Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2811; 2002CriLJ3741; 2002(4)Crimes11(SC); JT2002(6)SC299; 2002(5)SCALE456; (2002)6SCC663; [2002]SUPP1SCR427
Brijesh Kumar, J. 1. The appeal has been preferred by the State of Punjab against the judgment and order passed by the Punjab High Court, declining to accept the reference for confirmation of death sentence, as awarded against the respondent- Gurmej Sing by the Court of Sessions. The appeal, preferred by the accused Gurmej Singh against his conviction, was however, dismissed upholding his conviction. The sentence, thus was commuted from one of death to imprisonment for life. The question, therefore, is confined to the award of the sentence whether it may be maintained as imprisonment for life or the respondent be sentenced to death as ordered by the Trial Court.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the accused respondent- Gurmej Singh is brother of the deceased Jagjit Singh. It is said that while in Dubai, Gurmej Singh had been sending money to his brother Jagjit Singh. Gurmej Singh had also been running business of dairy farming in the village and used to give his land on contrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2830; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)213; 2002CriLJ3760; 2002(3)Crimes62(SC); JT2002(5)SC573; 2002(5)SCALE477; (2002)6SCC728; [2002]SUPP1SCR435; 2002(2)LC1210(SC)
Shah, J.1. Daily, demon of dowry is devouring lives of young girls, who marry with high hopes of having heavenly abode in their husband's house. In few cases, guilty are punished but it has no deterrent effect on mothers-in-law or sisters-in-law who might have suffered similar cruelty/tyranny. This deep rooted social evil requires to be controlled not only by effective implementation of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, but also by the Society. The Society has to find our ways and means of controlling and combating this menace of receipt and payment of dowry. It appears that instead of controlling payment (SIC) receipt of dowry in one or other form, it is increasing even in educated class. May be that, it is increasing because of accumulation of unaccounted wealth with few and others having less means follow the same out of compulsion.2. In the present case, Ms. Neeta was married on 10th March, 1988 with appellant Vikas son of Shripatlal Doshi, resident of Banswara Rajasthan. Her dead b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2849; 2002(6)BomCR551; [2002(3)JCR190(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC579; 2002(5)SCALE461; (2002)6SCC404; 2002(2)LC1191(SC)
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal filed by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, in Second Appeal No. 164/1968 in which the High Court allowed the appeal, No. 123-A, filed by the defendants, set aside the decree passed by the lower appellate court and restored the decree passed by the trial court.2. The appellants filed the suit as representatives of Akhil Digambaris Jain community of village Shirpur, Talaq Washim, District Akola. The defendants who are respondent herein were impleaded as representatives of Swetambaris Jain community of the area. The plaintiffs prayed for the following main reliefs in the suit :'(a) Order passed by the Court of S.D.M. on 17.12.1927 and that passed by the Court of the Addl. Judl. Commissioner on 6.8.1928 against the plaintiffs be set aside.(b) It be declared that the whole of the Digambaris Jain community is entitled to have full possession, Wahiwatdars and enjoyment of rights, over the field S.No. 197 as described her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2834; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)602; 2002(3)BLJR1965; 2002CriLJ3764; 2002(4)Crimes65(SC); JT2002(5)SC530; 2002(5)SCALE447; (2002)6SCC506; [2002]SUPP1SCR412
B.N. Agrawal, J. 1. Dhupa Chamar- Appellant No. 1 and Tokha Chamar- appellant No. 2were convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Penal Code andsentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Each of them was further convicted under Section 148 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. Doma Chamar- appellant No. 3 and Adalat Chamar- Appellant No. 4 were convicted under Sections 302/149 of the Penal Codeand sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They were further convicted under Sections 148 and 323 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months respectively. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused Swaminath Chamar, Rajbali Chamar and Ram Hoshiar Chamar, who were charged under Section 302/149 of the Penal Code, were acquitted of the said chares by the trial court. The High Court on appeal by the appellants confirmed their convictions and sentences with this modificatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(6)SC543; 2002(2)LC1413(SC)
ORDER1. The 2nd additional sessions judge, Yavatmal, Maharashtra found the appellant guilty for having committed the murder of one Maroti Shelkar and convicted him for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. He also found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC for having caused injuries on PWs. 4, 5 and 6. However, he did not award any separate punishment in view of the fact that he had imposed life sentence under Section 302 IPC. 2. This is an out of normal criminal case where the entire prosecution case is based on the abnormal behavior of the appellant leading to murder. There being no proper identification of the appellant at the time of attack which led to the murder. The prosecution has relied upon a chain of circumstantial evidence which according to it conclusively proves that it is the appellant and the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2846; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)396; 2002CriLJ3772; 2002(3)Crimes120(SC); JT2002(5)SC563; 2002(5)SCALE429; (2002)6SCC321; [2002]SUPP1SCR397
