Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2790; [2002(3)JCR88(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC568; RLW2003(1)SC12; 2002(5)SCALE403; (2002)6SCC343; [2002]SUPP1SCR359; 2002(3)SCT915(SC); (2002)3UPLBEC2274
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Leave granted.2. The question to be determined in these matters is regarding the eligibility of the appellant for seeking admission to the Diploma Course in Education in order of her merit. Does she satisfy the prescribed conditions or not? The answer would depend upon the interpretation of the clause prescribing eligibility condition.3. The appellant passed the Senior School Certificate Examination from the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The educational qualification for admission to the Diploma in Education (D.Ed) in the State of Haryana is as follows:'A candidate should have passed 10+2 Examination from Board of School Education Haryana or its equivalent examination from any other Board, recognized by Board of School Education, Haryana with at least 50% aggregate marks.'4. The appellant applied for the D.Ed course. The details of marks obtained in 10+2 Examination were furnished by the appellant in the application form and the respondents issued he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(6)SC568; 2003(10)SCALE489b; (2003)9SCC215
ORDER1. The appellant herein and two others namely Bechan Paswan and Bibhakar Mahto were charged for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC for having committed murder of Devendra Mahto on 17th May 1984 at-about 7.30 p.m. in village called Rasulpur.2. Since Bibhakar Mahto was minor his trial was separated and it is on record that he was subsequently acquitted from the charge against him. Learned 7th additional sessions judge, Monger who tried the case of the appellant and Bechan Paswan, found both of them guilty of the offence charged against them and convicted the appellant under Section 302 and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. He also convicted the said Bechan Paswan under Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. In appeal the High Court allowed the appeal of Bechan Paswan and acquitted him of the charge while the appellant was found guilty of the offence charged against him and the sentence was affirmed. It is against the judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2787; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)235; (2002)4BOMLR516; 2002CriLJ3729; 2002(3)Crimes59(SC); JT2002(5)SC559; 2002(5)SCALE387; (2002)6SCC596; [2002]SUPP1SCR352; 2002(2)LC1176(SC)
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. The sole appellant in this appeal by Special Leave has impugned has conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code as upheld by Bombay High Court.2. The short facts are that Shankar Maruti Kamble (PW.1), Dilip Shrirang Barge (PW.2) and Siddharth Keshav Kamble (PW.9) were constables attached to jogeshwari police station and they were on patrolling duty at Partap Nagar within the jurisdiction of the said police station in the afternoon of 29th October, 1991. At about 3.30 p.m. when they arrived at the junction of Partap Nagar, they saw people running helter skelter from Triveni Lane. They also noticed that four persons were running armed with weapons, i.e., swords and choppers shouting that Uday Patole was killed. Dilip Shrirang Barge (PW2) could identify the appellant - Dhananjay Shankar Shetty as he was known history sheeter from that area and also wanted in criminal cases. The said constables tried to chase the appellant and his there other comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2857; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)388; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)230; 2002CriLJ3775; 2002(3)Crimes100(SC); JT2002(5)SC512; 2002(5)SCALE382; (2002)6SCC431
B.N. Agrawal, J. 1. In these two appeals by special leave, the appellants have assailed their convictions and sentences awarded by the trial court and upheld by the Patna High Court.2. The short facts are that on 28th February, 1991 at about 8.00 p.m., when the informant Liro Kumar-(PW.6) along with her father Doman Mahto, mother Shibo Devi, sister Shakho Devi and children of her family was sitting near fire at the outer door of her house, all of a sudden, all the appellants along with accused Shrilal Sharma, Haro Sharma, Ram Bilash Mahto, Ram Udgar Sharma and 3-4 others armed with faras and lathis came to the house and seeing them she and her family members out of fear ran to the courtyard of the house. The appellants and their companions following them entered and courtyard. Accused Shrilal Sharma and Haro Sharma, both of whom were armed with faras and co-accused Ram Bilash Mahto, who was armed with lathi, caught hold of Doman Mahto, father of the informant and took him to outer door...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(6)SC523
ORDER1. On the intervening night between 14th and 15th December, 1986, a ghastly incident took place in village Singhyahi, district Darbhanga wherein allegedly a mob of about 50 persons armed with bhalas, gadasas, lathis and churns attacked the house of the complainant, caused damage to the property and opened an indiscriminate assault on the complainant party with the several weapons with which they were armed. It was a moonlight night. The first informant Kari Yadav (PW-8) claims to have identified 21 accused persons. The incident claimed the life of 3 persons assaulted by the accused persons and left several others injured. Upon the first information of the incident having been lodged with the police, usual investigation commenced leading to a chargesheet being filed against 22 accused persons. They were charged severely for offences under Sections 302, 302/149, 147, 148 and 452 IPC. The trial court has upon a meticulous examination of the evidence held that as against 12 of the acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR1007]; JT2002(5)SC465; 2002(5)SCALE402; (2002)6SCC239; 2002(2)LC1190(SC)
