Guwahati Court May 1970 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.
Priyalal Barman Vs. the State
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-27-1970
P.K. Goswami, C.J.1. This is a case of triple murder which took place on the night of 18th April, 1969. The accused, a son, is said to have murdered his father, his step-mother and his step-brother, and he has been sentenced to death under Section 302, I. P. C. The accused has appealed against his conviction and there is also the usual reference under Section 374, Cr. P. C. Both are taken up together. The accused was also convicted under Section 457, I.P.C., but no separate sentence was awarded to him.2. There lived a man named Gopicharan Barman, aged about 55 years, at village Ratanpur under Udharbond Police Station. He seems to be a substantial man, having land and granary and several houses within his homestead and has also allowed the accused, who is his son, to build another house for him (accused) within his compound. Gopicharan's first wife is the mother of the accused who was driven away from his house while he was only three years of age. Gopicharan had a second wife Bazodi ...
Nirasingh MomIn and ors. Vs. Jengno Marak and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-26-1970
P.K. Goswami, C.J.1. The question of law referred to this Full Bench arises out of a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P. C. pending in the Court of the Magistrate. First Class, Garo Hills, Tura.2. The facts giving rise to the proceeding involving likelihood of breach of peace with respect to certain land, where jhum cultivation is being carried on. are not material for the present cur-pose. The matter came up before my learned brother Pathak, J. who referred the question of law which appears to be raised by the petitioner to the effect that Rule 23 (2) and Rule 24 (1) of the Garo Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953. hereinafter called 'the Rules' are ultra vires Para 4 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. It has been also mentioned in the reference that a Division Bench decision of this Court in AIR 1963 Assam 31 (Manick Syiem v. U. Rose Mohan Roy) and the decision reported in ILR (1963) 15 Assam 66 (U.F. Siem v. U. Lebanon Kharkongo...
Biman Chandra Pachani Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-12-1970
P.K. Goswami, C.J. 1. This matter has come up before this Full Bench on a reference by me while sitting singly in disposing of the revision application.2. The accused was convicted under Section 12 read with Section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (Act XXV of 1867) hereinafter called 'the Act' and fined Rs. 500/-, in default three months' simple imprisonment.3. The prosecution case is that the accused-petitioner was distributing some pamphlets, which are marked Exts. III and V in this case, and which are printed in some press without the name of the Printer and Publisher and the place of Printing and Publication, as required under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. When the matter came up in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge found on the evidence produced by the prosecution that the accused was distributing this printed pamphlet and this is not denied by the accused. In his statement under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, when his attention was drawn to ...
U. Shan Manik and ors. Vs. Ka Brie Nongrum and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-11-1970
P.K. Goswami, C.J.1. This Criminal revision is placed before this Full Bench without any referring order as required under the High Court Rules. All the same, having heard the learned Counsel on both sides, we may frame the question in the following term:Whether the decision in the case of U. Bithiang Malangiang v. State of Assam reported in AIR 1965 Assam and Nagaland 51, which is a Division Bench decision of this Court, has been correctly made.The second point which is necessary for consideration is whether a certain trial under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner Shillong, is competent under the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953. In other words, whether the Judge, District Council Court, has exclusive jurisdiction for trial of such a case under these Rules. It may be stated here that the learned Counsel for the petitioners felt that the decision above referred to needs...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›