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. In this appeal, by special leave, the appellants have assailed the judgment of the High Court reversing the order of acquittal made in their favour by the trial court and convicting them under Section 304 II of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that PW-2 Ram Charan and Vidya Rani, the deceased, had been married about 18 years prior to the incident. At about 6/7 P.M. on 4th August, 1989, Ram Charan took his wife to the dera of the appellants situated in villageSahera for getting her treated from the evil spirits, which had seized her. Kewal Nath, a co-accused, and Pritam Nath, appellant No. 1, claimed to be Sadhus in the said dera and the appellants Nos. 2 and 3, viz., Pritam Singh and Raghbir Singh, were their chelas, who were all present there. PW-2 Ram Charan told them that his wife had been seized by evil spirits and request...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2784; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)392; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)164; (SCSuppl)2002(4)CHN19; 2002CriLJ3573; 2002(3)Crimes110(SC); (2002)IIIGLR2621; (2002)3GLR773; JT2002(5)SC474; 2002(5)S
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. This Special Leave Petition arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner herein against the order of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. A charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 212 and under Section 25(1)(A) and (B), 27of the Arms Act came to be filed by the police on 12th April, 2000 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner figures as accused No. 9 therein. The case being triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate submitted the case to the Court of City Sessions by an order dated 4.5.2000. Sanction for prosecution as required by Section196(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code was obtained on 7th May, 2000, such section being necessary in view of the fact that the petitioner stands accused of some of the offences falling under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code viz. collection of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2815; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)168; (SCSuppl)2003(1)CHN104; 2002CriLJ3745; 2002(3)Crimes93(SC); JT2002(5)SC542; RLW2002(4)SC589; 2002(5)SCALE421; (2002)6SCC518; [2002]SUPP1S
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. Ram Swarup, Raja Ram, Babu Ram, Deshraj and Dularey Prasad, the five accused persons were tried on charges under Sections 302/149, 148 and 147 IPC. The Trial Court convicted Ram Swarup and Raja Ram for the offences under Sections 148 and 302/IPC and sentenced them to suffer two years' rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment for life respectively. Babu Ram, Deshraj and Dularey were convicted under Sections 147 and 302/149 of IPC and sentenced respectively to one year's rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment for life. All the accused persons preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court has held the accused Dularey not to have participated in the incident at all and therefore there was no unlawful assembly of the accused persons. Accordingly, Dularey Prasad has been completely exonerated and acquitted. The conviction of all other accused persons insofar as referable to Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC has been set aside. Instead Ram Swarup, Raja Ram, Babu R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(3)BLJR2462; JT2002(6)SC460; (2002)10SCC65
ORDER1. State of Rajasthan filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur bench) in D.B. criminal appeal 460 of 1995 in which the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court convicting the accused, respondents herein under Section 302 IPC. The respondents were charged under Sections 364 and 302 IPC for kidnapping Bachhu Singh and forcausing his death. The trial court found the respondents guilty of both the charges; convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment on the former count and life-imprisonment on the latter count. The High Court while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the respondents under Section 364 IPC, set aside the judgment of the trial court in respect of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:'Our independent analysis of the evidence on the record coupled with the infirmities which we have noticed above has created an impression on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2807; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)181; (SCSuppl)2002(4)CHN166; 2002CriLJ3737; 2002(3)Crimes82(SC); JT2002(5)SC498; 2002(4)MPHT1; RLW2002(4)SC611; 2002(5)SCALE407; (2002)6SCC494
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. 1. The appellant was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Sessions Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court. Hence, this appeal by special leave.2. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that the appellant had called deceased Hardas and his son Puran Singh to his village Haider for properly setting roof tiles. Hardas stayed in the house of the appellant. His son Puran Singh, PW-1, had gone to thehouse of Gyarasa, barber (PW-3) of village Haider. At about 11 o'clock on 24.6.1992 in the night, PW-1 came to the house of the appellant to sleep. He saw that the appellant was assaulting the deceased Hardas by axe. When asked as to why he was cutting his father, the appellant told him that the deceased Hardas had eloped with his Wife and he was annoyed for the same. When PW-1 tried to save Hardas, the appellant rushed towards him; so he ran...
Tag this Judgment!