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. On the date of the conclusion of hearing in the batch of Special Leave Petitions this Court passed an order allowing the interlocutory applications for permission to file special leave petitions and for condonation of delay in all the matters. However, on an examination of the file in this particular case, it is noticed that this case stands on a different footing and the petition need not be granted. We, therefore, recall the order passed on 12.12.2001 in relation to SLP & copy No. 23009/2001 [arising out of SLP...../2001 (CC 7192/2001)]. Accordingly, the following order is passed herein: 2. Permission to file SLP is refused to the petitioners because they are questioning the judgment in relation to the appointments to the posts of teachers in Zila Parishad, whereas petitioners applied for and participated in the selection for the posts of Gram Sewaks. In fact, as far as Gram Sewaks are concerned, there is aseparate judgment of the High Court in S.B. Writ P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(6)SC582
ORDER1. The appellant was charged for an offence under Section 302 IPC by the 1st additional sessions judge, for committing the murder of one Kivuda Madaiah on 16th August, 1993 in the village of Bilugadi by assaulting the victim with an axe. Learned sessions judge found him guilty of the said offence punishable under section 302 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The said conviction was affirmed by the High Court in its judgment dated 13th July, 2000. The appellant herein has assailed the said conviction and sentence in the abovesaid appeal. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing, this Court confined the notice only to the nature of offence for which appellant could be punished based on the injuries suffered by the deceased.2. As per the prosecution case the appellant suffered eight injuries which are as follows:-(1) A contusion red in colour 11/2 cm x 4 cm present on the middle of left clavicle(2) An incised injury measuring 5 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm. present on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(6)SC565
ORDER1. In regard to a charge of murder the appellant was tried by the learned 2nd additional sessions judge, Thane and was found guilty of the same and punished under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The said conviction and sentence having been upheld by the High Court, judicature at Bombay, the appellant is before us in this appeal.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant was married to one Pushpa @ Priya who is the deceased in this case, and there being certain marital discord on the night of 20/21st March, 1994 the appellant is alleged to have strangulated the said deceased Pushpa in their house situated at Shradha Saburi Chawl, Thane.3. The prosecution case further is that on the date of the incident the appellant, the deceased and the deceased's two daughters, by her first marriage, Smita PW2 and Sarika PW-3 had slept in tht room. The next morning when PWs. 2 and 3 woke up, they found the appellant missing from the room and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2793; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)288; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)239; 2002CriLJ3731; 2002(3)Crimes57(SC); JT2002(5)SC400; 2002(5)SCALE397; (2002)9SCC25
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 2899/01.2. Mohd. Yakub @ Pedda Yakub (accused No. 4) and Nelluri Kondalu @ Maliyadri (accused No. 6) have both been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as also under Section 148 IPC. Each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148 IPC. The two accused have preferred two appeals by special leave.3. There were eight accused persons before the Sessions Court tried on charges under Sections 302, 147 and 148 IPC. Accused Nos. 7 and 8 were charged under Section 304 II/149 IPC. During the trial accused Nos. 2 and 5 died and the trial proceeded against six accused persons only. Four accused other than the two before us, have not challenged the judgment of the High Court. We are therefore concerned with dealing the cases of two accused persons only.4. The deceased and the accused persons were friends. The deceased and Mohd. Ghouse, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2826; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)378; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)212; (SCSuppl)2002(4)CHN23; 94(2002)CLT681(SC); 2002CriLJ3756; 2002(3)Crimes114(SC); JT2002(5)SC490; 2002(5)SCALE375; (200
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. Subash Chandra Panda (A1), Kunja Ramana (A2), NarayanMazumdar (A3) and Kalpana Mazumdar (A4), the appellants before us,are facing death penalty. The charge against them is of kidnapping andmurder of a child Ranjeet Mohanty @ Rana, aged four years. They werecharged for offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC2. The First Information Report was registered at the instance of Chitranjan Mohanty, PW7. He reported that the four appellants and Simanchal Padhi had kidnapped his nephew on 30th April, 1997 and subsequently killed him. According to the FIR on 1st May, 1997 in the early morning while he had gone out to attend the call of nature he observed that a person was bringing something on his shoulders and he came towards the pond. The person was A3. PW7 caught him and an alarm was raised. People gathered there. Some are named in the FIR. They found that A3 was carrying the dead body of the deceased and on being asked he said that he has not murdered t...
Tag this Judgment!