Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1992ACJ40
Bhawani Singh, J.1. All these appeals arise out of the same accident and since a similar question is involved, they are being decided by a common judgment.2. Briefly, the case is that bus No. HIK 3227, driven by Kehar Singh and conducted by Ajeet Singh, left Pathankot bus stand on 20.5.1988. After just crossing Chakki Bridge, a bomb which was lying hidden in the bus, exploded causing injuries to some and proving fatal to others travelling in the bus.3. Consequently, the heirs of the deceased and the victims of the blast preferred claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra Division. Among other things, it has been stated that the bus was stationed at bus stand, Pathankot which is a disturbed area and is hot with terrorist activities. Number of attempts had been made by the terrorists to attack Himachal Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'HRTC') buses in the area of Punjab. However, nothing was done to safeguard the vehicles in this are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2512
M.R. Verma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated (sic) 9-2004 rendered by the learned Presiding Officer (Additional Sessions Judge), East Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has been convicted under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three-and-a-half years and fine Rs. 3,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for six months.2. The case of the prosecution against the accused is that in the first half of the year 2000 he was posted as a teacher in Government Primary School, Takhnahar. PW-3, then aged about 12 years, was a student of IV Class in the said school. In the month of May, 2000, it was noticed by Durgi Devi (PW-11) mother of PW-3 that PW-3 was reluctant to go to school, therefore, on 12-5-2000 she enquired from PW-3 as to why she was reluctant to go to school whereas earlier she had been going to school happily. On s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2(1996)ACC218
S.N. Phukan, C.J.1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of the following appeals, as the point involved in these appeals is the same:1. FAO (MVA) No. 41 of 1992 (Sadh Ram v. State of H.P. and Anr.).2. FAO (MVA) No, 302 of 1992 (Kanta Jain and Ors. v. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Ors.).3. FAO (MVA) No. 65 of 1993 (Moti Lal v. General Manager and Ors.)2. The accident took place before coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but the claim petitions were filed after coming into force of the said Act. As there was delay in filing the claim petitions, an application was filed for condonation of delay of the period of limitation. By the impugned orders, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal relying on un-amended Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988') refused to condone the delay, as the claim petitions were filed beyond the period of 12 months, as contained in the said sub-section. He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2661
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the State of Himachal Pradesh is against the judgment dated 16-9-1991 whereby the Sessions Judge, Una has acquitted the respondent under Section 376, I.P.C. The brief facts of the case are that on 23-5-1989 at 11.15 a.m. the prosecutrix alongwith her parents came to police station Bangana and made a report on the basis of which FIR Ex. PC. was recorded. According to her she was studying in Primary School Raipur and her father was working as labourer. On Sunday the 21st May, 1989 at about 6.00 p.m. she had gone to the house of the respondent to watch a film on the television. After watching the television for some time on the asking of the mother of the respondent to bring a Patili (utensil for cooking rice and pulses etc.), the prosecutrix went to the flour mill of the respondent where he was sleeping outside over a cot. When she was returning after picking up the Patili, she was followed by the respondent and as soon as she turned ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ShimLC251
Kuldip Singh, J.1. The respondent-wife is in appeal against the judgment, decree dated 28.3.2001, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala in HMA No. 107/D/97, whereby the learned Additional District Judge has dissolved the marriage of the parties by a decree of divorce. For convenience, the parties are referred in the same manner as in the Court below.2. The facts in brief are that a divorce petition, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act), was filed by the petitioner- husband against the wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. It is the case of the husband that marriage between the parties took place on 8.12.1989 and thereafter they lived as husband and wife till April, 1991, but no child was born from the wedlock. The respondent-wife soon after the marriage started quarreling with the petitioner and his mother on the ground that she would not live in the joint family of the petitioner. On 7.4.1991, mother of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)17,2003CriLJ736
ORDERM.R. Verma, J.1. Since all these petitions arise out of the same F.I.R. No. 97 of 2002 dated 19-7-2002 under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 201, I.P.C. registered at Police Station, Tieog, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common order.2. The case of the prosecution against the accused petitioners (hereafter referred to as 'the accused persons') is that on 19-7-2002 at about 6.30 p.m. at Bag, Ramesh Heta (since deceased and hereafter referred to as 'the deceased') was caught hold by the accused persons and their co-accused Savitri and Bimla pelted stones at him. In the meanwhile, Bhupender, another co-accused named in the F.I.R., inflicted a 'Draft' blow to the deceased on the back portion of his neck while proclaiming that he would be done to death there and then. After inflicting the injury with the aforesaid blow to the deceased, said Bhupender while carrying the 'Draft' bolted away and the accused persons and co-accused Savitri and Bimla also ran towards their house...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : II(2004)DMC683
R.L. Khurana, J. 1. The appellant, Dr. Rajiv Jassi, hereinafter referred to as the accused, stands convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, in Sessions Trial No. 25-K/7 of 2000 vide judgment dated 3.12.2001 for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, may be thus stated. The deceased Dr. Suman Lata, daughter of PW 9 Ram Kishan, was married to the accused on 25.4.1998. The deceased at the relevant time was posted as a Dental Surgeon at Civil Hospital, Chail in District Solan, while the accused was posted as a Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre, Gharuan in District Ropar (Punjab). 3. The relationship between the deceased and the accused became estranged immediately after marriage due to the demands for dowry being made b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1985CriLJ1450
V.P. Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, dated August 29,1983, whereby accused Amin Chand was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Sessions Judge also convicted the said accused under Section 323 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month thereunder. The other two accused, Pushpa and Bija Ram, were also convicted under Section 323 of, the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment2. By a short order made on December 19, 1984, we accepted this appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence against the appellants and ordered their acquittal Accused Amin Chand was in jail and it was directed that he should be released forthwith, if not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1976CriLJ1466
Chet Ram Thakur, J.1. In this revision petition the question which arises for decision is whether the Public Prosecutor can intervene at the stage of an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr. P. Code, 1898, (hereinafter called the Code) in a case instituted on a complaint by a private person.2. Shri Charan Dass Dogra, an Advocate of Kulu had lodged a complaint under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 109, 114 and 120-B of the I. P. Code against S/Sliri Lal Chand Pararthi and five others. The judicial Magistrate in whose court the complaint was lodged took cognizance of the case as contemplated under Section 190 of the Code and he commenced an enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code. During the course of the enquiry, before processes were issued to the accused, Shri T. R. Sharma who is said to be a Magistrate and was connected with the arrangement of the DUSHERA fair when this occurrence is alleged to have taken place, was examined on 28-10-1971. Later on the Advocate-General appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1995CriLJ158
Bhawani Singh, J. 1. Through this appeal, the accused has challenged the judgment of Sessions Judge, Shimla, dated May 23, 1992 convicting him for an offennce under Section 376, of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to unndergo further rigorous imprisonment for one-and-a-half year. Fine, on recovery, has been ordered to be paid to the prosecutrix.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on April 5, 1990 at about 9 or 10 a. m. the prosecutrix was alone in the house and was cleaning utensils in the Verandah. The accused appeared and asked her to allow him to have sexual intercourse with her and offered Rs. 20/-. The prosecutrix declined the same whereupon the accused caught her by the arms, took her inside the room forcibly. For the purpose of committing the rape, the accused removed his 'Pent'. Then, he removed the 'Salvar' of the prosecutrix by breaking the string the...
Tag this Judgment!