Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC619; 1977CriLJ433; (1977)1SCC188; [1977]2SCR232
S. Murtaza Fazi Ali, J.1. It is a peculiar feature of our criminal law that where a trespasser has succeeded in taking recent wrongful possession of the property vested in the public for common enjoyment, the members of the village or the real owner are not entitled in law to throw out the trespasser but have to take recourse to the legal remedies available, and if any member of the public tries to secure public property from the possession of the trespasser he is normally visited with the onerous penalty of law. This is what appears to have happened in this appeal by special leave in which the appellants appear to have got themselves involved in an armed conflict with the prosecution party resulting in the death of the deceased, injuries to some of the prosecution witnesses and injuries to three of the accused themselves.2. The prosecution case in short is that on July 18, 1966 at about 7-30 to 8-00 in the morning when Ram Khelawan and his companions were removing weeds from the paddy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4089; 2003(2)ALD(Cri)162; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)11; 2003CriLJ2312; JT2003(3)SC550; 2003(3)SCALE649; (2003)9SCC426
Sema, J.1. This appeal by special leave is preferred by the State against the judgment of the High Court whereby and whereunder the sentences and convictions imposed by the Trial Court have been set-aside by allowing the appeal, preferred by the accused.2. The accused Mishrilal s/o Balmukund Jaiswal, Madhusudan s/o Mishrilal, s/o Mishrilal Radhakrishan s/o Ganpat Kala Vinod Kumar s/o Babulal Kalal, Hukumchand s/o Shankerlal Kalal, Jagdish s/o Shankarlal Kalal, Rajendrakumar s/o Babulal Kalal and Ashok Kumar s/o Mishrilal Kalal were tried in Session Trial No. 73 of 1987 whereby the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Devas convicted accused Ashok under Sections 302, 307 read with Sections 149 and 148 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act; accused Jamunaprasad under Sections 307, 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 IPC and the remaining accused under Section 302 read with Sections 149, 307 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the IPC and sentenced all the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1808; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)528; 1997(1)BLJR547; JT1997(1)SC406; (1998)9SCC238; [1996]Supp10SCR905
ORDERThomas, J.1. For Bhagelu Singh Yadav, his own residence became most devastatingly unsafe when he and his wife were gunned down by armed assailants during a summer night in the month of June, 1980. His wife Sona Devi fell down dead on the spot though Bhagelu Singh escaped death as the pellets did not injure his vital organs. But the irony of fate of his neighbour Ram Janam Rai was horrendous as he too was shot dead just because he woke up hearing the sound of commotion from his neighbourhood. Balroop Yadav (first cousin of Bhagelu Singh Yadav). His two sons (Nathuni Yadav and Chela Yadav) and his son-in-law (Chandrika Yadav) were charge-sheeted by the police on the aforesaid incident before the Sessions Court. After trial learned Sessions Judge acquitted all of them. But a Division Bench of the Patna High Court has reversed the acquittal and convicted them of murder and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. This appeal, is filed under Section 2A of the Supreme Court (Enl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(1)Crimes1120(SC); JT1993(3)SC379; 1993(2)SCALE44; (1993)2SCC567; [1993]2SCR329
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is if the High Court was justified in allowing the application filed by the accused for declaring that the charges framed by the Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 24/27th July, 1990 were null and void as they were obtained by fraud, practised by the State.2. Merits or otherwise of the applications, alleging fraud against the State, apart, what has left us completely surprised is not so much the entertaining of the applications filed by the accused, for declaration that the charges framed against him were nullity having been procured by fraud as the procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge of granting the prayer merely for failure of the State to file any reply by way of counter-affidavit than by recording any finding that the State was guilty of procuring the order framing the charges by fraud. One of the objection, raised by the State was that since the High Court by its order passed on 25/26t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4230; 2003(2)ALD(Cri)490; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)187; 2003CriLJ3857; RLW2003(4)SC551; 2003(5)SCALE595; (2003)7SCC291; 2003(2)LC1417(SC)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated 31.1.1991 of Jaipur Bench of High Court of Rajasthan by which the appeal preferred by the respondents against their conviction and sentence was allowed and they were acquitted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh (Alwar) had convicted the respondents under Sections 148, 307, 302 and 448 IPC and had sentenced them to one year RI, 7 years RI and a fine of Rs.1000/-, imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- and one month RI respectively under each count. The respondent No. 1 Bhawani had been further convicted under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and had been sentenced to one year RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-.2. According to the prosecution, the incident took place at about 5.30 p.m. on 21.12.1985 in village Bhajna was when PW1 Daya Ram was cutting fodder in his Nohara. The respondents Bhawani armed with gun, Hari Singh armed with country-made pistol and three...