Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC353; 1983CriLJ688; 1983(1)Crimes985(SC); 1983(1)SCALE110; (1983)2SCC67
ORDER1. The respondent was convicted under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The facts have been narrated in the judgment of the High Court and Sessions Court. After going through the judgment of the courts below we are satisfied that the High Court was absolutely wrong in acquitting the accused in the face of independent and disinterested evidence produced by the prosecution in support of its case. The only point taken by Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent is that money and ornaments were planted in order to implicate the respondent which was disbelieved by the trial court but appears to have been believed by the High Court. The High Court has not disbelieved the evidence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and other panch witnesses. The story of the accused that the money was given to the servant alongwith ornaments and was recovered from the Almirah seems to be too good to be true. It is too much to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC347; 1983CriLJ683; 1983(1)Crimes986(SC); 1983(1)SCALE89; (1983)2SCC141
Tulzapurkar, J.1. There is no substance in this appeal which is directed against the High Court's judgment recording conviction against the appellants under Section 411, I.P.C. and sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment imposed upon each.2. An incident occurred during the night between 1st and 2nd of April, 1968 at the factory of Vishnu Industries during the course of which one Lakhpat Rai (Senior Munim of Vishnu Industries) was murdered and he was robbed of a sum of Rs. 8,800/- in currency notes which had been tied in the folds of his dhoti. At about 4 a.m. the gruesome murder and loss of the money came to light when Ramesh Chandra, Dalai went to wake him up. FIR was lodged at 5.30 a.m. in the morning on 2nd of April, 1968 at Police Station Kotwali, Chandausi about murder and robbery. Since the amount had been withdrawn from the Bank on the previous day the numbers of 87 currency notes of Rs. 100 each which were in the possession of Lakhpat Rai and which were found missing wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC355; 1983(31)BLJR228; 1983(1)SCALE204; (1983)2SCC132
1. Special leave granted.2. Father of appellants Nos. 1 and 2 one Shri Maharaj Swamp and 8 others filed a suit against defendant No. 1 Sh. Ganesh Narain Mathur and defendant No. 2 one Sh. Mool Chand for partition and possession of the undivided share in the properties get out in Sch. 'B' annexed to the plaint. In respect of properties set out in Sch. 'C', plaintiffs claimed undivided half share with defendant No. 1 Ganesh Narain Mathur. There was also a claim for partition for other properties set out in the plaint. This suit ended in a preliminary decree declaring the share of plaintiffs on one hand and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the other band and certain directions were given for rendering accounts by different parties to the suit. A direction was given that a Commissioner be appointed for effecting partition according to the preliminary decree and for taking accounts. The preliminary decree was dated Jan 11, 1972. Plaintiff Maharaj Swaroop preferred 1st Appeal No. 67 of 1972 in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(1)SCALE111; 1984Supp(1)SCC629
ORDER1. In this appeal the appellants have been convicted under Sections 148, 307/149, 326/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 to various terms of imprisonment ranging from one year to five years rigorous imprisonment. It is common ground that the appellants have already served a little, more than 2 12 years in jail and they were released on bail in 1976. After lapse of such a long time and having regard to the nature of injuries received by the injured persons and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we do not think that it is expedient in the interests of justice to send them back to jail. In these circumstances, while upholding the conviction of the appellants we reduce the sentence of the appellants to the period already served by them on the various counts. The appeal is accordingly disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(1)Crimes729(SC); 1983(1)SCALE99; 1984Supp(1)SCC646
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against that order framing charges and at this stage we are not inclined to Interferebecause it will be open to the accused to make all his submissions during the trial. The appeal is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(1)SCALE112; 1984Supp(1)SCC647
ORDER1. Heard counsel for the parties. The appellants were convicted as far back in 1973 and were released on bail in 1976. Having regard to the very peculiar facts and circumstances of this case while upholding the conviction of the appellants, we reduce the sentence of both the appellants to the period already served and in lieu of the sentence remitted we impose a fine of Rs. 500/- on each of the appellants. In default of the payment of fine the appellants small suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine imposed will be deposited in the trial court within a month from to-day. The appeals are accordingly disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC352b; 1983(1)SCALE101; (1983)2SCC66
ORDER1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also charged under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC but he was acquitted of that charge. The charge against the appellant of which he was convicted runs thus:You on or about any date after 20th day of December 1968, forged a certain document purporting to be a valuable security to with Nikagh-form in respect of your marriage with Sirinbai with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.2. The main allegation is that the appellant forged a Nikah form. The charge does not mention under what circumstances the document was forged. It is vague. Even when the oral evidence was adduced at the trial no evidence Was produced to prove the charge. In the circumstances we find no legal evidence on the basis of which he could be convicted. For these reasons, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC352; 1983CriLJ691; 1983(1)SCALE100; (1983)2SCC65
1. In this appeal the appellant has been convicted under Section 395 and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. In our opinion this appeal must succeed on a short point. It appears from the FIR that only 9 persons viz. 1. Ramroop Kurmi, 2. Ramdhoop Kurmi, 3. Rambodh Kurmi, 4. Ram Noker Kurmi, 5. Sampuran Kurmi, 6. Rambachan Kurmi, 7. Ram Lakhan Kurmi, 8. Ram Ujagir Kurmi and 9. Ram Pyare Kurmi have participated in the dacoity which is alleged to have been committed in the course of which ornaments, grains and other property were looted away. The trial court had acquitted 5 persons and convicted 4. But on appeal the High Court acquitted the remaining three persons and convicted Ram Lakhan the present appellant. The position now is that out of 9 persons named in the FIR who are alleged to have participated in the dacoity Ram Lakhan is alone left. Before an offence under Section 395 can be made out there must be an assembly of 5 or more persons. On the findings of the courts below it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC361; 1983CriLJ693; 1983(1)Crimes728(SC); 1983(1)SCALE871; 1984Supp(1)SCC648
ORDER1. The appellant in the first instance was convicted by the trial court under Section 304/Part 2 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for five years rigorous imprisonment. In the High Court appeals were filed both by the accused-appellant as also by the State. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the accused but allowed the appeal filed by the State and altered the conviction of the appellant from one under Section 304 Part 2 IPC to that under Section 302 IPC and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal before us. The facts have been narrated in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary to repeat the same. It appears that there was some verbal altercation as a result of which the deceased had caught the hand of the accused, whereupon the accused assaulted the deceased with a knife with very great force according to medical evidence. In view of the medical evidence and injuries received by the deceased the case squarely falls within four corne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(1)Crimes735(SC); 1983(1)SCALE112a; (1983)2SCC274
ORDER1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment. After going through the evidence of the two doctors it is clear that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia which is one form of insanity. The doctor had examined accused a little before as also a little after the occurrence and he was found insane The detailed reasons given by both Dr. Harbans Lai and Dr. Rim Kumar have been corroborated by each other. From the evidence also it is clear that he was talking in a very unusual manner saving things to the effect that he had seen Lord Shiva in front of him and the like. It cannot be said that the finding of the High Court was wrong In view of these circumstances we are not in a position to take a different view particularly when the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia. The appeals are accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!