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 : Nov-20-2008
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj865
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the negligence on the part of the Doctors, who carried out the sterilization operation-onl4.2.2001 at a camp organized and supervised by the Surgeon of Family Welfare Center, Divisional Hospital, Gangapurcity, the respondent No. 2. The Doctors informed Smt. Uganti, petitioner No.2 that the operation was successful. But after the operation, Smt. Uganti became pregnant and gave birth to a child on 31.8.2002. Since the petitioner are poor, they did not want the fourth pregnancy. It was for the purpose of preventing the pregnancy, that Smt. Uganti had undergone the Sterlisation operation on 14.2.2001.2. It is further claimed by the petitioner that due to the negligence of the Doctors, she has suffered not only physical hardship, but also mental agony. She is also saddled with the responsibility of the fourth child. Therefore, she claims a compensation of Rs. 13,65,000/-from the respondents.3. Mr. Chetan Bairwa, the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-12-2008
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1732
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders Annex.P-2 dated 22.06.1990, Annex.P-5 dated 10.01.2005 and Annex.P-6 dated 28.02.2005 and a direction to the respondents to grant him disability pension w.e.f. 25.07.1989 when he was invalided out from service.2. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances of the case which are relevant and necessary for the decision of this writ petition are that the petitioner was recruited in Indian Navy on 04.02.1985 after thorough medical examination by the Medical authorities of the Navy, he was found medically fit in medical category 'AYE' and at the time of his recruitment he was not suffering from any disease or disability. On being medically examined by the medical authorities of the Navy at the time of recruitment, his vision was 6/6 of both the eyes. The petitioner while in service and performing the Naval duties, suffered Retinitis Pegmentosa and was exa...
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!