Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1022; 1982CriLJ987; 1981(Supp)SCC46
A.D. Koshal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 21st Oct, 1976 of the High Court of Gujarat affirming the conviction of the appellant in respect of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. as also of one under Section 326 of that Code and upholding the sentence of imprisonment for life on the first count and of rigorous imprisonment for a year coupled with a fine of Rs. 300 on the second.2. The appellant was tried along with 10 others on the murder charge. It was the case for the prosecution that all the 11 accused had intentionally caused the death of one Bawaji in prosecution of their common object, or, in the alternative in furtherance of their common intention. The charge under Section 326 of the I.P.C. arises out of an injury suffered by Shakrabhai Bavabhai (P.W. 7), according to whom it had been inflicted by the appellant.3. The occurrence is said to have consisted of two incidents, which took place in village Khandhali...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1220; 1981CriLJ726; (1981)3SCC11; [1981]3SCR270
1. The appellant, Muniappan, was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to death on the charge that he had committed the murder of his mother's brother also called Muniappan and his son Chinnaswamy. The conviction for murder and the sentence of death having been confirmed by the High Court of Madras by a Judgment dated October 23, 1979, this appeal has been filed by the accused by special leave. The leave is limited to the question of sentence.2. The judgments of the High Court and the Sessions Court, in so far as the sentence is concerned, leave much to be desired. In the first place, the Sessions Court overlooked the provision, contained in Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973, which provides, in so far as is relevant, that when the conviction is for an offence punishable with death, the judgment shall in the case of sentence of death state special reasons for such sentence. The learned Sessions Judge, in a very brief paragra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1183; (1981)3SCC20; 1981(13)LC313(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave by the plaintiffs is directed against a judgment dated October 14, 1968 of the Bombay High Court by which the High Court set aside the decrees of the courts below and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.2. The plaintiffs had filed the present suit praying far a permanent and mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the encroachment in the nature of erection of fencing and thorny bushes in the land in possession of the plaintiffs and restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. A prayer for recovery of Rs. 500 as damages was also made by the plaintiffs.3. The facts and circumstances of the case have been detailed in the judgments of the courts below and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same.4. It appears that in the original plaint filed by the plaintiffs there was some inter-se dispute between the three plaintiffs who claimed to be rival heirs of Radhabai who was in possession of the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1194; (1981)3SCC129; [1982]50STC101(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. After hearing counsel for the appellant we are satisfied that there is no substance in this appeal.2. The respondent assessee, a Register ed dealer, deals in vegetable ghee - an item on which sales tax is leviable at the first stage of sale under notification dated March 30, 1966 as provided in Section 5(1-A) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. Admittedly, the first stage of sale in respect of the goods in question was at the time when the manufacturer (Amritsar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd) sold the goods to two unregistered dealers (M/s. Rallia Ram Gurbax Rai, Taran Taran and M/s. Krishan Lal Brij Mohan, Amritsar). These unregistered firms in their turn sold the same goods to the respondent- assessee who in due course sold the goods to consumers and the question for determination is whether respondent- assessee is liable to pay sales tax on the sale of these goods to his consumers and the answer to the question depends on the proper interpretation of Section 5(1-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1160; 1981CriLJ883; 1981(1)SCALE579; (1981)2SCC712; [1981]3SCR268
1. The appellant's land was auctioned on December 26, 1976 in a revenue sale held to recover arrears of land revenue. On the same day, the land of one Mool Chand was also sold for a similar reason. The deceased Bhagwan Singh, who was an Amin, acted as an officer of the Court in effecting the aforesaid sales. After the sale proceedings were over, Bhagwan Singh was returning home on a bicycle, with his peon Shripat, who is examined in the case as P.W. 4 The appellant, Mool Chand and the latter's son Daya Ram lay in wait for the deceased and while he was passing along on his bicycle, Daya Ram fired three shots at him; two out of these hit Bhagwan Singh, as a result of which he fell down. A split second thereafter, the appellant emerged with a sword and chopped off the neck of Bhagwan Singh. Daya Ram is still absconding but the appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to death. He was also convicted under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1981)4SCC506
