Chhattisgarh Court July 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sudhari @ Shivadhari Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPHT49(CG)
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23-8-2001 delivered in Sessions Case No. 212/2001 by Shri T.P. Sharma, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Koriya (Baikunthpur), whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 450 and 376, IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 376, IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 450, IPC.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 18-3-2001, the prosecutrix aged about 16 years was alone at her residence in Village Khod, Badkapara, P.S. Patna, District Koriya. Her parents, Le., Ramadhar (P.W. 2) and Moharmunia (P.W. 6) had gone to another village. It is alleged that at about 8.00 P.M. the appellant entered the house of the prosecutrix and threatening to kill her, if she shouted, pushed her on a cot and committed rape on her twice. At about 9.00 P.M., the parents of the prosecutrix returned home. Seeing them, the appellant ran away. The prosecutrix narrated t...
Homeshwar Singh Vs. Smt. Mira Singh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Chh27
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. What amounts to 'cruelty' and 'desertion' so as to dissolve the pious ties of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are the questions to be considered in this appeal.2. The brief facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19-5-1991. The husband took the wife in usual manner to her matrimonial house. The allegations are that on the first day itself, the wife started abusing her husband, brothers-in-law (Jeth and Devar) and the father-in-law by showing her eyes saying that who are they and how they have come to her house? With all this she was allowed to reside for 15 days in first round and thereafter, her father was called and she was sent to her parents place. The allegations are that the wife was not mentally fit. However, she was shown to the doctors and again was sent to her matrimonial house, from where, she was taken by the husband to his place of posting at Korba. The further all...
Ramji and Two ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPHT44(CG)
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-4-2006 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No. 52/2004 whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 20-11-2004 Station House Officer, Police Station, Devbhog, Shri Ashish Shukla received secret information that the appellants were in possession of illicit ganja at Bus Stand, Devbhog. After recording the said information, he proceeded to the spot alongwith independent witnesses Premlal (P.W. 1) and Khagesh (P.W. 2) and Head Constable P.L. Jagdalla (P.W. 7) and saw the appellants standing at the Bus Stand, Devbhog with a box made of a tin, 2 bags ...
Bablu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3732
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. Shri C. L. Patel, Special Judge (Atrocities), Korba has in Special Sessions Case No. 08/2005 convicted the appellant-Bablu alias Uday under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of the I.P.C. and also under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 363, I. P. C, to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 366, I.P.C., to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 376(1), I.P.C. and to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo add...
Mukesh Kumar Goswami and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)MPHT1(CG)
ORDERS.R. Nayak, C.J.1. This writ petition is filed by as many as 19 persons who are said to be Assistant Teachers serving in Government schools. In this writ petition, they have sought for mandamus to declare the Transfer Rationalisation Policy, marked as Annexure P-2 as ultra vires the Constitution. Furthermore, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the transfer order, marked as Annexure P-3, dated 6-7-2006 whereunder the petitioners have been transferred from the present places of service to various places where there are shortages for teachers or vacancies exist. A copy of the impugned policy is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-2 at Pages 72 to 82 of the material papers.2. While attacking the validity of the impugned policy, Shri V.G. Tamaskar, learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the direction in the policy to conduct counselling to ascertain the willingness/preferences of the teachers is arbitrary and unreasonable. He would submit that the provis...
Sant Kumar Vs. Iqabal Ahamad Ansari
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR947]; 2006(4)MPHT40(CG)
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It arises out of award dated 5-3-1998 passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Act/Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 11/W.C.A./94 (N.F.). The Tribunal has dismissed the claim filed by the appellant for injury sustained by him.2. The brief facts, as stated in the claim petition, are that this appellant was employed as a Welder in the workshop of the respondent in the relevant time. On 19-4-1994, he was doing greasing work in mixer machine in the workshop. During the course of his said work, the mixer machine was started by the respondent and ultimately when the appellant saw that the Hapher of the mixer machine is coming down on the head, he tried to remove himself from the said place and in this process, his right-hand was crushed in the gear and ultimately it was amputated from near his shoulder. The claim filed by the appellant before the Tribunal was resisted by the respo...
Lalmani Singh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhat ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPHT73
D.R. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th April, 1989 delivered by Shri R.S. Rusia if Sessions Case No. 69/86 whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 6 of the M.P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Aacharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') and under Section 467, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for each offence. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is not disputed that in the year 1983 in District Raigarh, Irrigation Sub-Division, Baramkela, construction of Kinkamani Canal was in progress under the relief work. At the relevant time, appellant Lalmani Singh was the Sub-Divisional Officer, appellant P.A. Reddi was the Sub-Engineer and appellant Ramesh Chandra Vishnov was the Timekeeper in the above mentioned relief work. It is also not disputed that as per muster roll Ex. P-15, payments for the work done were made to the Headman of the gang undertaking the work.3. Briefly stated the pr...
Forum for Fact Finding Documentation and Advocacy Vs. State of Chhatti ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-20-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4372; 2006(3)MPHT79
ORDER1. Petitioner, a registered Non-Government Organization established to provide legal support to the poor and disadvantaged sections of the society, has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation to highlight one of the worst kinds of crimes in a civilized society governed by Rule of Law, i.e., death of one 'Ramkumar Dhruv', a 26 years old tribal as a result of custodial violence in Police Station Suhela, District Raipur (C.G.) on 12-8-2004. 2. The tale of dehumanizing torture, assault and death of Ramkumar Dhruv due to custodial violence, as unfolded by the petition and the documents filed therewith is as under:Ramkumar Dhruv, Gond by caste and a member of the Scheduled Tribe, was the resident of Village Bhalesur, Tehsil Simga, Police Station Suhela, District Raipur. Belonging to a family falling below the poverty line and being landless, his main occupation was agricultural labour. He was married to Jethia Bai and had three minor ...
Kumari Chandrakar and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3822
ORDERDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This criminal revision arises out of the judgment dated 27-2-2006 delivered by Shri N.D. Tigala, 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Appeal No. 274/2005 whereby conviction of the applicants under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and the sentence of R.I. for six months and a fine of rs. 300/- as awarded by Shri Kartikram, J.M.F.C. Raipur in Criminal Case No. 308/2001 was affirmed.2. It is not disputed that Shakun Chandrakar was married to applicant No. 4-Rajesh Chandrakar on 5-5-2001. Their matrimonial home was at Chuikhadan. The applicant No. 3-Shyama Bai is the mother-in-law of Shakun Chandrakar. Applicant No. 2-Mohan Chandrakar is the brother of applicant No. 4-Rajesh Chandrakar and applicant No. 1 -Kumari Chandrakar is the wife of applicant No. 2.3. Brief facts are that Shakun Chandrakar lodged F.I.R. on 18-10-2001 in Mahila Police Station that on her wedding night her husband applicant No. 4 mentally tortured her by sa...
Lakhan Basor Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3582
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-4-2004 delivered by Shri A. K. Pathak, Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, Korea in Sessions Trial No. 9/2004 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section-304 Part-I of the IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 4 months.2. It is not disputed that the deceased Baijanti Bai was the wife of the appellant. It is also not disputed by learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments that death of Baijanti Bai on 9-11-2003 was homicidal in nature. The appellant also admitted in his examination under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. that he was examined on 10-11-2003 by Dr. Ashish Karan PW-6 who had found a lacerated wound on the back of head size 1 x 1/2' x muscle deep which was caused within 24 hours prior to examination.3. Briefly stated the prosecution case ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »