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(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!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 : Aug-06-2008
Reported in : 2008(133)ECC183; 2008(159)LC183(SC); 2008(229)ELT487(SC)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Respondent company is an undertaking wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is engaged in the manufacture of railway wagons and conveyor systems falling under Heading 8605.50 and 8428.00 respectively of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Upon verification of their accounts, it was noticed on 16th July 1998 that the respondent had entered into a contract, being Contract No. 94/RS/PF&EC;/954/3 dated 1.12.1994, with the Southern Railways for manufacture and supply of 106 wagons of BTPGLN wagons for an amount of Rs. 16,10,90,974/- which was inclusive of cost of steel at Rs. 6,65,833/- per wagon. The cost of each wagon worked out to Rs. 15,29,724/- (6,55,833 + 8,63,891). The Railways supplied free raw material worth Rs. 7 lac per wagon. The respondent paid central excise duty @ 15% ad valorem and cleared 21 wagons to their customer till 16th July 1998. It was also noticed that the respondent has adjusted the value mentioned in the invoices against 50...
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 : 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 : Oct-13-2008
Reported in : 2008(13)SCALE367; 2008AIRSCW7256; AIR2009SC282; 2009(2)KCCRSN54
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and upholding his conviction for offences punishable under Sections 302, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for three years and one year respectively with fine and default stipulations.3. Appellant faced trial along with one Sukku alias Sikku, who was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the other offences, as in the case of present appellant.4. Both the accused persons had preferred appeals before the High Court questioning correctness of the judgment recorded by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 1997.5. In brief the prosecution is that Ganesh Prasad, who is the author of the FIR heard hue and cry of Shakunbai at about 8-9 PM as a resu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-21-2008
Reported in : 2008(13)SCALE398; (2009)2SCC47
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 3015-3016/2005. The appellants in these two appeals are the kith and kin of some persons killed in the Godhra Train Burning incident and in the Akshardham Temple attack. They2 have challenged the judgment dated 13.4.2005 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA Nos. 1103 & 1105/2005 filed by them. For convenience, the appellants in these two appeals will be referred to as the `relatives of victims'.2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1113/2005, 1498- 1500/2005, 359/2006, 734/2007, 735/2007 and 736/2007 are persons who have been charged in respect of offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, in terrorism related cases. In these appeals, they have also challenged the said judgment dated 13.4.2005 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA Nos. 1103 & 1105 of 2005, and other judgments of the said High Court and the judgment of the Bombay High Court which follow the said decision. The appellants in these appeals wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-07-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC1685; JT2009(1)SC281; 2008(13)SCALE698
R.V. Raveendran J.1. The Indian Express in its issues dated 2nd to 5th August, 2002 carried news reports alleging irregularities in allotment of Retail Outlets, LPG distributorship and SKO-LDO dealerships, by selection of relatives/associates of political functionaries. Questions were also raised in the Parliament in regard to the alleged irregularities. In view of the said controversy, on a review on 5. 8. 2002, the Prime Minister of India directed the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas to initiate steps to cancel all allotments made on the basis of recommendations of Dealer Selection Boards from January, 2000 till that date. In pursuance of it, a formal order dated 9. 8. 2002 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, cancelling all allotments made in regard to the retail outlets, LPG distributorship and SKO - LDO dealerships on the recommendations of the Dealer Selection Boards since 1. 1. 2000. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus:Havi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-02-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ942; 2008(15)SCALE400; 2008(6)LHSC4383; AIR2009SC958; 2009AIRSCW25
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Both these appeals arising out of the common judgment and order dated 09.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal No. 2004 of 1981, were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order. By the impugned order, the High Court while setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated June 5, 1981 recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Sessions Trial No. 293 of 1980, convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively.2. Brief facts of the case are that Subedar Singh (P.W. 1) has got three sons, namely, Jai Karan Singh, Shiv Karan Singh and Ram Karan Singh. P.W. 1 lodged F.I.R. (Ex. Ka.1) on 24.07.1980 at 6:15 a.m. at Police Station, Sumerpur situated at a distance of about 15 kms. from village Patyora, alleging therein that in the ...
Tag this Judgment!