Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-06-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.57 OF2014Subrata Roy Sahara . Petitioner versus Union of India and others . Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.I. Should we be hearing this case?. Would it not be better, for another Bench to hear this case?.1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers:- (a) Declare the order dated 4.3.2014 as void, nullity and non-est in the eyes of law; (b) Declare that the incarceration and the custody of the petitioner are illegal which should be terminated forthwith; (c) Issue such other writ in the nature of Habeas (corpus) or other writs, order or direction for release of the petitioner from the illegal custody. (d) Pass such further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. A perusal of the prayers made in the writ petition reveals, that in sum and substance the petitioner has assailed the order date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-28-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.695 OF2014(Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No.1953 of 2013) DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY & ORS. ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS RAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE ... RESPONDENT (S) JUSTICE BOARD & ANR. With W.P. (Crl.) No.204 of 2013 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.SLP (Crl.) No.1953 of 2013 1. On 16th December, 2012 a young lady (23 years in age) and her friend were returning home after watching a movie in a multiplex located in one of the glittering malls of Delhi. They boarded a bus to undertake a part of the journey back home. While the bus was moving, 5 persons brutally assaulted the young lady, sexually and physically, and also her friend. Both of them were thrown out of the bus. The young lady succumbed to her injuries on 29.12.2012.2. Five persons were apprehended in connection with the crime. One of them, identified for the purpose of the present case as Raju, was below 18 years of age on the date of commission o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-15-2014
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1508 OF2005ASHOK RAI APPELLANT Versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. There were eight accused. They were Bashisht Rai-A1, Jai Prakash Rai-A2, Ashok Rai-A3, Awadh Narain Rai-A4, Hirdaya Narain-A5, Umesh Chandra Rai-A6, Loknath-A7 and Ramnath Rai-A8. All of them were tried in Sessions Trial No.215 of 1979. Bashisht RaiA1 was tried for the offences under Sections 148, 302 and 449 of the IPC. Ashok Rai-A3 and Umesh Chandra Rai-A6 were charged under Sections 148, 449 and 302 read with Sections 34 & 149 of the IPC. They were alternatively charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Rest of the accused were charged under Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.2. According to the prosecution deceased Kailash Rai, the material witnesses and the appellant belong to one family being descendants of a common ancestor. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-25-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1695 OF2005MANJEET SINGH APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.The appellant has assailed the judgment dated 18th October, 2004 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.259 of 2002. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court dated 27th March, 2002 in Sessions Trial No.17-S/7 of 2001 wherein the Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default, further imprisonment for one year. The appellant was also sentenced by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 324 IPC to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, further simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant was also sentenced f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-25-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4896 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.35001 of 2012) Sri Ram Builders Appellant VERSUS State of M.P. & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4897 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.35017 of 2012) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4898-4899 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 35027-35028 of 2012) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4900 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.36887 of 2012) JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Civil Appeal of 2014 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.35001 of 2012 impugning the judgment of the M.P. High Court at Jabalpur rendered in Writ Petition No.2937 of 2009. The Writ Petition has been disposed of along with Review Application MCC No.99 of 2009 and MCC No.893 of 2008 as well as Contempt Petition No.469 of 2008. The writ petition has been disposed of with certain directions. Whereas the aforesaid Contempt Petition and the two Review Petitions have been disposed of in vie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : May-29-2014
Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the judgment of the court): 1. This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court in Registrar's Appeal No 273 of 2012, where the judge ("the Judge") dismissed the appellant's appeal against an award of damages made by an assistant registrar ("the AR"). The Judge's decision is reported in Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei Yen [2013] 3 SLR 1113 ("the GD"), and the AR's decision, in Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei Yen [2012] SGHCR 8. 2. The case concerns the assessment of damages for the loss of future earnings ("LFE") and future medical expenses ("FME") of a tort victim who is injured in an accident. The conventional approach in assessing damages in such cases involves the selection of: (a) an appropriate multiplicand representing the plaintiff's projected annual future earnings or medical expenses (depending on whether it is LFE or FME that is being assessed); and (b) an appropriate multiplier representing the plaintiff's remaining working life or life ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-01-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2287 OF2009Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod ..Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1593 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2077 of 2009].; CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1594 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2112 of 2009].; CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1595 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2117 of 2009].; CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1596-1600 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.1308-1312 of 2009].; CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1601 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3762 of 2012].; CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1602 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3943 of 2012].; CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1603 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3944 of 2012].; AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1604 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.59 of 2013].. JUDGMENT VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions. These Appeals raise a legal nodus of substantial public importance pertaining to Courts territorial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-10-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1750 OF2008Hardeep Singh Appellant Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents With CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1751 of 2008 Manjit Pal Singh Appellant Versus State of Punjab & Anr. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9184 of 2008 Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria & Anr. Appellants Versus State of Gujarat & Ors. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.7209 of 2010 Rajendra Sharma & Anr. Appellants Versus State of M.P. & Anr. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.5724 of 2009 Ravinder Kumar & Anr. Appellants Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.5975 of 2009 Tej Pal & Anr. Appellants Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9040 of 2010 Juned Pahalwan Appellant Versus State of U.P.& Anr. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.5331 of 2009 Raj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
Decided on : May-30-2014
On appeal from: North GautengHigh Court, Pretoria (Vorster AJ sitting as court of first instance): 1. The late filing of the appellants supplementary record and heads of argument is condoned. 2. The appeal is reinstated. 3. The respondents are directed to pay the costs of opposition in the reinstatement application. 4. The appeal is upheld with costs including the costs of two counsel. 5. The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with the following: (i) The defendant is directed to pay the first plaintiff the amount of R30000 being damages for unlawful arrest and detention, which amount shall bear interest at the rate of 15,5 per cent per annum from 8 February 2013 until the date of payment and in relation thereto, the defendant is directed to pay the first plaintiffs costs. (ii) The second plaintiffs claim for special damages is dismissed and in relation thereto the second plaintiff is to pay the defendants costs. JUDGMENT Theron JA (Navsa, Shongwe and Willis JJA and Legod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Decided on : May-16-2014
K. Sripavan, J. The Accused Appellant Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the œAppellant?) was indicted before the High Court of Hambantota on the following two counts : Count 1. That he did on the 28th of September, 1977 kidnap one Jayamunigedera Suramya from the lawful custody of her guardian Anulawathie thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 354 of the Penal Code. Count 2 That he did commit the offence of Rape on the said Jayamunigedera Suramya during the period 28th September 1997 and 26th October 1997 thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 364(2) of the Penal Code. The High Court found the Appellant guilty on both counts at the trial and sentenced him on 28.09.2005 as follows:- Count 1 Five years Rigorous Imprisonment. Count 2 Ten years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2500/= and an order for compensation in a sum of Rs. 5000/= with a default term of six months Rigorous Imprisonment. The Court further ordered that both sentences to run concur...
Tag this Judgment!