son, a serving armed personnel along with 25 years old cousin would do nothing to intervene during and after occurrence and would rather run away from spot to hide themselves in their house--Conduct of two eye witnesses, son and nephew of deceased during and after occurrence raises serious doubt about their presence at time of occurrence rendering prosecution case doubtful--Accused ran away after inflicting injuries in a span of minutes--No reason given which prevented eye witnesses from taking any action during entire night reporting matter to police in morning--Inspite of eye witness account of complainant naming accused appellants, the circumstance of summoning “Dog Squad” further goes to make prosecution version highly doubtful--Witnesses to recoveries of weapons of offence and clothes of both accused are none else than relations of complainant party--In fact, deceased alongwith two other was convicted for murder of father of accused persons--No doubt motive could be attributed to accused but at same time it cannot be lost sight of that it is a double edged weapon and hence on same premise false implication of accused cannot be ruled out--Story put forth by eye witness highly unreliable and doubtful as their eye witness account stood shattered and cannot be made basis of upholding finding of conviction.
Dowry Death--Non production of wedding card in itself is no basis to assume that no wedding card was printed or the marriage was simple
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Appeal No. 798-SB of 1997
Shankar Lal
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 18/01/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. K.L.Suneja, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINT
Dowry Death--Non production of wedding card in itself is no basis to assume that no wedding card was printed or the marriage was simple--Conduct of accused to take deceased to hospital in itself will not rule out she that was not harassed and demand of scooter was not raised by appellant.
Demand of dowry--Harassment--Proof--Fact that marriage was recent and parental house of deceased was situated nearby sufficient to reject contention that no letter or document was produced to prove harassment.
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B--Dowry Death--Demand of dowry--Harassment--Death of deceased with 90% burns--At the time of occurrence marriage of deceased with appellant was 5½ months old--Deceased died in house of appellant and her death was in circumstances other than normal--Non production of wedding card in itself is no basis to assume that no wedding card was printed or the marriage was simple--Smell of kerosene was present on body of deceased --Conduct of accused to take deceased to hospital in itself will not rule out she that was not harassed and demand of scooter was not raised by appellant.
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B--Dowry death--Demand of dowry--Harassment--Proof--Fact that marriage was recent and parental house of deceased was situated nearby sufficient to reject contention that no letter or document was produced to prove harassment.
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B--Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000--Dowry death--Demand of dowry--Harassment--Age of accused--An enquiry regarding age of appellant not undertaken--Age of appellant at time of occurrence was given as 16 years--In judgment and statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in 1997 his age was recorded as 18 years--Order of sentence is kept in abeyance--Appellant be summoned by competent juvenile Justice Board who shall hold an enquiry whether on date of occurrence appellant was juvenile or not--In case he is not found juvenile order of sentence came into force--Otherwise Juvenile Justice Board shall pass orders regarding sentence in accordance with 2000 Act.
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B--Evidence Act, 1872, S.113--Dowry Death--Demand of dowry--Harassment--Appellant was demanding scooter and dowry proved--Demand was raised soon before death of deceased--Presumption under Section 113 B of Evidence Act is already against appellant--All ingredients of offence under Section 304-B are made out against appellant--Conviction upheld.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Appeal No. 798-SB of 1997
Shankar Lal
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 18/01/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. K.L.Suneja, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINT
Dowry Death--Non production of wedding card in itself is no basis to assume that no wedding card was printed or the marriage was simple--Conduct of accused to take deceased to hospital in itself will not rule out she that was not harassed and demand of scooter was not raised by appellant.
Demand of dowry--Harassment--Proof--Fact that marriage was recent and parental house of deceased was situated nearby sufficient to reject contention that no letter or document was produced to prove harassment.
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B--Dowry Death--Demand of dowry--Harassment--Death of deceased with 90% burns--At the time of occurrence marriage of deceased with appellant was 5½ months old--Deceased died in house of appellant and her death was in circumstances other than normal--Non production of wedding card in itself is no basis to assume that no wedding card was printed or the marriage was simple--Smell of kerosene was present on body of deceased --Conduct of accused to take deceased to hospital in itself will not rule out she that was not harassed and demand of scooter was not raised by appellant.
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B--Dowry death--Demand of dowry--Harassment--Proof--Fact that marriage was recent and parental house of deceased was situated nearby sufficient to reject contention that no letter or document was produced to prove harassment.
