Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC24; [1983]1SCR145a
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This reference to the Constitution Bench raises a question in regard to the constitutional validity of death penalty for murder provided in Section 302, Penal Code, and the sentencing procedure embodied in Sub-section (3) of Section 354 of the CrPC, 1973.2. The reference has arisen in these circumstances :Bachan Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 1979, was tried and convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for the murders of Desa Singh, Durga Bai and Veeran Bai by the Sessions Judge. The High Court confirmed his death sentence and dismissed his appeal.3. Bachan Singh's appeal by special leave, came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court (consisting of Sarkaria and Kailasam, JJ.). The only question for consideration in the appeal was, whether the facts found by the Courts below would be 'special reasons' for awarding the death sentence as required under Section 354(3) of the CrPC 1973.4. Shri H.K. Puri, appearing as Amicu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1650; [1980(41)FLR131]; 1980LabIC992; 1980Supp(1)SCC198; [1980]3SCR1243; 1980(12)LC729(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Respondent Ram Ratan was employed as a Forest Guard in the Forest Department of Madhya Pradesh Government He was served with a chargesheet dated March 6, 1969, in which he was accused of misconduct. Respondent refuted the charges. A departmental enquiry was held by the Divisional Forest Officer, Mr. Malhotra, in respect of the charges framed against the respondent. Charge of misconduct was held proved whereupon the punishing authority served respondent with a second show cause notice dated February 12, 1970, as contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution as it stood prior to its amendment by the Constitution (Fortysecond Amendment) Act, 1976. The dispute in this appeal centers around the construction of this notice No. E/1/2053 dated February 12, 1970, and its relevant portion may be extracted :.the Enquiry Officer has concluded in the report that he is guilty of the above-mentioned charges. Hence as a result of the abovesaid charges having been established, why...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1362; 1980Supp(1)SCC53; [1980]3SCR1302
D.A. Desai, J.1. Purity of election and secrecy of ballot, two central pillars supporting the edifice of Parliamentary democracy envisioned in the Constitution stand in confrontation with each other or are complimentary to each other, present the core problem in this appeal.2. First to the factual matrix. Punjab Legislative Assembly formed a constituency for electing members to the Council of States. On March 3, 1976, a notification was issued calling upon the members of Punjab Legislative Assembly to elect three members to the Council of States. The election programme was: March 10, 1976, was prescribed as the last date for filing nominations; the scrutiny of the nominations was to be made on Match 11, 1976; March 13, 1976, was the last date by which it was permissible to withdraw from the selection; in the event of contest, poll was to take place on March 27, 1976; counting was to be done on the same day. Respondent 4 Smt. Amarjit Kaur and respondent 5 Sat Pal Mittal were nominated a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1992; (1980)4SCC1; [1980]3SCR1338
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These two writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution raise questions of some importance in the field of constitutional law, but they are not exact questions which can be divorced from the facts giving rise to them and in order to resolve them satisfactorily, it is necessary to state the facts in some detail. Though the petitioners in the two writ petitions are different, the respondents are the same and the same Order of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is challenged in both the writ petitions. Hence whatever we say in regard to the first writ petition, applies equally in regard to the second.2. The dispute in these writ petitions relates to the validity of an Order dated 27th April, 1979, passed by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, allotting to the 2nd respondents 10 to 12 lacs blazes annually for extraction of resin from the inaccessible chir forests in Poonch Reasi and Ramban Divisions of the State for a period of 10 years on the terms and conditions se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1789; (1980)3SCC625; [1981]1SCR206; 1980(12)LC727(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J., A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia and P.S. Kailasam, JJ.1. Section 4 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, which came into force with effect from January 8, 1977 amended Article 31C of the Constitution by substituting the words and figures 'all or any of the principles laid down in Part Iv for the words and figures 'the principles specified in Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Article 39'. Article 31C, as amended reads thus:31C. Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 31. no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31, and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that ft does not give effect to such policy:Provided that where such law ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC2138; (1980)4SCC174; [1981]1SCR85; 1980(12)LC753(SC)
