Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-16-2008
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2124
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Two nephews of Babu (deceased) viz. Dharmendra Singh and Nepal Singh, appellants herein, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bharatpur on the allegation of committing murder of Babu. Learned Judge vide judgment dated April 18, 2003 convicted and sentenced them under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.2. Brief facts necessary of this appeal are as follows:Siya Ram had four sons namely Chet Ram, Babu, Biri Singh and Balbir. Since whereabouts of Biri Singh were not known for the last 20 years, agricultural land belonging to Siya Ram was divided in three parts and Chet Ram, Babu and Balbir each had a share of 13 bighas of land. Babu remained unmarried throughout. Chet Ram and Balbir had three and four sons respectively. About six years back Babu adopted Chet Ram's son Rajendra Singh, who used to plough 13 bighas of land of Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-04-2008
Reported in : RLW2008(2)Raj1643
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Javed Masood and Syed Najib Hasan, appellants herein, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk, who vide judgment dated July 25, 2003, convicted and sentenced them as under:Under Section 302 IPC:Both to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 201 IPC:Both to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC:Both to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.FACTS AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:2. Put briefly the prosecution case is that on May 25, 1999 at 1 PM Sub Inspector of Police Station Kotwali Tonk recorded Parcha Bayan (Ex.P12) of Chuttu @ Nizamuddin (Pw. 5) wherein he stated that on the said day around 12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-04-2008
Reported in : AIR2008Raj119
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner, whereby the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1 Bikaner vide order dated 8-7-2005 decided the issue Nos. 2 to 8 in the petition under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and refused to dismiss the petition of the non-petitioner for grant of maintenance.2. The facts leading to preferring this revision petition by the petitioner husband of the non-petitioner No. 1 and father of the non-petitioner No. 2 are that the marriage of the petitioner with non-petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 27-4-1996 at Bikaner. Out of wedlock, one son-non-petitioner No. 2 born. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's father was reformist, in favour of simple marriage and was against taking dowry. The petitioner's father was also of the view that the marriage should be solemnized without any show. The non-petitioner No. 1's father approached petitioner's father in the month of April...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-06-2008
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2352
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.Where can one go?This city has become a jungle,Hither serpants,Thither Mongooses dwell1. Uchchav Lal (since deceased) while subjected Khaju and Pappu, appellants in appeals No. 201/2004 and 401/2007, were indicted for having looted a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and killing Uchchav Lal, before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk, although Badri Lal and Smt.Kesanta, appellants in appeals No. 930/2003 and 931/2003, were charged under Sections 201 and 412 IPC. Learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants vide judgment dated June 2, 2003 thus:Rajendra, Bhanwar Pal, Pyare Lal, Rafeeq, and Khaju: Under Section 302/120B/149 & 396 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 307/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 326/149 IPC:Each to su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-29-2008
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj382
Prakash Tatia, J.1. These three D.B. Criminal Appeals have been preferred to challenge the judgment and order dated 29.9.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.Bali passed in Sessions Case No. 61/99 (39/02), by which the trial Court convicted the appellant Bhanwar Singh @ Chhatar Singh and Madho Singh under Section 302, IPC as well as under Section 302/120B, IPC, whereas convicted appellant Kishan Chand under Section 302/120B as well as under Section 302.115, IPC. The accused Kishan Chand has been acquitted of charge under Section 302/34, IPC. The accused Bhanwar Singh @ Chhatar Singh and Madho Singh have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC with fine of Rs. 20,000/- to each and in default thereof, to undergo sue months rigorous imprisonment. They have also been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/120B, IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof, to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. Kishan Chand has been sente...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-05-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ302
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota whereby the accused appellant was convicted for offence under Section 307 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of eight years with a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month.2. Factual matrix of the case are that one Smt. Ayodhya Bai submitted a written report on 1-12-1982 to the Police Station Kaithooni Police inter alia alleging therein that at about 7.30 PM on that date she along with her sister's daughter Vimla and son Kishan has gone to see the Dusshera Mela. When they reached near Shripura Bus Stand, Pradeep @ Pinku, the present petitioner, Chotya, Afzal and Assu approached them from behind. Chotya, Afzal and Assu caught hold of Kishan and accused appellant Pradeep caused to him injuries by knife which he had carried in his pocket. Kishan received three injuries on his person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-24-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Raj38; 2009(1)WLN373
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The facts in brief as pleaded by both the appellants are that both the appellants fell in love with each other and without the consent of their parent entered into wedlock on 26-8-2006 by following the rites of Arya Samaj. They could not live together for a single day (or night) as immediately after their marriage, the fact of marriage of the appellants came in knowledge of their parents and they did not accept this marriage. Because of above fact situation only, the appellants stated that the 'appellants do not want to live together nor they want to continue this marriage relation because they contacted the marriage because of their lack of understanding'. They further pleaded that not only they did not live together for a single day (or night) after marriage, but they did not meet with each other for a single moment after the marriage. With these averments, the appellants, husband and wife filed present petition before the Family Court under Section 138 of the Hin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-12-2008
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2195
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Like the Biblical story of David and Goliath, this is a case of an individual pitted against the colossal State. Having bought some properties at Pushkar, an ancient and a holy city in Rajasthan, the petitioner has been running a hotel in the name and style of 'Hotel Pushkar Palace' since 1981. There were certain legal battles fought between the petitioner and the Municipality Board ('the Board', for short), Pushkar-the respondent No. 3 before this Court. The Board lost these battles. The Board claims to have served a notice on the petitioner on 22.4.06 directing him to remove the illegal constructions/encroachments made by him, within three days. But notwithstanding the said notice, on 22.4.06 itself, the Board demolished a part of the hotel and sealed thirty-eight rooms of the hotel. When the petitioner protested against the illegal action of the Board, the Board issued yet another notice on 28.4.067 Stunned by the demolition, aggrieved by the notice dated 28.4.06,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-15-2008
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1711
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 4th May 1987, rendered by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar whereby the accused appellant Mangi Lal was convicted in the offence under Section 334 of IPC and released on probation of good conduct.2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that in the evening of 22nd April, 1983, the complainant PW/1 Harlal, the appellant Mangi Lal and Kedar Lal ASI left for Gadhi (Madhya Pradesh) in connection with the investigation of case No. 21/83 under Section 379 of IPC. They had to take along with them the complainant Bapu Lal also of that case. So, they first reached at village Semly Chauhan to collect him. It is alleged that at the instance of Bapu Lal they haulted at Semly Chauhan to have the dinner. It is alleged that during conversation Har Lal and the appellant Mangi Lal entered into jokes. After some time the appellant Mangi Lal got angry and started threatening to kill him with knife. It is stated that when they were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-24-2008
Reported in : RLW2008(4)Raj3648
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. In these four writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the common order dated 22.10.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Collector, Barmer in the revision petitions filed by respondent Ganga Ram, bearing No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of 2007, whereby the learned Addl. Collector allowed the said revision petitions and cancelled pattas No. 182, 183, 180 and 181 dated 25.07.2003 and 20.01.2004.3. According to the facts of the case, petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 557/2008, Bhinya Ram is Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Undoo. The petitioner filed an application for grant of patta in respect of his land which was said to be in his possession for over a long period of last 100 years. The said application was filed by the petitioner Bhinya Ram to Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Undoo. Likewise, his son Navla Ram (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 554/2008), his brother Deraj Ram (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 555/2008) and his...
Tag this Judgment!