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B--Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000--Dowry death--Demand of dowry--Harassment--Age of accused--An enquiry regarding age of appellant not undertaken--Age of appellant at time of occurrence was given as 16 years--In judgment and statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in 1997 his age was recorded as 18 years--Order of sentence is kept in abeyance--Appellant be summoned by competent juvenile Justice Board who shall hold an enquiry whether on date of occurrence appellant was juvenile or not--In case he is not found juvenile order of sentence came into force--Otherwise Juvenile Justice Board shall pass orders regarding sentence in accordance with 2000 Act.
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B--Evidence Act, 1872, S.113--Dowry Death--Demand of dowry--Harassment--Appellant was demanding scooter and dowry proved--Demand was raised soon before death of deceased--Presumption under Section 113 B of Evidence Act is already against appellant--All ingredients of offence under Section 304-B are made out against appellant--Conviction upheld.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Pre-arrest bail--Cow Slaughtering case
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 264
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-32901 of 2008
Avtar Singh and Anr.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 14/01/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.K. Agnihotri, Advocate.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.295 and 120-B--Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, S.3, 4-A, 4-B r/w 8--Pre-arrest bail--Cow Slaughtering case--FIR registered on statement of complainant that they have received secret information that petitioner after slaughtering cows in go-down selling beef in U.P. and Delhi--Challan is filed--Custody of petitioners not required for investigation--Fact that trucks have not been recovered was matter to be considered before challan is filed--Interim bail made absolute. (P.7)
--------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-32901 of 2008
Avtar Singh and Anr.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 14/01/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.K. Agnihotri, Advocate.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.295 and 120-B--Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, S.3, 4-A, 4-B r/w 8--Pre-arrest bail--Cow Slaughtering case--FIR registered on statement of complainant that they have received secret information that petitioner after slaughtering cows in go-down selling beef in U.P. and Delhi--Challan is filed--Custody of petitioners not required for investigation--Fact that trucks have not been recovered was matter to be considered before challan is filed--Interim bail made absolute. (P.7)
--------------
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Police atrocities
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (SC) 250
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar
The Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma
Criminal Appeal Nos. 125-126 of 2003
Indresh Kumar
v.
Ram Phal
{Decided on 06/01/2010}
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Navin Chawla, Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Manjit Singh (for Kamal Mohan Gupta), Mr. K.C. Rajput (for M/s. I.M. Nanavati Associates), Advocates.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 218, 323 and 342--Public servant--Voluntary causing hurt and wrongful confinement--Police atrocities--Case has a long history as well as political overtones--Illegal detention of appellant's father by the police--Appellant was beaten up by the respondent with other 6 accused and a false case u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. was registered against him--A Fracture was found on appellant's left foot--On demonstrations by a political party about the alleged police atrocities, the District and Sessions Judge, was appointed as the inquiry officer---Respondent No. 1 with other 6 co-accused were found guilty of offences--Trial Court acquitted 6 accused persons while convicted respondent No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 218 and 342, IPC--High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent and acquitted him of all the charges--Revision filed against the acquittal of other co-accused also dismissed--Appeal--High Court ought to have given some reasons regarding the acquittal of those six persons before dismissing the criminal revision--High Court had not taken into consideration any of the evidences of prosecution witnesses--Once it is found that the High Court had not taken into consideration any of vital pieces of evidence, difficult to uphold the order of the High Court--Impugned judgment of the High Court, set aside--Matter remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration--Appeal allowed. (P.12 to 15)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar
The Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma
Criminal Appeal Nos. 125-126 of 2003
Indresh Kumar
v.
Ram Phal
{Decided on 06/01/2010}
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Navin Chawla, Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Manjit Singh (for Kamal Mohan Gupta), Mr. K.C. Rajput (for M/s. I.M. Nanavati Associates), Advocates.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 218, 323 and 342--Public servant--Voluntary causing hurt and wrongful confinement--Police atrocities--Case has a long history as well as political overtones--Illegal detention of appellant's father by the police--Appellant was beaten up by the respondent with other 6 accused and a false case u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. was registered against him--A Fracture was found on appellant's left foot--On demonstrations by a political party about the alleged police atrocities, the District and Sessions Judge, was appointed as the inquiry officer---Respondent No. 1 with other 6 co-accused were found guilty of offences--Trial Court acquitted 6 accused persons while convicted respondent No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 218 and 342, IPC--High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent and acquitted him of all the charges--Revision filed against the acquittal of other co-accused also dismissed--Appeal--High Court ought to have given some reasons regarding the acquittal of those six persons before dismissing the criminal revision--High Court had not taken into consideration any of the evidences of prosecution witnesses--Once it is found that the High Court had not taken into consideration any of vital pieces of evidence, difficult to uphold the order of the High Court--Impugned judgment of the High Court, set aside--Matter remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration--Appeal allowed. (P.12 to 15)
Not possible for person to commit sexual intercourse in park without her consent--Shows that she eloped with accused of her own free will--Acquittal upheld
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 228 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Garewal
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh
Crl. Misc.No. 394-MA of 2003
State of Haryana
v.
