Court : Himachal Pradesh
Dev Darshan Sud, J. 1. The State has challenged the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, acquitting the respondents for offences under Section 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts necessary for consideration in this appeal are that the deceased Alka alias Ashu was the daughter of Roop Lal and was married to respondent No.3 Sheetal Kumar son of Sh. Devinder Dutt. Their marriage was performed despite opposition from the parents of the deceased. The undisputed fact is that it was a love marriage. On 13.9.2000, the marriage was solemnized at Rajgarh. The case of the prosecution is that they resided as husband and wife happily for some time but later on she was harassed for dowry which ultimately compelled her to end her life. 3. Ext. PA is statement of Bachani Devi (PW1). She states that her husband is employed in the Forest Department. They have two sons and two daughters. Alka alias Ashu is the eldest daughter, who has qualified degree of B.Sc....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
V.K. Ahuja, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, dated 23.12.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 16.8.2001, at 9.30 a.m., a telephonic message was received at Police Station Sadar, Mandi, that one Parvinder resident of village Alothi has been murdered and police should come and investigate. This information was recorded vide rapat No. 3 dated 16.8.2001. S.H.O. alongwith other police officials proceeded to the spot. He thereafter recorded the statement of Kaushalya Devi, mother of the deceased, in which she had stated that her husband is already dead and she has two sons, namely Parvinder, now deceased and Mohinder, respondent and third her step son Jageshwar, respondent. It was alleged that all the three brothers were living ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
1. This petition, under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing statements/ confessions of respondents No. 3 to 6 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Solan, under section 164 Cr.P.C. and for quashing the orders of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Solan, granting pardon to respondents No. 3, 4, under sections 306 Cr.P.C. 2. The facts in brief, as per petitioner, are that an FIR No.10/2009 dated 9.7.2009, has been registered at State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan against petitioner and one another. The respondent No. 2 is the complainant, but despite that he investigated the case. The respondent No. 2 was transferred from Special Investigation Unit to Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla in July 2009; he had no power to investigate the case registered at Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan. 3. The respondent No. 2 had personal interest in false implication of the petitioner, he threatened the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2012CrLJ3210
Sanjay Karol, J. 1. In terms of judgment dated 27.11.2008, passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.9 of 2008, titled as State Vs. Sonu Kumar, i.e. the accused (the present appellant) stands convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 366-A and 376 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (referred to as I.P.C.). He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years in relation to each of the offences and also to pay fine of `.10,000/- each, and in the event of default to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 5.10.2007, prosecutrix (PW-11) aged about 13-14 years, student of 8th standard, was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused who lives in her neighbourhood, under promise and inducement of marriage. Out of fear she did not disclose the incident to anyone, and also left her house on 6.10.2007 to an undisclosed place. Eventually, her parents found he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2012AIR(HP)61
Kuldip Singh, J. 1. The plaintiff has come in second appeal against judgment, decree dated 18.8.2001 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1998 reversing judgment, decree dated 27.8.1997 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi in Civil Suit No. 127 of 1992, 43/1995 decreeing the suit of the appellant for recovery of ` 40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- against the respondents on the averments that the appellant is matriculate and was working as Conductor in September, 1990 on salary Rs.1,000/- per month. He was hale and hearty unmarried aged 20 years at the relevant time. On 27.9.1990 he was coming from Tarna Temple, Mandi, he received bullet injury on his hip joint in Mohalla Thanehra, Mandi. He fell down and was removed to Civil Hospital, Mandi where he remained admitted till 9.10.1990. 3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Rajiv Sharma, J. SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 1. Plaintiff has instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 24.08.2006. According to the plaintiff, he entered into an agreement with the defendants on 24.08.2006, for purchasing the land to the extent of 65 bighas, comprised in Khata No. 1, Khatoni No. 1 to 4, total Khasra Nos. 25, as per Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002, in which the defendants have share to the extent of 75 bighas out of total land, measuring 174. 13 bighas, situated in village Char, Pargana Lachrang, Tehsil Kausali, District Solan, H.P. The total sale consideration for purchasing the land to the extent of 65 bighas was fixed at Rs.48 lacs and out of the total land, a sum of Rs.4 lacs was paid to the defendants, which was acknowledged by them. The remaining sale consideration was to be paid by the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. plaintiffs on or before 23.04.2007, by which date, the sale deed was to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Rajiv Sharma, J. CMP No.5518/2011 1. Heard. The application is not opposed. Allowed. Priyanka Thakur is permitted to be added as petitioner No.4. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties. The application stands disposed of. Core issue involved for adjudication in this petition is: whether the action of the respondent-State not to reserve seats for the candidates belonging to backward areas in I.G.M.C. Shimla is unconstitutional? Respondent No.4-University issued prospectus on behalf of State of Himachal Pradesh for holding combined Pre- Medical Entrance Test for graduate (M.B.B.S./B.D.S.) courses in Himachal Pradesh for academic session 2011- 2012. The last date for submission of application, as per prospectus, was 30.4.2011. It is evident from the prospectus issued by respondent No.4-University that no seats have been reserved for the candidates belonging to backward areas in I.G.M.C. Shimla. Two Seats have been reserved for this category in Dr. Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
1. Present Regular First Appeal has been directed by the appellant-defendant, having felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.6 of 2003, decided on 20th November, 2008 whereby the suit for recovery filed by the respondents, hereinafter to be referred as ‘the plaintiffs’, was decreed for a sum of `3,30,000/- as damages for causing death of Naranjan Singh, husband of respondent No.1 Trishla Devi, by fire-shot by the appellant, hereinafter to be called as ‘the defendant’. 2. In short, the brief facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. On 5th August, 2001, at about 6.40 pm, Naranjan Singh deceased a class IV employee in the Ayurvedic Department, was working in the fields of his brother Rakesh Kumar alongwith other family members. The defendant came to the spot alongwith his servant Ramu and threatened the deceased with dire consequences, in case he alongwith his family members would not desist fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
1. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) Quash the impugned order Annexure A-1 issued arbitrarily, malafidely and illegally by the respondents; (b) Direct the respondents to permit the applicant to continue in the post of Secretary being held by him presently; (c) Quash the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Secretary; (d) Direct the respondents to produce all the relevant documents alongwith reply for perusal by this Hon’ble Tribunal; (e) Allow the cost of this O.A.; (f) Pass such other order or directions as deemed fit and proper in favour of the applicant. 2. Annexure A-1 is the office order dated 21.8.1999 of which petitioner is aggrieved of. The same is reproduced as under:- “Whereas Shri S. R. Verma, Secretary retired from the post of Secretary of the Union on 30.11.1994 and due to this Shri H. R. Chauhan, Superintendent/Accounts Officer was temporarily ordered to take charge of the Secretary of the Union. Whereas the finding and result of the enqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
1. By this judgment, three appeals, particulars whereof are given hereinabove, are being disposed of, because appellants in all the three appeals, have been convicted and sentenced by the same judgment of the trial Court, i.e. judgment dated 28.6.2002, of learned Special Judge, Shimla. 2. Appellants, Jai Lal Banstu and Balbir Singh, have been convicted of offences, under Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420 IPC and Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, while appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, besides the aforesaid offences, have been convicted of offences, under Sections 218 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. All the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 120-B IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/-, under Section 420 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years an...
Tag this Judgment!