Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-19-2008
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4587; 2008(12)SCALE608; 2008AIRSCW6273; 2008(5)LH(SC)3775.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Chattisgarh High Court, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Challenge in the appeal was to the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Raipur, in S.T. No. 53/2000 who found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the `Atrocities Act') Life sentence was imposed in respect of the offence 302 IPC, however, no separate sentence was imposed for the offence relatable to Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.3. Prosecution version, in a nutshell, is as follows:On 20.8.2000 at about 6 p.m. Bholaram (PW-3) lodged a report in the Police Station Basna before Station House Officer D.K. Sharma (PW-9) to the effect that today at about 3 p.m. when he along with his father was digging groundnuts in their agricultural...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-18-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC204; 2009CriLJ378; 2008(12)SCALE604; 2008AIRSCW7139
Altamas Kabir, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 1st December, 2004, passed by the Uttaranchal High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants herein (Criminal Appeal No. 851/01) against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Almora, in ST No. 36 of 1987, convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 394 Indian Penal Code. One of the accused, Ratan Singh, died during the trial which abated against him and continued against the other accused persons.2. According to the prosecution, on 26th February, 1987, the deceased Bhupal Singh @ Joga Singh of village Sain Bagaria, District Almora, Uttaranchal, went to the Mela held at village Dabra on the occasion of Shiv Ratri along with his wife and two children. He had taken an amount of Rs. 3,000/- with him for purchasing two bullocks and a goat. While at the Mela, he met Gusain Singh and remained at the Mela with his wife and children till 4.30 p.m. when he sent them back to their v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-10-2008
Reported in : 2008(12)SCALE301; 2008AIRSCW6342; 2008(8)SCC660
..... . on the basis of the misinterpretation of appellant's remarks as reported in certain sections of the media, the complainants also alleged that the appellant had deliberately insulted the 'gorkhali/nepali' community and hence he was liable to be prosecuted for an offence under section 153a of ipc. in furtherance of fir no. 125/2007, the inspector-in-charge, sadar p .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-22-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC552; JT2008(9)SC263; 2008(11)SCALE607; 2008(3)Crimes343; 2008(6)Supreme256
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court accepting the appeal filed by the respondents who were found guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). The High Court held that if on taking overall view of the case right of self defence is made out or looks probable from the evidence on record, that right should not be construed narrowly because the right of self defence is a very valuable right and it has a social purpose.2. Background facts as projected by prosecution in a nutshell are as follows:The incident occurred on 12.7.1978 at about 5.30 a.m. The respondents 1 and 2 are brothers and sons of Sheo Balak Misra. On the aforesaid date and time the accused respondents armed with knife and lathi respectively arrived at the `Gotha' of the Mohan Mishra (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') and accused Hari Shanker started beating the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-20-2008
Reported in : 2008(11)SCALE504; 2008(2)LC1133(SC); 2008AIRSCW5914
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. These appeals, which are filed by the complainant, are against an order of acquittal passed by the Patna High Court on 9th August, 2000, whereby the Division Bench acquitted the respondents while allowing the appeals filed by them questioning the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge II, Gaya on 22nd December, 1997 in Sessions Tr. Nos. 177/1995 and 134/1995.2. Satendra Sharma, respondent No. 1 in Crl. Appeal 553/2001 was tried for offences punishable under Section 364, Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 while Pankaj Sharma and Ramakant Sharma, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in Crl. Appeal 554/2001 were tried for offences punishable under Section 364, Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder of one Ajay Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased'). The trial court found that all the three respondents are guilty and sentenced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-08-2008
Reported in : JT2008(8)SC650; 2008(11)SCALE233; 2008AIRSCW6322
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Challenging the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 19.9.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 1980 acquitting Kishanpal Singh, Suresh Singh, Mahendra Singh @ Neksey Singh, Jaivir Singh, Sheodan Singh and Bahar Singh (Accused Nos. 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 & 10), the State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:On 21.6.1978 at 3.30 p.m., the sixteen accused persons gathered at the door of Gyan Singh and made a criminal conspiracy for killing Kaptan Singh and Raj Mahesh as they were harassing them unnecessarily. At about 4.00 P.M., Onkar Singh, Kishanpal Singh, Vijaipal Singh, Suresh Singh, Naresh Singh, Daulat Singh, Mahendra Singh @ Neksey Singh, Jaivir Singh, Sheodan Singh and Bahar Singh (Accused Nos. 1to10) reached at the place of occurrence with firearms. Onkar Singh (Accused No. 1), Naresh Singh (Accused No. 5), Daulat Singh (Accused No. 6) and Sheodan Singh (Accused No. 9) had guns while others had country-ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-24-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)301; 2008(3)ALT(Cri)472; JT2008(8)SC411; 2008(10)SCALE536; 2008AIRSCW5578; 2008(3)Crimes141; 2008(4)LH(SC)2972
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the appeal filed by the State of U.P. questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 1993. Two persons i.e. the present appellant and his wife Smt. Kapoori Devi were tried for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') for the murder of one Jagat Singh (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased'). The trial Court directed acquittal of the appellant primarily on the ground that there was discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, independent witnesses were not examined. In appeal filed by the State, the High Court held that while the acquittal of Smt. Kapoori Devi (A-2) was correct, the same was not sustainable so far as the present appellant is concerned.2. Background facts in a n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-22-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC3200; 2008(10)SCALE292; (2008)11SCC637
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant questions legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur Bench. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentenced him to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine with default stipulation. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 447 IPC and sentenced to undergo 15 days' RI. Additionally, he was convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI and pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. Similarly, in respect of offence punishable under Section 324 IPC he was sentenced to undergo RI for one year. In appeal, by the impugned judgment, High Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:On 3.8.1999, Vaje Singh (PW-1) lodged a First Information Repo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-16-2008
Reported in : 2008(121)ECC1; 2008(157)LC1(SC); JT2008(8)SC426; 2008(10)SCALE498; 2008AIRSCW5954.
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final judgment and order No. 1-1255/KOL/2001 dated 23rd November, 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner.2. The three Bills of Entry which are the bone of contentions in the present case are detailed below:(i) Bill of Entry Sl. No. 2256 dated 30th April, 1998, per Vessel X-Press Singapore Voy-257, Rot. No. 258/98 dated 7th April, 1998, Line No. 97, Country of origin - India, Goods 135 cartons 2/64 NM Merino Wool 100% Raw White on paper cone, Assessable Value - Rs. 36,63,829/-. (ii) Bill of Entry Sl. No. 2440 dated 29th May, 1998, per Vessel S.S. Acacia V. 818, Rot No. 370/98, Line No. 154, Country of Origin - India, Goods - 20 pallets Polyester 100% Semi Dull Ring Spun Yarn for weaving NE 24/2, Assessable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-16-2008
Reported in : 2008(10)SCALE249
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.2. The appellant and his father Baldu had filed the appeal before the High Court questioning the correctness of the conviction and imposition of sentence as done by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 1980. The appellant's father Baldu died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and, therefore, the appeal stood abated so far as he is concerned.3. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows:Kali Charan, first informant (PW-1), his father Lachhi Ram (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and his mother Smt. Ram Kunwar were returning after ploughing the land of Chandra Bhan with their bullocks on 28.7.1980 through th...
Tag this Judgment!