Shashi Kant alias Bam Bam alias Lambu
{Decided on 24/08/2009}
For the appellant-State: Mrs. Navin Malik, Addl. AG Haryana.
For the Respondent: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.378(3)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.363 and 375--Rape--Acquittal--Age of prosecutrix could be between 16½ and 17½ on date of alleged first occurrence--Prosecutrix was known to accused--Both of them moved freely in public transport before being intercepted and she never made any grievance to anyone--Parents did not lodge complaint for 6 days particularly when there was suspicion that prosecutrix was allured by respondent--Also, it is not possible for person to commit sexual intercourse in park without her consent--Shows that she eloped with accused of her own free will--Acquittal upheld. (P.7 & 8)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Garewal
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh
Crl. Misc.No. 394-MA of 2003
State of Haryana
v.
Shashi Kant alias Bam Bam alias Lambu
{Decided on 24/08/2009}
For the appellant-State: Mrs. Navin Malik, Addl. AG Haryana.
For the Respondent: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.378(3)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.363 and 375--Rape--Acquittal--Age of prosecutrix could be between 16½ and 17½ on date of alleged first occurrence--Prosecutrix was known to accused--Both of them moved freely in public transport before being intercepted and she never made any grievance to anyone--Parents did not lodge complaint for 6 days particularly when there was suspicion that prosecutrix was allured by respondent--Also, it is not possible for person to commit sexual intercourse in park without her consent--Shows that she eloped with accused of her own free will--Acquittal upheld. (P.7 & 8)
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Murder--Acquittal--Appellant gave knife blow on the left side of chest of victim
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 171 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam
The Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Criminal Appeal Nos. 133-134 of 2009
Hari Kishan
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 06/01/2010}
For the Appellant : Mr. J.L. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Nidhi Gupta, Ms. S. Janani, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Alok Sangwan, Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Mr. Lokinder Singh, Mr. Rishad Choudhary Advocates.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 and 323--Arms Act, Section 25--Murder--Acquittal--Appellant gave knife blow on the left side of chest of victim-Death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury no. 1 which was ante-mortem in nature-conviction of the appellant solely on the testimony of PW-2 whose credibility as an eye-witness based on the assumption that he had received injuries in the same occurrence in which victim was killed--Trial Court convicted and sentenced appellant to imprisonment for life and further convicted 3 co-accused under Section 323 for causing simple injuries to PW-2 and victim’s uncle but acquitted 2 co-accused on doubt of their presence with appellant--High Court affirmed the orders of the trial Court--Appeal--According to the medical evidence, injuries on PW-2 were caused on the evening previous to the morning of June 24, when victim was killed in the alleged occurrence--Highly unsafe to uphold and sustain the appellant’s conviction for the offence of murder--Judgments of the High Court and trial Court, set aside.
ON FACTS;
In the face of the medical evidence and the admitted position that an incident between the two sides had taken place on the evening of June 23, 1995 it is difficult to accept that the injuries found on the person of Harkesh were received by him in the morning of June 24. From this, either of two inferences would logically follow. One, Harkesh was not present at the occurrence in which Dinesh was killed in the morning of June 24; or the other, the occurrence in which Dinesh was killed did not take place in the morning of June 24 and he was not killed in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. Both the inferences are equally damaging to the prosecution case.
