Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)9SCC363
B.N. Kirpal, C.J,; K.G. Balakrishnan and; Arijit Pasayat, JJ.1. The case of the prosecution was that at 3.00 a.m. a police party saw opium being prepared inside a room and they entered the premises and apprehended the accused who was stated to be making opium and mixing it with chocolate.2. It is not in dispute that the entry in search of the premises in question took place between sunset and sunrise at 3.00 a.m. This being the position, the proviso to Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was applicable and it is admitted that before the entry for effecting search of the building neither any search warrant or authorisation was obtained nor were the grounds for possible plea that if opportunity for obtaining search warrant or authorisation is accorded the evidence will escape indicated. In other words, there has been a non-compliance with the provisions of the proviso to Section 42 and therefore, the trial stood vitiated.3. The appeals are, accordingly, allow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. There shall be stay of the impugned order till the application is listed for hearing....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(6)SC442
ORDER1. The appellant was charged for offence punishable under Section 302 for having committed murder of his wife Satyaveni before the court of sessions, East Godavery, division at Kakinada. The learned sessions judge accepted the prosecution case and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal before the High Court having been failed, the appellant is before us in this appeal.2. The prosecution case briefly is that the appellant had caught the deceased in a compromising position with one Moshe, who was his neighbour, on 11th of October, 1997. Since that day he was insisting that his wife should apologise to him for the said incident which she was refusing to do so. He was also insisting that she should brake her relationship with the said Moshe which also his wife refused to do so. On 14th of October, 1997 at about 10.00 a.m. when there was none else except small child, the appellant came there and insisted his wife for apologizing for the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)7SCC704
B.N. Kirpal, C.J.,; K.G. Balakrishnan and; Arijit Pasayat, JJ.1. In the instant case, the appellant had been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and fine. The case against the appellant was that he was searched in the presence of the panchas and a pink-coloured cloth bag was recovered from him, which contained about 8 lumps of charas which weighed about 925 grams.2. The trial court on the basis of the evidence convicted the appellant and the same was upheld by the High Court.3. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the fact that the police officer, who carried out the search, did not inform the accused about his right flowing from Section 50 of the Act. He submits that because of the non-compliance with Section 50, the entire trial stands vitiated as the appellant was denied the right of his person being searche...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)27; JT2002(6)SC407; (2003)9SCC60
ORDER1. The deceased has been killed as a result of single gun shot. According to the post mortem report, the ante-mortem injury which the deceased suffered was as under:'Gun shot wound of entry area 1 3/4' x 1 1/2' x cavity deep margins inverted lacerated blackening and tattooing present front of Abd. left 3/4' at 2 o'clock to umbilicus & from left to right inward and backward.'2. The facts in brief are that the wife and son of the deceased informed him when he returned home at about 7.00/7.30 p.m., that the appellant had broken their cakes of cow dung in the afternoon between 11.00 to 1.00 p.m. The deceased went to the house of the appellant to complain about it. He was accompanied by his son Kishan Lal (PW2). There the accused abused the deceased and removed the gun that was hanging on the door of his house. Seeing this the deceased with his son left the house of the appellant. The accused went after the deceased. Again there was altercation on road. The accused was carrying the gun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(6)SC430; (2002)10SCC233; 2002(2)LC1429(SC)
ORDER1. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on the substantive part of the charge under Section 302 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo for a period of two years on the charge under Section 201 IPC by addl. sessions judge, Thane for having committed the murder of his wife on the intervening night of 1.6.1992 and 2.6.1992. The said conviction and sentence having been upheld by the High Court of judicature at Bombay, the appellant is before us in this appeal.2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that the relationship between the appellant and his wife-deceased was not cordial since the appellant was addicted to alcohol and he was suspecting the character of his wife. Consequent upon that at one point of time she left the appellant and started residing with her father. Thereafter, there was a settlement pursuant to which deceased came back to the appellant's house. It is further the case o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC3006; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)242; 2002CriLJ3927; 2002(3)Crimes71(SC); [2003(1)JCR258(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC621; RLW2003(1)SC16; 2002(5)SCALE500; (2002)6SCC686
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the three appellants herein i.e. Ram Anup Singh, Babban Singh and Lallan Singh. Ram Anup Singh is the father of Babban Singh and Lallan Singh. The appeal arises out of an incident that occurred on 27th March, 1997 in which four innocent lives were lost. Amongst the deceased were Madan Singh, brother of Ram Anup Singh accused, his wife Sheoji Devi, his daughter Sita Devi and his son-in-law Shambhu Sharan Dubey. Since Madan Singh had only one daughter namely, Sita Devi, the appellants virtually annihilated the entire family of Madan Singh who resided in village Dilman Chapra with his wife, his daughter and his son-in-law. It is the case of the prosecution that the daughter of Madan Singh and his son-in-law lived with him and looked after Madan Singh and his wife and also cultivated the lands.2. The appellants were put up for trial before the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari who by judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(6)SC441
ORDER1. In the instant case, the appellant was tried for an offence under Section 307 IPC and under Sections 25/54/59 of the Indian Arms Act. After trial, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC after being acquitted of the offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. After convicting the appellant, the trial court granted him the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and ordered that he be released on probation for a period of one year. He was directed to maintain peace and good behavior during the said period of one year.2. The appellant filed an appeal against his conviction under Section 324 IPC which was withdrawn. On 25th July, 1993, an application was filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 9 of the Probation of Offenders Act alleging that the appellant had been involved in an offence under Section 307 IPC and under the Indian Arms Act and the benefit granted to him under Section 4 of the Probation of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(6)SC346
ORDER1. The appellant has been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') by the sessions judge, Samstipur and the saidconviction has been upheld by the High Court.2. In a case where there are concurrent findings of fact, this Court will normally not examine evidence in order to find whether there are any infirmities, unless and until it is satisfied that grave miscarriage of justice has taken place and circumstances which were in favour of the accused have not been given due consideration and materials which are relevant have been ignored.3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded during trial was that Pramila Devi (PW1) along with her sister-in-law and mother-in-law were sleeping in the house on 28th November, 1995. The accused Ashok Kumar Jha allegedly entered the room after pushing the thatched enclosure, took Pramila Devi (PW1) in his lap and came out of the house. PW1 is then alleged to have seen that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2006)ACC300; (SCSuppl)2004(4)CHN114; (2004)3SCC343
ORDERCA No. 1613 of 19961. It is not disputed that the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle had expired on 20-11-1982 and the driver did not apply for renewal within thirty days of the expiry of the said licence, as required under Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is also not disputed that the driver of the vehicle did not have driving licence when the accident took place. According to the terms of the contract, the Insurance Company has no liability to pay any compensation where an accident takes place by a vehicle, driven by a driver without a driving licence. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the appeal.2. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.CAs Nos. 4661-84 of 2002 @ SLPs (Civil) Nos. 1084, 6799-6815 of 1998 and 3263-68 of 19993. Leave granted.4. We have heard counsel for the appellant.5. On 2-11-1990, a stage carriage belonging to Haryana State Roadways Transport Corporation met in an accid...
Tag this Judgment!