A.D. KOSHAL, J.— 1. This appeal by special leave is limited to the question of the nature of offence and the sentence to be imposed therefor on the sole appellant who has been convicted of an offence under Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial court and High Court. 2. According to the pro secution case the deceased was sleeping on the pial outside his house on the night of August 25, 1974 when the appellant, who is his brother's son, arrived there drunk, went to his house and returned armed with a stick with which he gave a couple of blows in the head region to his sleeping uncle. The two injuries received by the deceased ultimately proved fatal. 3. The trial court was of the opinion that although the appellant had no intention to cause death he had the knowledge that death was likely to result from his act. It was on that account that the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. The High...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1497a; (1981)3SCC170
A.D. KOSHAL, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the sole point requiring determination is as to whether a person under 16 years of age and accused of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code can be given the benefit of the Haryana Children Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).2. The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial court. His appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana and the leave granted to him to appeal is limited to the question of the applicability of the Act to his case.3. On a direction being given by this Court on January 9, 1981 to the Chief Medical Officer, Hissar, the appellant was subjected to a radiological examination and thereafter it was reported to this Court that he was between 16 and 17 years of age at the time of such examination. The trial of the appellant having been held before May 1979 he was obviously less than 16 years ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1122; 1981CriLJ746; 1981(1)SCALE543; (1981)2SCC569; [1981]3SCR259; 1981(13)LC784(SC)
1. This is yet another case in which a young housewife has been done to death by a trusted servant of the family. Her three-year old son was murdered along with her and her five-year old son was seriously injured. The incident occurred on May 6, 1971 at about 2.00 p.m. in House No. 4/3, Kanoria Colony Quarters, Renukoot, where one Mohan Lal Khetan used to live with his wife Geeta and two sons Anil and Sunil aged three and five years respectively. Mohan Lal left for Allahabad for some work on the morning of the 6th. His wife and children took their food at about 1.00 p.m. and while they were resting, with a cooler on, they were assaulted as a result of which Geeta and Anil died and Sunil received serious injuries. The only other person who was then present in the house was the appellant, who was working as a household servant for a few years before the incident. His presence in the house at the material time is beyond the pale of controversy and indeed his very defence is that some intr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1274; 1981(1)SCALE491; (1981)2SCC585; [1981]3SCR239; 1981(13)LC521(SC)
Syed M. Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated December 21, 1978 of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the State of U.P. before the Court.2. The case arose out of an order passed by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), as amended uptodate, by which the said Authority rejected the claim of the petitioners on the basis of a gift which had been executed by her grandfather by a registered document dated January 28, 1972. The Act was passed as far back as 1960 but by virtue of an amendment, being U.P. Act. No. 18 of 1973, Section 5 was introduced which placed a ceiling on any tenure holder to hold land in excess of the ceiling area fixed under the Act. Section 5 contained various Sub-sections but in the instant case we are concerned only with Sub-section (6) as also Clause (b) of the proviso to the said Sub-section. By another amend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC482b
R.B. Mishra and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.1. In support of the appeal the only point pressed by Mr Pramod Swarup for the appellants was that the Prescribed Authority and the Civil Judge as also the High Court were wrong in not taking into consideration the area of 16.66 acres in terms of irrigated land which was the subject-matter of a registered gift executed by Manik Singh in favour of his son Nawab Singh. The claim regarding other gifts has not been pressed before us. There does not appear to be any substance in them. So far as the gift in favour of Nawab Singh is concerned, the evidence of Lekhpal as placed before us appears to be wholly unsatisfactory. On the other hand, there appears to be unimpeachable documentary evidence to show that immediately after the gift, the land was mutated in the name of Nawab Singh, the levy and tax papers were shown in his name and from the evidence of Lekhpal it generally appears that Manik Singh had severed all his connections with the land gifted...
Tag this Judgment!