Substantial part of the prosecution story has been disbelieved and the conviction of the appellant rests solely on the testimony of Harkesh (PW-2) who does not seem to have particular respect for truth as observed by the trial court. His credibility as an eye witness lay only in that the trial court and the High Court assumed that he had received injuries in the same occurrence in which Dinesh was killed. As shown above that assumption does not appear to be very sound and is not borne out by the evidences on record. In such a situation, we find it highly unsafe to uphold and sustain the appellant’s conviction for the offence of murder. (Paras 26 , 29 & 30)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam
The Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Criminal Appeal Nos. 133-134 of 2009
Hari Kishan
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 06/01/2010}
For the Appellant : Mr. J.L. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Nidhi Gupta, Ms. S. Janani, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Alok Sangwan, Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Mr. Lokinder Singh, Mr. Rishad Choudhary Advocates.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 and 323--Arms Act, Section 25--Murder--Acquittal--Appellant gave knife blow on the left side of chest of victim-Death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury no. 1 which was ante-mortem in nature-conviction of the appellant solely on the testimony of PW-2 whose credibility as an eye-witness based on the assumption that he had received injuries in the same occurrence in which victim was killed--Trial Court convicted and sentenced appellant to imprisonment for life and further convicted 3 co-accused under Section 323 for causing simple injuries to PW-2 and victim’s uncle but acquitted 2 co-accused on doubt of their presence with appellant--High Court affirmed the orders of the trial Court--Appeal--According to the medical evidence, injuries on PW-2 were caused on the evening previous to the morning of June 24, when victim was killed in the alleged occurrence--Highly unsafe to uphold and sustain the appellant’s conviction for the offence of murder--Judgments of the High Court and trial Court, set aside.
ON FACTS;
In the face of the medical evidence and the admitted position that an incident between the two sides had taken place on the evening of June 23, 1995 it is difficult to accept that the injuries found on the person of Harkesh were received by him in the morning of June 24. From this, either of two inferences would logically follow. One, Harkesh was not present at the occurrence in which Dinesh was killed in the morning of June 24; or the other, the occurrence in which Dinesh was killed did not take place in the morning of June 24 and he was not killed in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. Both the inferences are equally damaging to the prosecution case.
Substantial part of the prosecution story has been disbelieved and the conviction of the appellant rests solely on the testimony of Harkesh (PW-2) who does not seem to have particular respect for truth as observed by the trial court. His credibility as an eye witness lay only in that the trial court and the High Court assumed that he had received injuries in the same occurrence in which Dinesh was killed. As shown above that assumption does not appear to be very sound and is not borne out by the evidences on record. In such a situation, we find it highly unsafe to uphold and sustain the appellant’s conviction for the offence of murder. (Paras 26 , 29 & 30)
Friday, March 5, 2010
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 4 (SC)
IN THR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2006
Jaswinder Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 19/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Ms. Anu Mehta, Mr. Rubinder Pal Ghumman, Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kuldip Singh, Mr. R.K. Pandey, Mr. H.S. Sandhu, Advocates.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.320 r/w S.34--Murder--Solitary eye-witness--PW-1 as also the complainant, is the person who opened the door so as to enable both the accused persons to enter the house at the time when the incident took place. He himself took both of them to the room where deceased was watching television with the complainant just before the occurrence--He had seen accused firing a shot with his pistol on the head of deceased while the other young man wearing a patka was catching hold of the deceased and saying that he (the deceased) should not be spared that day--Evidence of the solitary eye-witness also supported by the medical evidence and, therefore, there is no reason as to why such evidence should not be held to be trustworthy and reliable--PW-1 is the lone eye-witness of the crime who had seen the actual occurrence of the incident. He vividly described the whole occurrence that has occurred inside the room--No reason to disbelieve him--No dispute with regard to the identity of the accused - appellant--Appeal dismissed. (P.17 to 20)
------------
IN THR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2006
Jaswinder Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 19/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Ms. Anu Mehta, Mr. Rubinder Pal Ghumman, Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kuldip Singh, Mr. R.K. Pandey, Mr. H.S. Sandhu, Advocates.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.320 r/w S.34--Murder--Solitary eye-witness--PW-1 as also the complainant, is the person who opened the door so as to enable both the accused persons to enter the house at the time when the incident took place. He himself took both of them to the room where deceased was watching television with the complainant just before the occurrence--He had seen accused firing a shot with his pistol on the head of deceased while the other young man wearing a patka was catching hold of the deceased and saying that he (the deceased) should not be spared that day--Evidence of the solitary eye-witness also supported by the medical evidence and, therefore, there is no reason as to why such evidence should not be held to be trustworthy and reliable--PW-1 is the lone eye-witness of the crime who had seen the actual occurrence of the incident. He vividly described the whole occurrence that has occurred inside the room--No reason to disbelieve him--No dispute with regard to the identity of the accused - appellant--Appeal dismissed. (P.17 to 20)
------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)