Chhattisgarh Court September 2008 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.
Manoj Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT67(CG)
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9-4-2003 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 277/2002, whereby, the appellants have been convicted under Section 304-B, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 3 months.2. Deceased-Madhu Bai was married to appellant No. 1, Manoj Kumar, on 5th of May, 2001. She was residing in her in-laws place. She consumed poison in the intervening night of 9th-10th of March, 2002. A merg intimation was lodged on 10th of March, 2002. The Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence on the same day. He prepared inquest (Exh. P-2) on the body of the deceased and sent the dead body for its post-mortem to Medical College, Raipur, where the post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (P.W. 11), who prepared his report (Exh. P-12). ...
Premlal Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT55(CG)
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Appellant-Premlal stands convicted under Sections 302 and 354, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 2 years and R.I. for 3 months, respectively, by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara in Sessions Trial No. 297/2001 on 27th of March, 2002.2. The facts, briefly stated, are that appellant-Premlal and Sitaram (since deceased) were close friends and were residents of same village. On 28-6-2001 at about 8.00 p.m., Sitaram had gone towards the tank in village. When he returned back to his house, appellant-Premlal also came with him. Both consumed liquor in the house of Sitaram. When they were taking their meals, the appellant caught the hands of Neera Bai (P.W. 1), wife of the deceased-Sitaram with an intention to outrage her modesty, on which, Sitaram became angry. Neera Bai also became angry and went to the house of Dukhitram. Appellant also went...
Smt. Yashoda Devi and ors. Vs. Neeta Devi and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Chh12
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge legality and validity of the order dated 25-1-2006, passed by the 9th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Durg, in execution case No. 10-A/2000, whereby the application of the decree-holders (the respondents) to bring legal heirs of the judgment-debtor namely Ram Bharos Chhapariya, was allowed.2. The indisputable facts, in brief are that a decree was passed on 20-4-2001 (Annexure P/1) against Ram Bharos Chhapariya. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, Ram Bharos Chhapariya died on 1-3-2003. The respondents decree-holders filed an application on 27-3-2004 for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased judgment-debtor on record which was allowed by the executing Court. Thus, this petition.3. Shri Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that since an application for bringing legal heirs of the judgment-debtor on record was not moved within a period of 90 days, the execut...
Usha Tripathi W/O Chakradhar Tripathi Vs. Chakradhar Tripathi S/O Shri ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Chh10
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition, impugning the order dated 28-1-2008 (Annexure P/7), passed by the Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Civil Suit No. 36-A/2007 (Chakradhar Tripathi v. Usha Tripathi), whereby the application of the petitioner dated 16-1-2008 for grant of time to file written statement was rejected.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband, respectively. Their marriage was solemnized on 22-5-1998 at Patthalgaon, District Jashpur and within the wedlock, one son was born on 15-3-1999. On 24-7-2007 the respondent/husband filed an application under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'The Act, 1955') for grant of a decree of divorce against the petitioner/wife, in the Family Court, Ambikapur. The application was registered as Civil Suit No. 36-A/2007. The notice was issued to the petitioner and the case was fixed for 18-9-2007 for concili...
Baliram Satnami Vs. the Board of Revenue and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT26(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioner, by this petition seeks a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to take appropriate decision on the application for allotting the land to the petitioner for agriculture use.2. Initially, an application was made by the petitioner before the Collector on 10-4-2003 for allotment of the disputed land. A report dated 6-5-2003 (Annexure P-3) was submitted by Tehsildar, Takhatpur, holding that the land in dispute is recorded as 'Bade Jhad Ka Jangal' cM+s >kM+ dk taxy, though at present there is no forest on the land in dispute. The Additional Collector after having considered the report declined to allot the land on 21-1-2004 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that since the land is recorded as 'Bade Jhad Ka Jangal' the allotment cannot be granted without permission of the Central Government.3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue after having considered all the facts of the matter,...
Vishnu Pradhan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(0)MPHT80
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 31-7-2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, in Sessions Trial No. 145/2007 rejecting the application filed by the accused/applicant for recalling the prosecutrix for examination holding that subsequent affidavit filed by the prosecutrix is not a ground for recalling the witness in accordance with Section 231 read with Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The order is challenged on the ground that the Trial Court has committed an illegality by rejecting the application of the accused/applicant for recalling the prosecutrix for examination.Heard Shri P.K. Verma, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Raghvendra Verma for the applicant and Ms. Sangita Mishra, PL for the respondent/State, and perused the FIR, affidavit filed by the prosecutrix and copy of the application for recalling the prosecutrix.3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that prosecutrix Sarojini has been cross-examined at...
Kailash Lodhi and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT28(CG)
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. Challenge is made to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16-1-2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 114/2002, whereby, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302 and 201, IPC, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 10 months and R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 5 months with further direction to run the sentences concurrently.2. Deceased-Basant Lodhi was working in the shop of Bhuwan and Jagannath (P.W. 6) situated in Village Parpodi. He was resident of Village Patharrikhurd. He used to go to the shop on every morning. On 7-4-2002, he did not return to his house, search was made and ultimately, on 11-4-2002, his dead body was found in a field in Village Suradabri. The matter was reported to the pol...
Dhulgo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT10(CG)
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12-7-2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 473/2001, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 1 year.2. Deceased-Kamlu was the real brother of complainant Foska (P.W. 4). They were residing separately. On 29-8-2001, Foska was informed by his mother, Mangli, that the appellant has committed murder of Kamlu in his house at about 8.30 p.m. Foska went to the house of appellant and saw that the dead body of his brother was lying in the court-yard of the house of the appellant. When he asked to the appellant as to why he committed murder of deceased, the appellant replied that since...
Smt. Teejan Bai Chandrakar Vs. Rajeshwari Chandrakar
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT13(CG)
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. By this revision, the applicant has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 24-7-2007 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Korba in M.J.C. No. 80/2007, whereby learned Judge, Family Court has awarded maintenance to the major daughter from her mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code').2. Propriety of the order impugned is challenged on the ground that the major daughter is not entitled for any maintenance except under the condition provided in Clause (c) of Section 125(1) of the Code, as such, the Trial Court has committed illegality by awarding maintenance to the major daughter that too from her mother.3. I have heard Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. Sourabh Dangi, Advocate, appearing as amicus curiae to assist the Court and address on the point whether the mother is liable to pay maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. I have perused the impugned order as also the ...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Alpanarayan and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT33(CG)
ORDERT.P. Sharma, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 7-5-1993 passed by Special Judge, Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No. 33/1992 discharging the respondents from the offence punishable under Sections 7, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') read with Section 116/34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The order is challenged on the ground that the respondents are public servants and they have tried to give bribe to the Member of Legislative Assembly who was also a public servant and their act squarely falls within the meaning of an attempt to give bribe to a public servant which is punishable under Sections 7, 10 and 12 of the Act read with Section 116/34 of the Indian Penal Code, but the Special Judge has committed an illegality by not framing the charge against them in spite of the sufficient material collected by the prosecution to this effect.3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein extracted a sum of Rs. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »