Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Ababala Parusamdu Alias Pada Kapu Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided On : Apr-08-1975
Court : Supreme Court of India
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ababala Parusamdu Alias Pada Kapu Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 2', (int) 1 => 'Section 302', (int) 2 => 'Section 309', (int) 3 => 'Section 302', (int) 4 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 5 => 'Section 309' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'N.L. Untwalia', (int) 1 => 'Veeramma', (int) 2 => 'P.W. 2 Mamidala Annapurna', (int) 3 => 'Veeramma', (int) 4 => 'Bhimavaram', (int) 5 => 'Ram Jag v. State' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'P.Ws', (int) 2 => 'P.Ws', (int) 3 => 'P.Ws', (int) 4 => 'P.Ws' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction', (int) 1 => 'the Public Prosecutor', (int) 2 => 'the High Court of Andhra Pradesh', (int) 3 => 'The High Court', (int) 4 => 'the house of P.W. 1 Palivala Maremma', (int) 5 => 'Gopalarao', (int) 6 => 'First Information Report', (int) 7 => 'the Police Station by P.W. 1', (int) 8 => 'P.W. 2', (int) 9 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 10 => 'Magistrate', (int) 11 => 'the Additional Munsif of Eluru', (int) 12 => 'Ext.', (int) 13 => 'P-9', (int) 14 => 'Learned Sessions', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'The High Court', (int) 17 => 'Court', (int) 18 => 'the Judgment of the trial', (int) 19 => 'the High Court', (int) 20 => 'P.W. 5', (int) 21 => 'Government', (int) 22 => 'the High Court', (int) 23 => 'The High Court', (int) 24 => 'the Committing Court', (int) 25 => 'the High Court', (int) 26 => 'The High Court', (int) 27 => 'U.P.', (int) 28 => 'the High Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1970', (int) 1 => 'one year's', (int) 2 => 'about 22 years', (int) 3 => 'the 29th May, 1969', (int) 4 => '23 years of age', (int) 5 => 'About a week', (int) 6 => '7', (int) 7 => '7', (int) 8 => '8' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '3.', (int) 2 => 't6', (int) 3 => 'one', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => '7.30', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => '5', (int) 8 => 'two', (int) 9 => '1', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => '3', (int) 12 => '8', (int) 13 => '6.', (int) 14 => '1', (int) 15 => '1', (int) 16 => '3', (int) 17 => 'two', (int) 18 => '9', (int) 19 => '610', (int) 20 => '1974CriLJ479' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Nala', (int) 1 => 'F.I.R.', (int) 2 => 'Eluru' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'the evening', (int) 1 => 'the following morning', (int) 2 => 'half an hour', (int) 3 => '12.40 noon' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 1 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 2 => 'P.W. 18', (int) 3 => 'P.W. 2', (int) 4 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 5 => 'P.W. 1' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '642464', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302 and 309', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1971', 'appellant' => 'Ababala Parusamdu Alias Pada Kapu', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ababala Parusamdu Alias Pada Kapu Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh', 'casenote' => 'Criminal - Murder - Sections 302 and 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellant gave one knife blow on the chest of deceased and then stabbed himself in the chest twice with the same dagger - He was charged for offence under Section 302 for offence of committing murder of X and for offence under Section 309 for attempting to commit suicide - He was acquitted by Session Judge but High Court convicted him for aforesaid charges - Hence, present appeal - Appellant contended that deceased committed suicide - FIR lodged within half hour of the occurrence and it gave entire description of the event with material particulars - Medical evidence proved that death of deceased was homicidal and not suicidal - There was motive for appellant to commit crime - Injury inflicted by appellant was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death - Held, no reason to interfere with conviction of appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 309 - Appeal dismissed. - Section 37 :[D.K.Jain & R.M.Lodha,JJ] Nature and scope- Scope of power of High Court to grant bail under Effect of non obstante clause - Conditions and limitations for grant of bail - Reasonable grounds- Held, While dealing with the bail application the High Court appears to have lost sight of the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act thus the order is clearly unsustainable. The broad principles which should weigh with the court in granting bail in a non-bailable offence have been enumerated in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. When a prosecution/conviction is for offence(s) under a special statute and that statute contains specific provisions for dealing with matters arising thereunder, these provisions cannot be ignored while dealing with such an application. The respondent has been convicted and sentenced for the offences under The NDPS Act and therefore, while dealing with his application for grant of bail, in addition to the broad principles to be applied in prosecution for the offences under the Penal Code, 1860 the relevant provision in the said special statute in this regard had to be kept in view. It is plain from a bare reading of the non obstante clause in Section 37 of the NDPS Act and sub-section (2) thereof that the power to grant bail to a person accused of having committed offence under the NDPS Act is not only subject to the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but also subject to the restrictions placed by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Apart from giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for such release, the other twin conditions viz. (i) the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty, has to be based on reasonable grounds. The expression reasonable grounds in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) has not been defined in the said Act but means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with. The reasonable belief contemplated in turn, points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects, noted above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the NDPS Act. While considering an application for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. At this stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether of not the accused has committed offence under the NDPS Act. What is to be seen is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence(s) he is charged with and further that he is not likely to commit an offence under the said Act while on bail. The satisfaction of the court about the existence of the said twin conditions is for a limited purpose and is confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail. It is evident that the circumstances which have weighed with the High Court to conclude that it was a fit case for grant of bail are: (i) that nothing has been found from the possession of the respondent; (ii) he is in jail for the last three years, and (iii) that there is no chance of his appeal being heard within a period of seven years. These circumstances may be relevant for grant of bail in matters arising out of conviction under the Penal Code, 1860, etc. but are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements as stipulated in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. Merely because nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, it could not be said that the respondent was not guilty of the offences for which he had been charged and convicted. The impugned order having been passed ignoring the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, cannot be sustained. Hence, the matter remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the bail application keeping in view the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The bail application shall be taken up for consideration only after the respondent surrenders to custody. Sections 37(1)(b) & 27-A & 29 :[D.K.Jain & R.M.Lodha,JJ] Grant of Bail Grounds for and matters to be considered Respondent charged with financing and trading in 14.900 kilograms of heroin - Sentenced to 10 years RI and fined Rs 1 lakh - High Court allowing bail application, citing reasons that nothing was found from respondents possession, he had been in jail since past three years and no chance of his appeal being heard within seven-year period - Held, These circumstances are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 37(1)(b). Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration of the application. Bail application to be considered only after respondent surrendered to custody. Sections 37(1)(b) & 27-A & 29 :[D.K.Jain & R.M.Lodha,JJ] Grant of Bail Grounds for and matters to be considered Respondent charged with financing and trading in 14.900 kilograms of heroin - Sentenced to 10 years RI and fined Rs 1 lakh - High Court allowing bail application, citing reasons that nothing was found from respondents possession, he had been in jail since past three years and no chance of his appeal being heard within seven-year period - Held, These circumstances are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 37(1)(b). Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration of the application. Bail application to be considered only after respondent surrendered to custody. - 1 was not keeping good health, her evidence that she went to the tank in the company of her daughter was believable and her previous statements in the Committing Court did hot show that on the date of occurrence she was not in a position to move. 2, if she stood up, could have very well seen the occurrence although she was on the last step of the tank and the occurrence took place on the platform. 1 above was reliable in that regard. The High Court was well within the limit of its power as enunciated in paragraph 9 at page 610 in the case of Ram Jag v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Ram Jag v. State of U.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' P. Basi Reddy, Sr. Adv. G.N. Rao and; K.Narayana Rao, Advs', 'counseldef' => ' P. Ram Reddy, ; P. P. Rao, Advs. ', 'court' => 'Supreme Court of India', 'court_type' => 'SC', 'decidedon' => '1975-04-08', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' N.L. Untwalia and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">N.L. Untwalia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellant in this appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act of 1970 was acquitted by the Sessions Judge of the charges of having committed the murder of his mistress Veeramma and of having attempted to commit suicide. On appeal by the Public Prosecutor the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has convicted the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section 309 of the Code and awarded a concurrent sentence of one year's simple imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case is a simple one and in our opinion there was no scope for entertaining any doubt in regard to the prosecution version of the occurrence. The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Judge was not only wrong but perverse. The High Court has rightly convicted the appellant. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the occurrence which took place on the 29th May, 1969, at about 7 O'clock in the morning. The appellant was then 23 years of age. Though the deceased was a married woman, she had left her husband and was living as the mistress of the appellant in a hut provided to her by him. The appellant seems to be a man of sexually loose morals. Though he got married, still he continued his illicit connections with the deceased girl. He later developed an intimacy with a Nala woman which was resented by the deceased. About a week before the occurrence the deceased left the residence of the appellant and went back to her parents. In the evening of the day prior to the occurrence the appellant went to the house of P.W. 1 Palivala Maremma - mother of the deceased and told her (deceased) that she should not remain in the village when she had left residing with him and threatened her that if she continued to remain in the village, he would stab her. On the following morning at about 7 A. M. the deceased and her mother went to fetch fresh water from a tank near a temple close-by. P.W. 2 Mamidala Annapurna who also lived close-by was at the tank for cleaning her vessels. The appellant pounced upon the deceased after lumping over the compound wall of the temple, pulled a dagger from the sheath tied t6 his waist and gave a blow on the chest of the deceased. Veeramma fell down and died instantaneously. Thereafter the appellant stabbed himself twice in the chest with the same dagger and rushed towards the road with the dagger in his hand. After going for some distance, he fell down near the house of one Gopalarao. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station by P.W. 1 at 7.30 A. M. within half an hour of the occurrence which was witnessed by P.W. 2 also. All the material particulars of the prosecution story were given in the F.I.R. The appellant for treatment of his injuries was eventually sent to the hospital at Eluru where P.W. 13 the Medical Officer examined his two injuries. Not being sure whether the appellant would survive, a memo was sent to the local Magistrate to record the dying declaration of the appellant. It was recorded by the Additional Munsif of Eluru at 12.40 noon. The statement is Ext. P-9. The defence of the appellant throughout starting from his statement in P-9 has been that it was the deceased girl who stabbed him first and thereafter it was not known to him how she got the stab injury. The suggestion seems to be that she committed suicide by giving a dagger blow on the left side of her chest. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Sessions Judge who tried the appellant did not believe the evidence of the two eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2. The corroborative pieces of evidence coming, from the testimony of P.Ws.. 3, 7 and 8 also lost their importance in the trial Court. The High Court has rightly pointed out that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was discarded by the trial Court on flimsy grounds. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We were taken through the Judgment of the trial Judge as also of the High Court. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was read before us in full. We also perused the evidence of P.W. 5 the Medical Officer of the Government hospital. Bhimavaram who performed the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased as also the evidence of P.W. 13 who examined the injuries on the person of the appellant. We are definitely of the view that for the reasons given by the High Court the evidence of P.Ws.. 1 and 2 corroborated as it was by the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 7 and 8 was fully trustworthy. Taking into consideration the nature of the external and internal injuries found on the deceased girl one could safely conclude that it was a case of homicidal death and not suicidal. There is absolutely no suggestion on behalf of the appellant that she was killed by any other person. The stand which was stuck to the end on his behalf was a suggestion of commission of suicide by the deceased. In our opinion it was not so. The High Court has rightly pointed out that although P.W. 1 was not keeping good health, her evidence that she went to the tank in the company of her daughter was believable and her previous statements in the Committing Court did hot show that on the date of occurrence she was not in a position to move. Similarly, it has rightly been observed by the High Court on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 18 the Investigating Officer that P.W. 2, if she stood up, could have very well seen the occurrence although she was on the last step of the tank and the occurrence took place on the platform. Her positive testimony was that she had stood up and seen the occurrence. There was motive for the appellant to stab the deceased. There was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W. 1 on the point of the appellant giving a threat to the girl a day prior to the occurrence. No witness of that incident was available but the evidence of P.W. 1 above was reliable in that regard. Others had come on the scene but after the occurrence. Nobody else was available to be examined who had witnessed the occurrence. In our opinion the prosecution case was proved to the hilt against the appellant. No two views were reasonably possible in the matter. The view taken by the trial Judge was perverse and unsustainable. The High Court was well within the limit of its power as enunciated in paragraph 9 at page 610 in the case of Ram Jag v. State of U.P. : 1974CriLJ479 . It did not transgress the self imposed limitations of the power of the High Court in interfering with an order of acquittal or the scope of an appeal from the judgment of acquittal. The blow given by the appellant on the deceased was, on objective test, found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. There is no escape from the position that the appellant was guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of the girl and under Section 309 for attempting to commit suicide. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => 'From the Judgment and Order dated November 20, 1970 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 1969--', 'pubs' => 'AIR1975SC1100; 1975CriLJ933; (1975)4SCC116', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The State of Andhra Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '642464' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ababala Parusamdu Alias Pada Kapu Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 2', (int) 1 => 'Section 302', (int) 2 => 'Section 309', (int) 3 => 'Section 302', (int) 4 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 5 => 'Section 309' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'N.L. Untwalia', (int) 1 => 'Veeramma', (int) 2 => 'P.W. 2 Mamidala Annapurna', (int) 3 => 'Veeramma', (int) 4 => 'Bhimavaram', (int) 5 => 'Ram Jag v. State' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'P.Ws', (int) 2 => 'P.Ws', (int) 3 => 'P.Ws', (int) 4 => 'P.Ws' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction', (int) 1 => 'the Public Prosecutor', (int) 2 => 'the High Court of Andhra Pradesh', (int) 3 => 'The High Court', (int) 4 => 'the house of P.W. 1 Palivala Maremma', (int) 5 => 'Gopalarao', (int) 6 => 'First Information Report', (int) 7 => 'the Police Station by P.W. 1', (int) 8 => 'P.W. 2', (int) 9 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 10 => 'Magistrate', (int) 11 => 'the Additional Munsif of Eluru', (int) 12 => 'Ext.', (int) 13 => 'P-9', (int) 14 => 'Learned Sessions', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'The High Court', (int) 17 => 'Court', (int) 18 => 'the Judgment of the trial', (int) 19 => 'the High Court', (int) 20 => 'P.W. 5', (int) 21 => 'Government', (int) 22 => 'the High Court', (int) 23 => 'The High Court', (int) 24 => 'the Committing Court', (int) 25 => 'the High Court', (int) 26 => 'The High Court', (int) 27 => 'U.P.', (int) 28 => 'the High Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1970', (int) 1 => 'one year's', (int) 2 => 'about 22 years', (int) 3 => 'the 29th May, 1969', (int) 4 => '23 years of age', (int) 5 => 'About a week', (int) 6 => '7', (int) 7 => '7', (int) 8 => '8' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '3.', (int) 2 => 't6', (int) 3 => 'one', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => '7.30', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => '5', (int) 8 => 'two', (int) 9 => '1', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => '3', (int) 12 => '8', (int) 13 => '6.', (int) 14 => '1', (int) 15 => '1', (int) 16 => '3', (int) 17 => 'two', (int) 18 => '9', (int) 19 => '610', (int) 20 => '1974CriLJ479' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Nala', (int) 1 => 'F.I.R.', (int) 2 => 'Eluru' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'the evening', (int) 1 => 'the following morning', (int) 2 => 'half an hour', (int) 3 => '12.40 noon' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 1 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 2 => 'P.W. 18', (int) 3 => 'P.W. 2', (int) 4 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 5 => 'P.W. 1' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '642464', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302 and 309', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1971', 'appellant' => 'Ababala Parusamdu Alias Pada Kapu', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ababala Parusamdu Alias Pada Kapu Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh', 'casenote' => 'Criminal - Murder - Sections 302 and 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellant gave one knife blow on the chest of deceased and then stabbed himself in the chest twice with the same dagger - He was charged for offence under Section 302 for offence of committing murder of X and for offence under Section 309 for attempting to commit suicide - He was acquitted by Session Judge but High Court convicted him for aforesaid charges - Hence, present appeal - Appellant contended that deceased committed suicide - FIR lodged within half hour of the occurrence and it gave entire description of the event with material particulars - Medical evidence proved that death of deceased was homicidal and not suicidal - There was motive for appellant to commit crime - Injury inflicted by appellant was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death - Held, no reason to interfere with conviction of appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 309 - Appeal dismissed. - Section 37 :[D.K.Jain & R.M.Lodha,JJ] Nature and scope- Scope of power of High Court to grant bail under Effect of non obstante clause - Conditions and limitations for grant of bail - Reasonable grounds- Held, While dealing with the bail application the High Court appears to have lost sight of the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act thus the order is clearly unsustainable. The broad principles which should weigh with the court in granting bail in a non-bailable offence have been enumerated in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. When a prosecution/conviction is for offence(s) under a special statute and that statute contains specific provisions for dealing with matters arising thereunder, these provisions cannot be ignored while dealing with such an application. The respondent has been convicted and sentenced for the offences under The NDPS Act and therefore, while dealing with his application for grant of bail, in addition to the broad principles to be applied in prosecution for the offences under the Penal Code, 1860 the relevant provision in the said special statute in this regard had to be kept in view. It is plain from a bare reading of the non obstante clause in Section 37 of the NDPS Act and sub-section (2) thereof that the power to grant bail to a person accused of having committed offence under the NDPS Act is not only subject to the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but also subject to the restrictions placed by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Apart from giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for such release, the other twin conditions viz. (i) the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty, has to be based on reasonable grounds. The expression reasonable grounds in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) has not been defined in the said Act but means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with. The reasonable belief contemplated in turn, points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects, noted above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the NDPS Act. While considering an application for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. At this stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether of not the accused has committed offence under the NDPS Act. What is to be seen is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence(s) he is charged with and further that he is not likely to commit an offence under the said Act while on bail. The satisfaction of the court about the existence of the said twin conditions is for a limited purpose and is confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail. It is evident that the circumstances which have weighed with the High Court to conclude that it was a fit case for grant of bail are: (i) that nothing has been found from the possession of the respondent; (ii) he is in jail for the last three years, and (iii) that there is no chance of his appeal being heard within a period of seven years. These circumstances may be relevant for grant of bail in matters arising out of conviction under the Penal Code, 1860, etc. but are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements as stipulated in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. Merely because nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, it could not be said that the respondent was not guilty of the offences for which he had been charged and convicted. The impugned order having been passed ignoring the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, cannot be sustained. Hence, the matter remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the bail application keeping in view the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The bail application shall be taken up for consideration only after the respondent surrenders to custody. Sections 37(1)(b) & 27-A & 29 :[D.K.Jain & R.M.Lodha,JJ] Grant of Bail Grounds for and matters to be considered Respondent charged with financing and trading in 14.900 kilograms of heroin - Sentenced to 10 years RI and fined Rs 1 lakh - High Court allowing bail application, citing reasons that nothing was found from respondents possession, he had been in jail since past three years and no chance of his appeal being heard within seven-year period - Held, These circumstances are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 37(1)(b). Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration of the application. Bail application to be considered only after respondent surrendered to custody. Sections 37(1)(b) & 27-A & 29 :[D.K.Jain & R.M.Lodha,JJ] Grant of Bail Grounds for and matters to be considered Respondent charged with financing and trading in 14.900 kilograms of heroin - Sentenced to 10 years RI and fined Rs 1 lakh - High Court allowing bail application, citing reasons that nothing was found from respondents possession, he had been in jail since past three years and no chance of his appeal being heard within seven-year period - Held, These circumstances are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 37(1)(b). Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration of the application. Bail application to be considered only after respondent surrendered to custody. - 1 was not keeping good health, her evidence that she went to the tank in the company of her daughter was believable and her previous statements in the Committing Court did hot show that on the date of occurrence she was not in a position to move. 2, if she stood up, could have very well seen the occurrence although she was on the last step of the tank and the occurrence took place on the platform. 1 above was reliable in that regard. The High Court was well within the limit of its power as enunciated in paragraph 9 at page 610 in the case of Ram Jag v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Ram Jag v. State of U.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' P. Basi Reddy, Sr. Adv. G.N. Rao and; K.Narayana Rao, Advs', 'counseldef' => ' P. Ram Reddy, ; P. P. Rao, Advs. ', 'court' => 'Supreme Court of India', 'court_type' => 'SC', 'decidedon' => '1975-04-08', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' N.L. Untwalia and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">N.L. Untwalia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellant in this appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act of 1970 was acquitted by the Sessions Judge of the charges of having committed the murder of his mistress Veeramma and of having attempted to commit suicide. On appeal by the Public Prosecutor the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has convicted the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section 309 of the Code and awarded a concurrent sentence of one year's simple imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case is a simple one and in our opinion there was no scope for entertaining any doubt in regard to the prosecution version of the occurrence. The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Judge was not only wrong but perverse. The High Court has rightly convicted the appellant. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the occurrence which took place on the 29th May, 1969, at about 7 O'clock in the morning. The appellant was then 23 years of age. Though the deceased was a married woman, she had left her husband and was living as the mistress of the appellant in a hut provided to her by him. The appellant seems to be a man of sexually loose morals. Though he got married, still he continued his illicit connections with the deceased girl. He later developed an intimacy with a Nala woman which was resented by the deceased. About a week before the occurrence the deceased left the residence of the appellant and went back to her parents. In the evening of the day prior to the occurrence the appellant went to the house of P.W. 1 Palivala Maremma - mother of the deceased and told her (deceased) that she should not remain in the village when she had left residing with him and threatened her that if she continued to remain in the village, he would stab her. On the following morning at about 7 A. M. the deceased and her mother went to fetch fresh water from a tank near a temple close-by. P.W. 2 Mamidala Annapurna who also lived close-by was at the tank for cleaning her vessels. The appellant pounced upon the deceased after lumping over the compound wall of the temple, pulled a dagger from the sheath tied t6 his waist and gave a blow on the chest of the deceased. Veeramma fell down and died instantaneously. Thereafter the appellant stabbed himself twice in the chest with the same dagger and rushed towards the road with the dagger in his hand. After going for some distance, he fell down near the house of one Gopalarao. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station by P.W. 1 at 7.30 A. M. within half an hour of the occurrence which was witnessed by P.W. 2 also. All the material particulars of the prosecution story were given in the F.I.R. The appellant for treatment of his injuries was eventually sent to the hospital at Eluru where P.W. 13 the Medical Officer examined his two injuries. Not being sure whether the appellant would survive, a memo was sent to the local Magistrate to record the dying declaration of the appellant. It was recorded by the Additional Munsif of Eluru at 12.40 noon. The statement is Ext. P-9. The defence of the appellant throughout starting from his statement in P-9 has been that it was the deceased girl who stabbed him first and thereafter it was not known to him how she got the stab injury. The suggestion seems to be that she committed suicide by giving a dagger blow on the left side of her chest. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Sessions Judge who tried the appellant did not believe the evidence of the two eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2. The corroborative pieces of evidence coming, from the testimony of P.Ws.. 3, 7 and 8 also lost their importance in the trial Court. The High Court has rightly pointed out that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was discarded by the trial Court on flimsy grounds. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We were taken through the Judgment of the trial Judge as also of the High Court. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was read before us in full. We also perused the evidence of P.W. 5 the Medical Officer of the Government hospital. Bhimavaram who performed the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased as also the evidence of P.W. 13 who examined the injuries on the person of the appellant. We are definitely of the view that for the reasons given by the High Court the evidence of P.Ws.. 1 and 2 corroborated as it was by the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 7 and 8 was fully trustworthy. Taking into consideration the nature of the external and internal injuries found on the deceased girl one could safely conclude that it was a case of homicidal death and not suicidal. There is absolutely no suggestion on behalf of the appellant that she was killed by any other person. The stand which was stuck to the end on his behalf was a suggestion of commission of suicide by the deceased. In our opinion it was not so. The High Court has rightly pointed out that although P.W. 1 was not keeping good health, her evidence that she went to the tank in the company of her daughter was believable and her previous statements in the Committing Court did hot show that on the date of occurrence she was not in a position to move. Similarly, it has rightly been observed by the High Court on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 18 the Investigating Officer that P.W. 2, if she stood up, could have very well seen the occurrence although she was on the last step of the tank and the occurrence took place on the platform. Her positive testimony was that she had stood up and seen the occurrence. There was motive for the appellant to stab the deceased. There was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W. 1 on the point of the appellant giving a threat to the girl a day prior to the occurrence. No witness of that incident was available but the evidence of P.W. 1 above was reliable in that regard. Others had come on the scene but after the occurrence. Nobody else was available to be examined who had witnessed the occurrence. In our opinion the prosecution case was proved to the hilt against the appellant. No two views were reasonably possible in the matter. The view taken by the trial Judge was perverse and unsustainable. The High Court was well within the limit of its power as enunciated in paragraph 9 at page 610 in the case of Ram Jag v. State of U.P. : 1974CriLJ479 . It did not transgress the self imposed limitations of the power of the High Court in interfering with an order of acquittal or the scope of an appeal from the judgment of acquittal. The blow given by the appellant on the deceased was, on objective test, found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. There is no escape from the position that the appellant was guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of the girl and under Section 309 for attempting to commit suicide. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => 'From the Judgment and Order dated November 20, 1970 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 1969--', 'pubs' => 'AIR1975SC1100; 1975CriLJ933; (1975)4SCC116', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The State of Andhra Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '642464' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ababala Parusamdu Alias Pada Kapu Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 2', (int) 1 => 'Section 302', (int) 2 => 'Section 309', (int) 3 => 'Section 302', (int) 4 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 5 => 'Section 309' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'N.L. Untwalia', (int) 1 => 'Veeramma', (int) 2 => 'P.W. 2 Mamidala Annapurna', (int) 3 => 'Veeramma', (int) 4 => 'Bhimavaram', (int) 5 => 'Ram Jag v. State' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'P.Ws', (int) 2 => 'P.Ws', (int) 3 => 'P.Ws', (int) 4 => 'P.Ws' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction', (int) 1 => 'the Public Prosecutor', (int) 2 => 'the High Court of Andhra Pradesh', (int) 3 => 'The High Court', (int) 4 => 'the house of P.W. 1 Palivala Maremma', (int) 5 => 'Gopalarao', (int) 6 => 'First Information Report', (int) 7 => 'the Police Station by P.W. 1', (int) 8 => 'P.W. 2', (int) 9 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 10 => 'Magistrate', (int) 11 => 'the Additional Munsif of Eluru', (int) 12 => 'Ext.', (int) 13 => 'P-9', (int) 14 => 'Learned Sessions', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'The High Court', (int) 17 => 'Court', (int) 18 => 'the Judgment of the trial', (int) 19 => 'the High Court', (int) 20 => 'P.W. 5', (int) 21 => 'Government', (int) 22 => 'the High Court', (int) 23 => 'The High Court', (int) 24 => 'the Committing Court', (int) 25 => 'the High Court', (int) 26 => 'The High Court', (int) 27 => 'U.P.', (int) 28 => 'the High Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1970', (int) 1 => 'one year's', (int) 2 => 'about 22 years', (int) 3 => 'the 29th May, 1969', (int) 4 => '23 years of age', (int) 5 => 'About a week', (int) 6 => '7', (int) 7 => '7', (int) 8 => '8' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '3.', (int) 2 => 't6', (int) 3 => 'one', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => '7.30', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => '5', (int) 8 => 'two', (int) 9 => '1', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => '3', (int) 12 => '8', (int) 13 => '6.', (int) 14 => '1', (int) 15 => '1', (int) 16 => '3', (int) 17 => 'two', (int) 18 => '9', (int) 19 => '610', (int) 20 => '1974CriLJ479' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Nala', (int) 1 => 'F.I.R.', (int) 2 => 'Eluru' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'the evening', (int) 1 => 'the following morning', (int) 2 => 'half an hour', (int) 3 => '12.40 noon' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 1 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 2 => 'P.W. 18', (int) 3 => 'P.W. 2', (int) 4 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 5 => 'P.W. 1' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '642464', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302 and 309', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1971', 'appellant' => 'Ababala Parusamdu Alias Pada Kapu', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ababala Parusamdu Alias Pada Kapu Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh', 'casenote' => 'Criminal - Murder - Sections 302 and 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellant gave one knife blow on the chest of deceased and then stabbed himself in the chest twice with the same dagger - He was charged for offence under Section 302 for offence of committing murder of X and for offence under Section 309 for attempting to commit suicide - He was acquitted by Session Judge but High Court convicted him for aforesaid charges - Hence, present appeal - Appellant contended that deceased committed suicide - FIR lodged within half hour of the occurrence and it gave entire description of the event with material particulars - Medical evidence proved that death of deceased was homicidal and not suicidal - There was motive for appellant to commit crime - Injury inflicted by appellant was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death - Held, no reason to interfere with conviction of appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 309 - Appeal dismissed. - Section 37 :[D.K.Jain & R.M.Lodha,JJ] Nature and scope- Scope of power of High Court to grant bail under Effect of non obstante clause - Conditions and limitations for grant of bail - Reasonable grounds- Held, While dealing with the bail application the High Court appears to have lost sight of the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act thus the order is clearly unsustainable. The broad principles which should weigh with the court in granting bail in a non-bailable offence have been enumerated in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. When a prosecution/conviction is for offence(s) under a special statute and that statute contains specific provisions for dealing with matters arising thereunder, these provisions cannot be ignored while dealing with such an application. The respondent has been convicted and sentenced for the offences under The NDPS Act and therefore, while dealing with his application for grant of bail, in addition to the broad principles to be applied in prosecution for the offences under the Penal Code, 1860 the relevant provision in the said special statute in this regard had to be kept in view. It is plain from a bare reading of the non obstante clause in Section 37 of the NDPS Act and sub-section (2) thereof that the power to grant bail to a person accused of having committed offence under the NDPS Act is not only subject to the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but also subject to the restrictions placed by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Apart from giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for such release, the other twin conditions viz. (i) the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty, has to be based on reasonable grounds. The expression reasonable grounds in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) has not been defined in the said Act but means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with. The reasonable belief contemplated in turn, points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects, noted above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the NDPS Act. While considering an application for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. At this stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether of not the accused has committed offence under the NDPS Act. What is to be seen is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence(s) he is charged with and further that he is not likely to commit an offence under the said Act while on bail. The satisfaction of the court about the existence of the said twin conditions is for a limited purpose and is confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail. It is evident that the circumstances which have weighed with the High Court to conclude that it was a fit case for grant of bail are: (i) that nothing has been found from the possession of the respondent; (ii) he is in jail for the last three years, and (iii) that there is no chance of his appeal being heard within a period of seven years. These circumstances may be relevant for grant of bail in matters arising out of conviction under the Penal Code, 1860, etc. but are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements as stipulated in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. Merely because nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, it could not be said that the respondent was not guilty of the offences for which he had been charged and convicted. The impugned order having been passed ignoring the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, cannot be sustained. Hence, the matter remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the bail application keeping in view the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The bail application shall be taken up for consideration only after the respondent surrenders to custody. Sections 37(1)(b) & 27-A & 29 :[D.K.Jain & R.M.Lodha,JJ] Grant of Bail Grounds for and matters to be considered Respondent charged with financing and trading in 14.900 kilograms of heroin - Sentenced to 10 years RI and fined Rs 1 lakh - High Court allowing bail application, citing reasons that nothing was found from respondents possession, he had been in jail since past three years and no chance of his appeal being heard within seven-year period - Held, These circumstances are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 37(1)(b). Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration of the application. Bail application to be considered only after respondent surrendered to custody. Sections 37(1)(b) & 27-A & 29 :[D.K.Jain & R.M.Lodha,JJ] Grant of Bail Grounds for and matters to be considered Respondent charged with financing and trading in 14.900 kilograms of heroin - Sentenced to 10 years RI and fined Rs 1 lakh - High Court allowing bail application, citing reasons that nothing was found from respondents possession, he had been in jail since past three years and no chance of his appeal being heard within seven-year period - Held, These circumstances are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 37(1)(b). Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration of the application. Bail application to be considered only after respondent surrendered to custody. - 1 was not keeping good health, her evidence that she went to the tank in the company of her daughter was believable and her previous statements in the Committing Court did hot show that on the date of occurrence she was not in a position to move. 2, if she stood up, could have very well seen the occurrence although she was on the last step of the tank and the occurrence took place on the platform. 1 above was reliable in that regard. The High Court was well within the limit of its power as enunciated in paragraph 9 at page 610 in the case of Ram Jag v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Ram Jag v. State of U.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' P. Basi Reddy, Sr. Adv. G.N. Rao and; K.Narayana Rao, Advs', 'counseldef' => ' P. Ram Reddy, ; P. P. Rao, Advs. ', 'court' => 'Supreme Court of India', 'court_type' => 'SC', 'decidedon' => '1975-04-08', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' N.L. Untwalia and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">N.L. Untwalia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellant in this appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act of 1970 was acquitted by the Sessions Judge of the charges of having committed the murder of his mistress Veeramma and of having attempted to commit suicide. On appeal by the Public Prosecutor the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has convicted the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section 309 of the Code and awarded a concurrent sentence of one year's simple imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case is a simple one and in our opinion there was no scope for entertaining any doubt in regard to the prosecution version of the occurrence. The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Judge was not only wrong but perverse. The High Court has rightly convicted the appellant. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the occurrence which took place on the 29th May, 1969, at about 7 O'clock in the morning. The appellant was then 23 years of age. Though the deceased was a married woman, she had left her husband and was living as the mistress of the appellant in a hut provided to her by him. The appellant seems to be a man of sexually loose morals. Though he got married, still he continued his illicit connections with the deceased girl. He later developed an intimacy with a Nala woman which was resented by the deceased. About a week before the occurrence the deceased left the residence of the appellant and went back to her parents. In the evening of the day prior to the occurrence the appellant went to the house of P.W. 1 Palivala Maremma - mother of the deceased and told her (deceased) that she should not remain in the village when she had left residing with him and threatened her that if she continued to remain in the village, he would stab her. On the following morning at about 7 A. M. the deceased and her mother went to fetch fresh water from a tank near a temple close-by. P.W. 2 Mamidala Annapurna who also lived close-by was at the tank for cleaning her vessels. The appellant pounced upon the deceased after lumping over the compound wall of the temple, pulled a dagger from the sheath tied t6 his waist and gave a blow on the chest of the deceased. Veeramma fell down and died instantaneously. Thereafter the appellant stabbed himself twice in the chest with the same dagger and rushed towards the road with the dagger in his hand. After going for some distance, he fell down near the house of one Gopalarao. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station by P.W. 1 at 7.30 A. M. within half an hour of the occurrence which was witnessed by P.W. 2 also. All the material particulars of the prosecution story were given in the F.I.R. The appellant for treatment of his injuries was eventually sent to the hospital at Eluru where P.W. 13 the Medical Officer examined his two injuries. Not being sure whether the appellant would survive, a memo was sent to the local Magistrate to record the dying declaration of the appellant. It was recorded by the Additional Munsif of Eluru at 12.40 noon. The statement is Ext. P-9. The defence of the appellant throughout starting from his statement in P-9 has been that it was the deceased girl who stabbed him first and thereafter it was not known to him how she got the stab injury. The suggestion seems to be that she committed suicide by giving a dagger blow on the left side of her chest. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Sessions Judge who tried the appellant did not believe the evidence of the two eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2. The corroborative pieces of evidence coming, from the testimony of P.Ws.. 3, 7 and 8 also lost their importance in the trial Court. The High Court has rightly pointed out that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was discarded by the trial Court on flimsy grounds. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We were taken through the Judgment of the trial Judge as also of the High Court. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was read before us in full. We also perused the evidence of P.W. 5 the Medical Officer of the Government hospital. Bhimavaram who performed the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased as also the evidence of P.W. 13 who examined the injuries on the person of the appellant. We are definitely of the view that for the reasons given by the High Court the evidence of P.Ws.. 1 and 2 corroborated as it was by the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 7 and 8 was fully trustworthy. Taking into consideration the nature of the external and internal injuries found on the deceased girl one could safely conclude that it was a case of homicidal death and not suicidal. There is absolutely no suggestion on behalf of the appellant that she was killed by any other person. The stand which was stuck to the end on his behalf was a suggestion of commission of suicide by the deceased. In our opinion it was not so. The High Court has rightly pointed out that although P.W. 1 was not keeping good health, her evidence that she went to the tank in the company of her daughter was believable and her previous statements in the Committing Court did hot show that on the date of occurrence she was not in a position to move. Similarly, it has rightly been observed by the High Court on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 18 the Investigating Officer that P.W. 2, if she stood up, could have very well seen the occurrence although she was on the last step of the tank and the occurrence took place on the platform. Her positive testimony was that she had stood up and seen the occurrence. There was motive for the appellant to stab the deceased. There was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W. 1 on the point of the appellant giving a threat to the girl a day prior to the occurrence. No witness of that incident was available but the evidence of P.W. 1 above was reliable in that regard. Others had come on the scene but after the occurrence. Nobody else was available to be examined who had witnessed the occurrence. In our opinion the prosecution case was proved to the hilt against the appellant. No two views were reasonably possible in the matter. The view taken by the trial Judge was perverse and unsustainable. The High Court was well within the limit of its power as enunciated in paragraph 9 at page 610 in the case of Ram Jag v. State of U.P. : 1974CriLJ479 . It did not transgress the self imposed limitations of the power of the High Court in interfering with an order of acquittal or the scope of an appeal from the judgment of acquittal. The blow given by the appellant on the deceased was, on objective test, found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. There is no escape from the position that the appellant was guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of the girl and under Section 309 for attempting to commit suicide. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => 'From the Judgment and Order dated November 20, 1970 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 1969--', 'pubs' => 'AIR1975SC1100; 1975CriLJ933; (1975)4SCC116', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The State of Andhra Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '642464' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ababala Parusamdu Alias Pada Kapu Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 2', (int) 1 => 'Section 302', (int) 2 => 'Section 309', (int) 3 => 'Section 302', (int) 4 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 5 => 'Section 309' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'N.L. Untwalia', (int) 1 => 'Veeramma', (int) 2 => 'P.W. 2 Mamidala Annapurna', (int) 3 => 'Veeramma', (int) 4 => 'Bhimavaram', (int) 5 => 'Ram Jag v. State' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'P.Ws', (int) 2 => 'P.Ws', (int) 3 => 'P.Ws', (int) 4 => 'P.Ws' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction', (int) 1 => 'the Public Prosecutor', (int) 2 => 'the High Court of Andhra Pradesh', (int) 3 => 'The High Court', (int) 4 => 'the house of P.W. 1 Palivala Maremma', (int) 5 => 'Gopalarao', (int) 6 => 'First Information Report', (int) 7 => 'the Police Station by P.W. 1', (int) 8 => 'P.W. 2', (int) 9 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 10 => 'Magistrate', (int) 11 => 'the Additional Munsif of Eluru', (int) 12 => 'Ext.', (int) 13 => 'P-9', (int) 14 => 'Learned Sessions', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'The High Court', (int) 17 => 'Court', (int) 18 => 'the Judgment of the trial', (int) 19 => 'the High Court', (int) 20 => 'P.W. 5', (int) 21 => 'Government', (int) 22 => 'the High Court', (int) 23 => 'The High Court', (int) 24 => 'the Committing Court', (int) 25 => 'the High Court', (int) 26 => 'The High Court', (int) 27 => 'U.P.', (int) 28 => 'the High Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1970', (int) 1 => 'one year's', (int) 2 => 'about 22 years', (int) 3 => 'the 29th May, 1969', (int) 4 => '23 years of age', (int) 5 => 'About a week', (int) 6 => '7', (int) 7 => '7', (int) 8 => '8' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '3.', (int) 2 => 't6', (int) 3 => 'one', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => '7.30', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => '5', (int) 8 => 'two', (int) 9 => '1', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => '3', (int) 12 => '8', (int) 13 => '6.', (int) 14 => '1', (int) 15 => '1', (int) 16 => '3', (int) 17 => 'two', (int) 18 => '9', (int) 19 => '610', (int) 20 => '1974CriLJ479' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Nala', (int) 1 => 'F.I.R.', (int) 2 => 'Eluru' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'the evening', (int) 1 => 'the following morning', (int) 2 => 'half an hour', (int) 3 => '12.40 noon' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 1 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 2 => 'P.W. 18', (int) 3 => 'P.W. 2', (int) 4 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 5 => 'P.W. 1' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '642464', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302 and 309', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1971', 'appellant' => 'Ababala Parusamdu Alias Pada Kapu', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ababala Parusamdu Alias Pada Kapu Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh', 'casenote' => 'Criminal - Murder - Sections 302 and 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellant gave one knife blow on the chest of deceased and then stabbed himself in the chest twice with the same dagger - He was charged for offence under Section 302 for offence of committing murder of X and for offence under Section 309 for attempting to commit suicide - He was acquitted by Session Judge but High Court convicted him for aforesaid charges - Hence, present appeal - Appellant contended that deceased committed suicide - FIR lodged within half hour of the occurrence and it gave entire description of the event with material particulars - Medical evidence proved that death of deceased was homicidal and not suicidal - There was motive for appellant to commit crime - Injury inflicted by appellant was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death - Held, no reason to interfere with conviction of appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 309 - Appeal dismissed. - Section 37 :[D.K.Jain & R.M.Lodha,JJ] Nature and scope- Scope of power of High Court to grant bail under Effect of non obstante clause - Conditions and limitations for grant of bail - Reasonable grounds- Held, While dealing with the bail application the High Court appears to have lost sight of the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act thus the order is clearly unsustainable. The broad principles which should weigh with the court in granting bail in a non-bailable offence have been enumerated in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. When a prosecution/conviction is for offence(s) under a special statute and that statute contains specific provisions for dealing with matters arising thereunder, these provisions cannot be ignored while dealing with such an application. The respondent has been convicted and sentenced for the offences under The NDPS Act and therefore, while dealing with his application for grant of bail, in addition to the broad principles to be applied in prosecution for the offences under the Penal Code, 1860 the relevant provision in the said special statute in this regard had to be kept in view. It is plain from a bare reading of the non obstante clause in Section 37 of the NDPS Act and sub-section (2) thereof that the power to grant bail to a person accused of having committed offence under the NDPS Act is not only subject to the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but also subject to the restrictions placed by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Apart from giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for such release, the other twin conditions viz. (i) the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty, has to be based on reasonable grounds. The expression reasonable grounds in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) has not been defined in the said Act but means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with. The reasonable belief contemplated in turn, points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects, noted above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the NDPS Act. While considering an application for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. At this stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether of not the accused has committed offence under the NDPS Act. What is to be seen is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence(s) he is charged with and further that he is not likely to commit an offence under the said Act while on bail. The satisfaction of the court about the existence of the said twin conditions is for a limited purpose and is confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail. It is evident that the circumstances which have weighed with the High Court to conclude that it was a fit case for grant of bail are: (i) that nothing has been found from the possession of the respondent; (ii) he is in jail for the last three years, and (iii) that there is no chance of his appeal being heard within a period of seven years. These circumstances may be relevant for grant of bail in matters arising out of conviction under the Penal Code, 1860, etc. but are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements as stipulated in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. Merely because nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, it could not be said that the respondent was not guilty of the offences for which he had been charged and convicted. The impugned order having been passed ignoring the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, cannot be sustained. Hence, the matter remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the bail application keeping in view the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The bail application shall be taken up for consideration only after the respondent surrenders to custody. Sections 37(1)(b) & 27-A & 29 :[D.K.Jain & R.M.Lodha,JJ] Grant of Bail Grounds for and matters to be considered Respondent charged with financing and trading in 14.900 kilograms of heroin - Sentenced to 10 years RI and fined Rs 1 lakh - High Court allowing bail application, citing reasons that nothing was found from respondents possession, he had been in jail since past three years and no chance of his appeal being heard within seven-year period - Held, These circumstances are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 37(1)(b). Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration of the application. Bail application to be considered only after respondent surrendered to custody. Sections 37(1)(b) & 27-A & 29 :[D.K.Jain & R.M.Lodha,JJ] Grant of Bail Grounds for and matters to be considered Respondent charged with financing and trading in 14.900 kilograms of heroin - Sentenced to 10 years RI and fined Rs 1 lakh - High Court allowing bail application, citing reasons that nothing was found from respondents possession, he had been in jail since past three years and no chance of his appeal being heard within seven-year period - Held, These circumstances are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 37(1)(b). Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration of the application. Bail application to be considered only after respondent surrendered to custody. - 1 was not keeping good health, her evidence that she went to the tank in the company of her daughter was believable and her previous statements in the Committing Court did hot show that on the date of occurrence she was not in a position to move. 2, if she stood up, could have very well seen the occurrence although she was on the last step of the tank and the occurrence took place on the platform. 1 above was reliable in that regard. The High Court was well within the limit of its power as enunciated in paragraph 9 at page 610 in the case of Ram Jag v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Ram Jag v. State of U.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' P. Basi Reddy, Sr. Adv. G.N. Rao and; K.Narayana Rao, Advs', 'counseldef' => ' P. Ram Reddy, ; P. P. Rao, Advs. ', 'court' => 'Supreme Court of India', 'court_type' => 'SC', 'decidedon' => '1975-04-08', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' N.L. Untwalia and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">N.L. Untwalia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellant in this appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act of 1970 was acquitted by the Sessions Judge of the charges of having committed the murder of his mistress Veeramma and of having attempted to commit suicide. On appeal by the Public Prosecutor the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has convicted the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section 309 of the Code and awarded a concurrent sentence of one year's simple imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case is a simple one and in our opinion there was no scope for entertaining any doubt in regard to the prosecution version of the occurrence. The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Judge was not only wrong but perverse. The High Court has rightly convicted the appellant. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the occurrence which took place on the 29th May, 1969, at about 7 O'clock in the morning. The appellant was then 23 years of age. Though the deceased was a married woman, she had left her husband and was living as the mistress of the appellant in a hut provided to her by him. The appellant seems to be a man of sexually loose morals. Though he got married, still he continued his illicit connections with the deceased girl. He later developed an intimacy with a Nala woman which was resented by the deceased. About a week before the occurrence the deceased left the residence of the appellant and went back to her parents. In the evening of the day prior to the occurrence the appellant went to the house of P.W. 1 Palivala Maremma - mother of the deceased and told her (deceased) that she should not remain in the village when she had left residing with him and threatened her that if she continued to remain in the village, he would stab her. On the following morning at about 7 A. M. the deceased and her mother went to fetch fresh water from a tank near a temple close-by. P.W. 2 Mamidala Annapurna who also lived close-by was at the tank for cleaning her vessels. The appellant pounced upon the deceased after lumping over the compound wall of the temple, pulled a dagger from the sheath tied t6 his waist and gave a blow on the chest of the deceased. Veeramma fell down and died instantaneously. Thereafter the appellant stabbed himself twice in the chest with the same dagger and rushed towards the road with the dagger in his hand. After going for some distance, he fell down near the house of one Gopalarao. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station by P.W. 1 at 7.30 A. M. within half an hour of the occurrence which was witnessed by P.W. 2 also. All the material particulars of the prosecution story were given in the F.I.R. The appellant for treatment of his injuries was eventually sent to the hospital at Eluru where P.W. 13 the Medical Officer examined his two injuries. Not being sure whether the appellant would survive, a memo was sent to the local Magistrate to record the dying declaration of the appellant. It was recorded by the Additional Munsif of Eluru at 12.40 noon. The statement is Ext. P-9. The defence of the appellant throughout starting from his statement in P-9 has been that it was the deceased girl who stabbed him first and thereafter it was not known to him how she got the stab injury. The suggestion seems to be that she committed suicide by giving a dagger blow on the left side of her chest. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Sessions Judge who tried the appellant did not believe the evidence of the two eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2. The corroborative pieces of evidence coming, from the testimony of P.Ws.. 3, 7 and 8 also lost their importance in the trial Court. The High Court has rightly pointed out that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was discarded by the trial Court on flimsy grounds. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We were taken through the Judgment of the trial Judge as also of the High Court. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was read before us in full. We also perused the evidence of P.W. 5 the Medical Officer of the Government hospital. Bhimavaram who performed the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased as also the evidence of P.W. 13 who examined the injuries on the person of the appellant. We are definitely of the view that for the reasons given by the High Court the evidence of P.Ws.. 1 and 2 corroborated as it was by the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 7 and 8 was fully trustworthy. Taking into consideration the nature of the external and internal injuries found on the deceased girl one could safely conclude that it was a case of homicidal death and not suicidal. There is absolutely no suggestion on behalf of the appellant that she was killed by any other person. The stand which was stuck to the end on his behalf was a suggestion of commission of suicide by the deceased. In our opinion it was not so. The High Court has rightly pointed out that although P.W. 1 was not keeping good health, her evidence that she went to the tank in the company of her daughter was believable and her previous statements in the Committing Court did hot show that on the date of occurrence she was not in a position to move. Similarly, it has rightly been observed by the High Court on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 18 the Investigating Officer that P.W. 2, if she stood up, could have very well seen the occurrence although she was on the last step of the tank and the occurrence took place on the platform. Her positive testimony was that she had stood up and seen the occurrence. There was motive for the appellant to stab the deceased. There was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W. 1 on the point of the appellant giving a threat to the girl a day prior to the occurrence. No witness of that incident was available but the evidence of P.W. 1 above was reliable in that regard. Others had come on the scene but after the occurrence. Nobody else was available to be examined who had witnessed the occurrence. In our opinion the prosecution case was proved to the hilt against the appellant. No two views were reasonably possible in the matter. The view taken by the trial Judge was perverse and unsustainable. The High Court was well within the limit of its power as enunciated in paragraph 9 at page 610 in the case of Ram Jag v. State of U.P. : 1974CriLJ479 . It did not transgress the self imposed limitations of the power of the High Court in interfering with an order of acquittal or the scope of an appeal from the judgment of acquittal. The blow given by the appellant on the deceased was, on objective test, found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. There is no escape from the position that the appellant was guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of the girl and under Section 309 for attempting to commit suicide. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => 'From the Judgment and Order dated November 20, 1970 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 1969--', 'pubs' => 'AIR1975SC1100; 1975CriLJ933; (1975)4SCC116', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The State of Andhra Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '642464' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 2, Section 302, Section 309, Section 302, the Indian Penal Code, Section 309
PERSON: N.L. Untwalia, Veeramma, P.W. 2 Mamidala Annapurna, Veeramma, Bhimavaram, Ram Jag v. State
NORP: J.1, P.Ws, P.Ws, P.Ws, P.Ws
ORG: the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, the Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, The High Court, the house of P.W. 1 Palivala Maremma, Gopalarao, First Information Report, the Police Station by P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 13, Magistrate, the Additional Munsif of Eluru, Ext., P-9, Learned Sessions, Court, The High Court, Court, the Judgment of the trial, the High Court, P.W. 5, Government, the High Court, The High Court, the Committing Court, the High Court, The High Court, U.P., the High Court
DATE: 1970, one year's, about 22 years, the 29th May, 1969, 23 years of age, About a week, 7, 7, 8
CARDINAL: 2., 3., t6, one, 4, 7.30, two, 5, two, 1, 2, 3, 8, 6., 1, 1, 3, two, 9, 610, 1974CriLJ479
GPE: Nala, F.I.R., Eluru
TIME: the evening, the following morning, half an hour, 12.40 noon
ORDINAL: first
PRODUCT: P.W. 13, P.W. 1, P.W. 18, P.W. 2, P.W. 1, P.W. 1