Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1989CriLJ2520
Bhawani Singh, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of Sessions Judge, Kangra Division, in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1982 and Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1982, decided on 13-5-1983. The appellant has been convicted under Section 304-II of the I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. The fine, on recovery, was ordered to be paid, as compensation, to the heirs of Jai Karan.2. The facts, in brief, may be stated thus. According to the prosecution, on 19-2-1982, Ranjit Singh and Roshan Lal were working at the instance of Jai Karan (deceased) and were fencing his land towards the village path at about 10 a.m. The appellant, carrying a latjii, appeared and gave lathi blows on the head of Ranjit Singh and thereafter he gave lathi blows on the head, legs and right arm of Jai Karan. The blow resulted in the fracture of the ulna of Jai Karan. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : I(1990)ACC388,AIR1990HP19
Bhawani Singh, J.1. Calamities do not come alone, they come in chain; so appears to have happened to Shrimati Vidya Devi, who at a very young age slides into the position of widowhood on the death of her husband late Nand Ram in the war in 1965. This calamity was followed by a dispute relating to the entitlement of pension admissible on the death of her husband and this dispute with her father-in-law came to be settled somewhere in 1968. Thereafter her father-in-law transferred the family property in the name of his surviving sons leaving her to depend on her parents being issueless. In this very chain of events, she herself was involved in an accident on 21-2-1974 while travelling by Himachal Road Transport Corporation Bus. She claimed compensation for the personal injuries she sustained in this accident by a claim petition but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, rejected her petition holding that she could not ask for compensation for her bleeding injuries as the doors of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1434
Bhawani Singh, J.1. This appeal, by the accused, arises out of the judgment of Sessions Judge, Kangra Division, in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1985 decided on 31-12-1985. In this case, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years; however, held entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused has a grievance against this judgment and, therefore, urges to set aside the same by this appeal.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused, a resident of Bala in Mauza Rakha raped Kumari Nisha (9 years) on 1-8-1984. It was a rainy day and she was going to her house after collecting fuel-wood. The place of occurrence was near a bowli, located near a resting place 'Sandhbehar' for cattle. She came home, went to her bed and apprised her mother only next morning and this fact was narrated to her father when he came back from the fields ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1990CriLJ723
V.P. Bhatnagar, J.1. (On behalf of Bhawani Singh, J. and himself).'What is the effect of Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vis-a-vis the provisioris of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958? Is Section 360 inapplicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh as the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has been brought into force?'are the questions referred by a Division Bench of this Court to a larger Bench for determination. We propose to answer these questions by this judgment.2. The question as framed per se indicates that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') apply to the entire area comprised in the State of Himachal Pradesh. This is not disputed.3. That the analogous provisions pertaining to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition contained in Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (for short, 'the 1898 Code') stood superseded by those contained in the Act is also beyond the pale ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1991CriLJ400
ORDERBhawani Singh, J.1. Shri Kewal Gupta, petitioner, approaches this Court through this revision petition and urges to set aside the order of judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (2), Nurpur, in Criminal Case No. 92/2.87, decided on 27-9-1988, whereby the trial Judge allowed the application of the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is being prosecuted for offences under Sections 342/384/506 of the Indian Penal Code. After the framing of the charge, the Court proceeded to record the prosecution evidence. On 18-6-1988, the trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant, Shri Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 1). While recording the statement of this witness, names of Shri Kailash Chand, s/o Shri Jagat Ram, Shri Sundri s/o Shri Jai Chand and Shri Satish s/o Shri Tek Chand were introduced and it was stated that these persons saw the occurrence. On this revelation, the prosecution moved an application under Section 311 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1990CriLJ310
Bhawani Singh, J. 1. The appellant, Madan Lal, feels aggrieved by the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. Una, in Session Case No. 8 of 1985, Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1986. By this decision on 31-3-1986, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or indefault of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for additional term of six months.2. The appellant challanges this judgment by way of this appeal.3. Let the prosecution case be narrated briefly thus. The appellant was a private medical practitioner at Badoohi Chowk in Una. Shattar-Din, complainant (P.W. 2), was a vegetable seller at the same place, occupying a Khokha near a liquor vend and before leaving this place to his village, unsold vegetables used to be kept in this khokha by him. The appellant, the prosecution alleges, used to purchase vegetables from the complainant and on the day of the occ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1989CriLJ2238
V.P. Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dt. May 1, 1985 of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmaur districts at Solan whereby he convicted accused Indru under Sections 366 and 376, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year, under Section 376, I.P.C. The accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 366; I.P.C. In default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/-, it was further ordered that he would undergo imprisonment for 6 months.2. The victim of rape is Km. Mohini whose parents are PW 4 Dila Ram and PW 6 Kamla. It is not disputed that Mohini was about 6 years old on the day of occurrence viz., Sept. 24, 1984. Mohini, her parents, PW7 Purna Chand, PW 8 Balak Ram and the accused are all residents of village Barog.3. The prosecu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1989HP23
V.P. Gupta, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree dt. 20-5-1978 passed by Additional District Judge, Kulu, the appellants (hereinafter the plaintiffs) have filed this appeal.2. The facts are that Gulab Singh, j Girdhari Lal and Hira Lal are the sons of Khub Ram. Gulab Singh and Girdhari Lal, (hereinafter the plaintiffs) filed a suit for possession of 12 Biswas of land in Khasra No. 1469 (disputed land) situate in Phati Parli of Tehsil Kulu alleging that they along with their brother Hira Lal (hereinafter defendant 2) were owners and in possession of this land. Defendant 2 was living separately from the plaintiffs and he. in collusion with Dot Ram (hereinafter defendant 1) entered into a fictitious transaction of exchange with defendant 1, by which defendant 1 agreed to give in exchange one half share of Khasra No. 1480 (measuring 1 Bigha 5 Biswas) of Phati Parli to defendant 2 and defendant 2 also agreed to give disputed Khasra No. 1469 todefendant 1. Mutation No. 782 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : I(1988)ACC382
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. The accident giving rise to this appeal occurred on October 21, 1973, at about 4-30 p.m. in village Bhumain, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. The husband of the first appellant and the father of the rest of the appellants, aged about 32 at the material time, died as a result of the injuries received by him in the course of the said accident.2. The vehicle involved in the accident, truck No. HPB 154, was owned by the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department (first respondent). It was being driven at the material time by the second respondent, an employee of the first respondent.3. In the claim petition instituted by the appellants, compensation was claimed in the sum of Rs. 2,40,000/-. The Motor Accident claims Tribunal found that the accident had occurred on account of the negligent act of the second respondent in reversing the vehicle in a narrow street of the village without the assistance of the cleaner to guide him. The Tribunal assessed the loss of monthly depen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1988HP49
1. The accident giving rise to this appeal occurred on Oct. 21, 1973, at about 4.30 p.m. in village Bhumain, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. The husband of the first appellant and the father of the rest of the appellants, aged about 32 at the material time, died as a result of the injuries received by him in the course of the said accident.2. The vehicle involved in the accident, truck No. HPB 154, was owned by the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department (first respondent). It was being driven at the material time by the second respondent, an employee of the first respondent.3. In the claim petition instituted by the appellants, compensation was claimed in the sum of Rs. 2,40,000/-. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that the accident had occurred on account of the negligent act of the second respondent in reversing the vehicle in a narrow street of the village without the assistance of the cleaner to guide him. The Tribunal assessed the loss of monthly dependency at Rs. 225/- ...
Tag this Judgment!