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC4119; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)478; 2004CriLJ3877; JT2004(6)SC285; 2004(4)MhLj500; 2004MPLJ262(SC); 2004(6)SCALE475; (2004)6SCC485; 2004(2)LC1418(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. It was further directed that in case the fine was deposited, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was to be paid to the injured person as compensation. One Rao Saheb Nagorao Khose also faced trial under Section 307 read with Section 109 IPC. He was acquitted by the Trial Court. But appellant's appeal before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench did not bring any relief to the appellant.3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:Accused Bappa alias Bapu (A-1) alongwith Bibhishan (PW-10) had gone to cinema to witness a movie and were coming back by bicycle. Suddenly the appellant got down from the bicycle and stabbed Bibhishan on his stomach and back and started to press his neck. Hearing his cries for he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC951; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)414; 2006CriLJ1121; 2006(2)CTC762; JT2006(1)SC428; 2006(I)OLR(SC)337; 2006(1)SCALE369; (2006)2SCC450; 2006(1)LC370(SC)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.7.2004 of Allahabad High Court by which the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed and their conviction under Sections 147, 148 and 323, 324 & 302 all read with Section 149 IPC as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and the sentences awarded thereunder were affirmed. The appellants were awarded various terms of imprisonment on different counts including sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.2. According to the case of the prosecution the incident giving rise to the present appeals took place in Village Sivpur Deeyar Nai Basti in the district of Ballia. The first informant PW-1 Ganesh Singh was residing in the village while his elder brother Hira Singh (deceased) was carrying on business in Calcutta. Five days before the present incident, which took place on 14.3.1979, accused Radha Mohan Singh (A-1), Kaushal Kishore Singh (A-5)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001IXAD(SC)313; AIR2002SC143; (2002)4BOMLR714; 2002CriLJ226; 2002(1)Crimes31(SC); JT2001(9)SC605; 2001(8)SCALE36; (2001)10SCC109
Shah, J. 1. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 7.8.2001 passed in TADA Special Case No.31 of 1993 passed by the Designated Court for Greater Bombay at Bombay. By the impugned judgment and order, out of 24 accused, the Designated Court convicted A-6 Subhashsingh Shobhnathsingh Thakur. A-2 Jaywant Dattatraya Suryarao and A-7 Shamkishor Shamsharma Garikapatti for the various offences as under:-'1. A. Subhashsingh Shobhnathsingh Thakur- (a) under Section 3(2)(i) of TADA (P) Act and ins sentenced of death and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more;(b) under Section 120B IPC and is sentenced to death;(c) under Section 3(2)(ii) of the TADA (P) Act and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more;(d) under Section 3(3) of the TADA (P) Act and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1999)ACC112; 1999ACJ1; AIR1999SC589; 1999(47)BLJR1; [1999]95CompCas629(SC); JT1998(8)SC217; 1999(2)KLT9(SC); (1999)IMLJ87(SC); (1999)121PLR1; RLW1999(2)SC214; 1998(6)SCAL
Nanavati, J.1. These appeals were earlier placed for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of our learned Brothers Bharucha and Majmudar, JJ. on 20.2.1996. Upon hearing the counsel, the Division Bench passed the following order:'What we are concerned with in these matters is the correct interpretation of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The question arises, specifically, in the context of the death of the owner of goods being carried in a goods vehicle, and the question is whether the insurer of the goods' vehicle is liable to pay the compensation awarded to his legal heirs. We note that there are divergent views expressed by the High Courts. Apart from that, in our view, a decision of a bench of two learned Judges in Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi and Ors. v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pit. Ltd. and Anr., : [1977]3SCR372 , needs to be reconsidered in greater detail. In these circumstances, it is appropriate that these matters should be heard and disposed of by a benc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1997)ACC520; 1998ACJ1; AIR1997SC3854; [1997]90CompCas405(SC); JT1997(8)SC229; (1998)IMLJ17(SC); (1997)117PLR606; 1997(6)SCALE238; (1997)8SCC1; [1997]Supp4SCR250; 1997(2)
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. In these three appeals by special leave, a short but ticklish question arises for consideration. It runs as under :Where an employee receives a personal injury in a motor accident arising out of and in the course of his employment while working on the motor vehicle of the employer, whether the insurance company, which has insured the employer-owner of the vehicle against third party accident claims under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Motor Vehicles Act') and against claims for compensation arising out of proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Compensation Act') in connection with such motor accidents, is liable to meet the awards of Workmen's Commissioner imposing penalty and interest against the insured employer, under Section 4-A(3) of the Compensation Act. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the impugned judgments has answered this question in the negative and against the insured ...
Tag this Judgment!