Gupta, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is from the judgment of a Full Bench of that Court answering the following question referred to it:Whether by universal custom among the Sikh Jats of the Punjab, a widow does not forfeit her life estate in her husband's property by reason of her remarriage in Karewa form with her husband's brother, and if so, whether the custom admits of exceptions among different tribes of Sikh Jats and in particular among Dhaliwal Jats of Muktsar Tehsil of Ferozepur District.The relevant facts are these. The first three respondents, Bakhtawar Singh, Jit Singh and Chand Singh, and the deceased husband of the appellant Sada Kaur were brothers. The appellant's husband died sometime in the year 1937 and a few months later she married the third respondent Chand Singh who was a younger brother of her husband in Karewa form. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the first two respondents, Bakhtawar Singh an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1753; 1980CriLJ1270; 1980Supp(1)SCC336; 1981(13)LC344(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the High Court under Section 302 to life imprisonment and under Section 394 to five years Rigorous Imprisonment. The appellant was acquitted by the Sessions Judge of the charges framed against him but in an appeal filed by the State before the High Court, the acquittal was set aside and the appellant was convicted as mentioned above. 2. The conviction of the appellant rests entirely on circumstantial evidence consisting of the recovery of some gold ornaments at the instance of the appellant. 3. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and we find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasons given by the High Court for holding that the identity of the ornaments recovered at the instance of the appellant which belonged to the deceased Pashyabi had been fully established. It was also proved that she had been wearing these ornaments when she left the house on the night of 10 4-1973. The recoveries were made on 13...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC379; (1980)82BOMLR471; 1980CriLJ1424; (1980)4SCC600; [1981]1SCR175
Sarkaria, J.1. These appeals by special leave directed against Judgments, dated January 17, 1974 and March 29, 1974, of the Bombay High Court, raise, among others, three important questions, namely :(1) Whether an Officer of the Railway Protection Force, making an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 1966 Act), in respect of an offence under Section 3 of that Act of unlawful possession of the railway property, is a Police Officer for the purposes of Section 25, Evidence Act and Section 162 of the CrPC. 1898; and as such any confession or incriminating statement recorded by him in the course of an inquiry under Section 9 of the Act is inadmissible in evidence.(2) Whether a person arrested by an Officer of the Railway Protection Force under Section 6 of the Act for the alleged commission of an offence under Section 3 of the Act, is a 'person accused of an offence' within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.(3) Whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1780; 1980CriLJ1271; 1980Supp(1)SCC499
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The facts giving rise to this Special Leave Petition as alleged by the complainant Kewal Krishan in his complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa are as follows:An area of more than 3 acres of agricultural land situated in the revenue estate of Gidderanwali was declared 'surplus area' by the Collector of Agrarian Reforms (Sub Divisional Officer, Sirsa) and was allotted to Tenia Ram, ChanderBhan, Nihal Chand, Lal Chand and Chaman Ram. On May 25, 1979, Ram Saran Kanungo and Ram Nath Patwari accompanied by Chander Bhan, Tenia Ram allottees, Suraj Bhan, a relation of Chanderbhan and their friend Banta Singh deceased went to village Gidderanwali to deliver possession of the land to the allottees, but the possession could not be delivered and the warrant was returned. On May 28, 1979 at 5 p. m. the complainant and his clerk, Charanjit, were going to his fields. When they reached near the sugar-cane field cultivated by Ranjha Ram, Banta Singh (deceased) a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1496; 1980CriLJ1057; 1980Supp(1)SCC323
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave by the State of Haryana directed against a judgment, dated January 23, 1974, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, arises out of these circumstances:2. Dayawati, elder daughter of Harbans deceased was married to Rattan Lal, elder brother of Tej Ram, respondent herein. Dayawati was a one-eyed woman and was otherwise not mentally sound. Dayawati's younger sister, Mahindri, aged about 19 years, had separated from her husband, Bhule Gujjar, resident of Kamala, District Meerut, and was living with her father, Harbans deceased in village Ankhir.3. According to the prosecution story, the deceased allowed Rattan Lal accused to take Mahindri as his second wife. Thereupon, Mahindri started living with Rattan Lal accused in village Rithoj which is at a distance of about 20 miles from Ankhir. But the relations of Mahindri with Rattan Lal became strained and the latter started maltreating her about four or five months before the occurrence.4. Harb...
Tag this Judgment!