Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC1034REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3598 OF2023@ SLP(CRL.) NO.15192 OF2023DIARY NO.14840 OF2023MARIAPPAN APPELLANT VERSUS STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE RESPONDENT ORDER VIKRAM NATH, J.1. This appeal assails the correctness of the final Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2013 whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the present appellant and confirmed the order of conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and awarding life sentence passed on 05.10.2012 by the Trial Court. 1 IPC Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023 Page 1 of 132. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:2. 1 The case involves the offence of culpable homicide committed by the present appellant. The present appellant was accused no.1 before the Trial Court in S.C.No.177 of 2010 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Session Judge, E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2023INSC1012IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3548 OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) No.7957 OF2021 PAWAN KUMAR APPELLANT Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant before this Court has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No.85 of 1996 for offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 307/34 with default stipulations. The 2 conviction and sentence of the appellant was upheld in appeal by the High Court, in its order dated 07.05.2019.3. There were four accused in the case, which were Gaya Prasad Mishra, Gulab Chandra, Pawan Kumar and Babadeen. The accused Babadeen passed away during the trial and his case stood abated and the remaining three were convicted for the offences...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Criminal Appeal No.2791 of 2023 2023 INSC1011NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2791 OF2023NANHE APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF U.P. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT PANKAJ MITHAL, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. In an incident which took place on 30.05.2007 at about 3:30 p.m. in the market area, one Mahendra was injured and one Saddam Hussain, son of the informant, Mohd. Ali was killed. Two cases, one crime No.169/2007 under Section 304 and 308 IPC and another case crime No.170/2007 under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 were registered against the accused Nanhe. Page 1 | 15 Criminal Appeal No.2791 of 2023 3. Both the cases were clubbed and were tried as Sessions Trial Nos. 1097 of 2007 and 1212 of 2007 by Special Judge, S.C./S.T.(P.A.) Act,1989. The trial court vide judgment and order dated 14.05.2010 held the accused Nanhe to be guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023INSC1008IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. _____________ OF2023(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.11423-11426 of 2023) (Arising out of Diary No.7943 of 2023) PRIYA INDORIA ..APPELLANT VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. ..RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA, J.Leave granted. Birds Eye View of the Controversy:2. We begin this Judgment by an illustration: A person allegedly under intoxication beats another person with an iron rod in the State of Goa. The victim of the attack is injured. The alleged assailant travels to Rourkela, Odisha, where he is working in a factory. Meanwhile, the family of the injured registered a First Information Report (FIR) for the offence of causing grievous hurt under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the Bicholim Police Station, Goa. On coming to know about the same and apprehending his arrest, 1 the alleged assailant files an application for anticipatory bail before the District and Sessions J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC1004Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2435 OF2010Moturu Nalini Kanth Appellant Versus Gainedi Kaliprasad (dead, through LRs.) Respondents JUDGMENT SANJAY KUMAR, J1 Moturu Nalini Kanth, then a minor, claimed absolute right and title over the properties of late Venkubayamma under registered Will Deed dated 03.05.1982. It was also claimed that he was adopted by her, as evidenced by registered Adoption Deed dated 20.04.1982. Nalini Kanth was not even a year old at that time, as he was born on 10.07.1981. O.S. No.113 of 1983 was filed by Nalini Kanth, through his guardian, for declaratory and consequential reliefs in respect of Venkubayammas properties. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, held in 1 his favour, vide judgment dated 30.09.1989, and decreed the suit. However, in appeal, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held against Nalini Kanth, vide judgment dated 11.12.2006, and allowed Appeal Suit No.2695 of 1989...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023INSC990IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1381-1382 OF2017MADAN APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1790 OF2017JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 22nd February 2017, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Capital Case Nos. 3359 and 3520 of 2015 with Reference No.9 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal No.3519 of 2015, thereby dismissing the appeals filed by appellant Madan and another accused Ishwar; whereas, it allowed in part, the appeal filed by appellant Sudesh Pal. By the said judgment, the High Court confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31st 1 July 2015 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Muzzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as trial court) in Sessions Case No.09/2005 with Sessions Case No.838 of 2005 and 10/2005, in respect of appellant Madan, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC987Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4619 OF2010THANKAMMA BABY APPELLANT Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KOCHI, KERALA RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4620 OF2010JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTUAL ASPECT1 The issue involved in these appeals is of interpretation of clause (b) of sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the 1952 Act). In order to understand the controversy, the facts must be briefly stated. Civil Appeal No.4619 of 2010 Page 1 of 82) The appellant is engaged in manufacturing, assembling, and selling umbrellas. The respondent (the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner) issued a notice dated 30th December 1997 to the appellant, alleging that the 1952 Act was applicable to the appellant. It was alleged in the notice that the business of the appellant fell in the category of trading and commercial establishments notified under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023INSC975IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6190 OF2023UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DILIP PAUL RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: For the convenience of the exposition, this judgement is divided in the following parts: - INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX ................................................................................................. 4 A.1 On-Spot/Preliminary Inquiry Report .......................................................................... 6 A.2 Frontier Complaints Committees Inquiry Report...................................................... 9 A.3 Central Complaints Committees Inquiry Report ..................................................... 10 A.4 Defence of the Respondent ....................................................................................... 23 A.5 Proceedings before the CAT ..................................................................................... 23 A.6 Proce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023INSC979IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6611 OF2015JYOTIRMAY RAY APPELLANT Versus THE FIELD GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(s) JUDGMENT J.K. Maheshwari, J.1. Appellant, who was compulsorily retired as Sr. Manager, was denied the benefit of leave encashment, employers contribution of provident fund, gratuity and pension by the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). On rejection of his representation by the authorities, a challenge was made by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The said writ petition was contested by the Bank, taking the plea that due to irregularities in granting loans and cash credit facilities under the Credit Guarantee Fund Trust Scheme for Micro & Small 1 Enterprises (for short CGTMSE) and otherwise in routine loans, loss was caused to the Bank.2. The background facts were that earlier, the appellant was chargesheeted on 16.10.2009 and also served with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023INSC978IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.866 OF2011MANJUNATH & ORS. APPELLANTS Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL J., 1. Appellants1 (six in number) have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 21st September 2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.1795 of 2004 whereby the appeal filed by the State against the verdict of acquittal in favour of all 29 accused, vide judgment and order dated 25th September, 2004 in S.C. No.162 of 1999, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge - Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court- 1 Manjunath (s/o Bachanna) A-1; Ramegowda (s/o Bachanna) A-2; Ramappa (s/o Narayanappa) A-3; Ramesh (s/o Chikka Venkatarayappa) A-4; Manjunath (s/o Ramappa) A-5; Dyavappa (s/o Narayanappa) A-7. 1- [Cr. A No.866 of 2011]. II, Kolar, was partly allowed. Overturning the same in respect of A-1 to A-5 and A-7, the Court while convicting them for hav...
Tag this Judgment!