Rajasthan Court November 2011 Judgments

Jetha Ram and Another Vs. the State of Rajasthan and Another

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2012CrLJ2459

1. These two appeals have been preferred against the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.38/2008 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the appellant Jetha Ram for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC but at the same time, the appellant Jetha Ram has been convicted for the offence under S.B.Cr. Appeal No.434/2009 Jetha Ram vs.The State and connected appeal. Section 306 IPC and he has been awarded seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, he has to further undergo two years' simple imprisonment. 2. The present petitioner has preferred appeal against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 306, IPC, whereas the State has preferred appeal against acquittal of Jetha Ram and others for the offence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. 3. Both the appeals are arising out of the common judgment and hence both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 4.. Brief facts o...

Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2012CrLJ1430

1. Pitted against the might of a sitting MLA, having allegedly murdered his son, but still hoping for a fair trial, the petitioners have moved his court for transfer of their case from the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kishangarh to any other court in District Ajmer. For this purpose the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17-09-2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge had dismissed their transfer petition. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had allegedly killed Bhawar Singh, son of the sitting MLA from Kishangarh, Nathuram. For the alleged crime, they are facing a trial for offences under sections 364, 302, 120-B IPC and under sections 3/25, 5/25, and 27 of the Arms Act before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kishangarh. 3. The said case has generated much heat and dust in the area. According to the petitioners, when they attend the trial, they find a mob of 100...

Mahendra Bhagat Vs. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre Through Its ...

Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur

Ashok Parihar, President: The complainant is working in Rajasthan Police Department. The first child baby Manisha was born on 16.9.2001 at Nagpur. It has been alleged that baby Manisha was under regular medical care of respondent no.3 Dr.Ashutosh Jindal working in respondent hospital. Initially four polio drops had already been given to baby Manisha two at Nagpur and subsequent two at Jaipur in respondent Hospital. The baby Manisha was taken to the respondent hospital on 10.8.02 due to sudden illness. Dr.Ashutosh Jindal prescribed injection of Keftra in addition to some other medicine. It has been alleged that due to intramuscular injection of Keftra given by Dr.Ashutosh Jindal himself sciatic nerve of the right lower limb was damaged resulting in sensory loss and foot drop. Since proper medical treatment was not given in the respondent hospital the baby was taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. The Neurologist Dr.Anjani Kumar Sharma in SMS Hospital,Jaipur after examining the baby on 28.9.02 ...

L.Rs. Gafoor Khan and Others Vs. AmiruddIn and Another

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2012AIR(Raj)35

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI,J. 1. This revision petition has come up before this Division Bench s the single Bench vide order dated 06-09-2007 has referred the matter to larger Bench to decide the following reference:- “……….the matter may be referred to the large Bench to decide the question as to whether the judgment in Laxman Singh’s case lays down the law correctly in the matter of leviability of court fees on revisions filed against the decision of the suit filed under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act.” 2. The revision petition has been preferred by defendant-petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13-07-2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapasan, District Chittorgarh in Civil Original Suit No. 7/1994, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was partly decreed to the extent of possession. 3. The brief fact of the case are the plaintiff-respondent instituted a...

Smt. Mohri Devi Vs. Smt. Chuki Devi and Another

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2012AIR(NOC)198

1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 31st May, 2011, whereby the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Sikar, dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant, filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent No.1-Smt. Chuki Devi filed an election petition under Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 and Section 43 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, against the petitioner and certain other persons, challenging the election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Harsh. The reply to the election petition was filed by the petitioner-defendant wherein numerous legal objections were raised. The petitioner-defendant implored the Court that in view of the legal objections, the election petition should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 4. Learned cou...

Alok Kumar Meena and Others Vs. Raj. State Veterinary Council Jaipur a ...

Court: Rajasthan

These writ petitions have been preferred by the students. In Writ Petition No.2635/2011, a prayer has been made to quash the order dated 20.2.2010 and the Notification dated 29.4.2010, Annex.28 and 32 respectively filed with the petition. A prayer has been made to quash the amendment made in the item No.33 of the First Schedule to the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984, hereinafter referred-to as “the Act of 1984”. A prayer has also been made to direct the registrations of the petitioners as Veterinary Practitioners. The respondent No.7 RPSC may be directed to treat the petitioners as qualified Veterinary Practitioners for recruitment on the post of Veterinary Officers. The students were admitted in the course of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, in short “BVSc and AH”, in the Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine, Jaipur. The fact remains that the Government of India and the Veterinary Council of India have not recognized the said institutio...

Nakhtaram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2012CrLJ228(NOC)

MATHUR, J. By the judgment impugned dated 7.7.2005, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotara convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Nakhtaram :u/S.304-B IPC :Life imprisonment.u/S.498-A IPC :One years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.Kesararam :u/S.304-B IPC :Seven years rigorous imprisonment.u/S.498-A IPC :One years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.Smt. Puri :u/S.304-B IPC :Seven years rigorous imprisonment.u/S.498-A IPC :One years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.The facts necessary to be noticed are that on 5.9.2002 at 09:00 AM a written report (Ex.P/1) was submitted at police station Ramsar by Shri Jodharam (PW-1), stating therein that in the night of 4.9.2002 at 10...

Ramlal @ Habudia Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2012CrLJ240(NOC)

MATHUR, J. In view of the fact that earlier appointed amicus curiae is not in position to assist the Court in the matter, we appointed Shri Birbal Saran as an amicus curiae. He, after going through the entire record, has assisted the Court. The judgment impugned is dated 4.7.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.78/2004, convicting the accused appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, and awarding sentence for life term with a fine of Rs.2000/-. In brief, facts of the case are that on 29.6.2003 a written report was submitted by one Shri Mahavir Prasad Kumhar to the Station House Officer, Pander at 06:10 PM with assertion that his younger brother Sanwarlal Kumhar and Lalaram Kumhar went to Shahpura from their village to purchase some domestic goods. While returning they stayed to drink water at their agricultural land close to the road of village Kadisahna, where accused Ramlal son of Bhuju Kumhar...

Narendra Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

The judgment under challenge is dated 3.9.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Udaipur Camp Salumber convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant as under:- 1. U/s 302 IPC : Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of the payment of fine to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. 2. U/s 309 IPC : Simple imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of the payment of fine to further undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. (Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently) The factual matrix necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that at the stance of an oral information given by Naresh Salvi (PW-3), a criminal case was registered at Police Station Salumber, District Udaipur. As per the information recorded deceased Nathi, sister of Naresh Salvi was residing at her maternal home from last 2 years being having disputes with her husband Magan Salvi. While staying at maternal home, Smt. Nathi fled away with Naresh ...

Mohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

MATHUR, J. By the judgment impugned dated 19.5.2004 learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Banswara convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as under:- u/S.450 IPC : Ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. u/S.302 IPC : Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The facts necessary to be noticed are that Smt. Sasula (PW-1) reported in writing at police station Sadar, Banswara on 13.6.2003 at 04:00 AM that in the night of 12.6.2003 after having dinner, she was sleeping at her house with her kids and husband. The house being under construction was not having doors as such was open. At about 01:00 AM she awoke on hearing scream of her husband and found Mohanlal (accused appellant) passing through the bed of her husband with open sword. On making alarm accused fled from the sp...