Court : Supreme Court of India
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronounced1. This Special leave petition directed against the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CR No. 2164/2006 on 18.10.2006 was dismissed by Supreme Court....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007ACJ2178; AIR2007SC2376; JT2007(9)SC346; 2007(3)KLT400(SC); 2007(8)SCALE605; 2007AIRSCW4227; (2007)3Crimes146(SC); 2007ACJ-IV-2178(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)2120.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. By the impugned order the appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC). Learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. The High Court found the same to be in order. Custodial sentence of five years was confirmed.2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:A boy aged 10 years residing in a hostel of the Tribal Welfare Department, while he was a student of 4th standard in a nearby school, was run over by a bus driven by the appellant in the middle of the road. The investigation by the police revealed that there was evidence to the effect that even the passengers in the bus were alarmed of the enormous, speed in which it was being driven and had cautioned the driver to stop even crying, as they had seen the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ3751; 2007(8)SCALE662; (2007)6SCC218
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The State of Punjab and its functionaries question the correctness of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Harayana High Court. On a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), the High Court by the impugned order directed the appellant-State to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- over and above what was paid to him as ex-gratia payment. It was held that the same would be in final settlement of claim of the respondent. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:In July 1991 State of Punjab was in the grab of terrorism at its height. Respondent suffered bullet injuries and his hand above the forearm had to be amputated. On 18.1.1991 the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Relief and Resettlement, Chandigarh, wrote to Deputy Commissioners and Sub-Divisional Officers (C) in the State regarding revised scales of relief for the persons adversely affected as a result of terrorists action by sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ3512; 2007(2)JKJ72[SC]; JT2007(9)SC283; 2007(3)KLT418(SC); 2007(8)SCALE557; 2007(2)LC0751(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'Accused'). Learned Session Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 698 of 1991 found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1995 (in short the 'Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulation.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:On 20th February, 1990 Pran Nath, Sub Inspector of Special staff, north District, was on patrolling duty along with Ramesh Kumar, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Puran Chand, Head Constable; Raghbir Singh, Head Constable; Ved Parkash Head Constable and other constables. At about 7 a.m., near the petrol pump at Mall Road situated within the bounds of Police Station, Timarpur, a police Informer gave information to Pran Nath, Sub Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ3752; JT2007(9)SC190; 2007(II)OLR(SC)637; 2007(8)SCALE653; (2007)5SCC414
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court while dealing with an application for bail filed by the respondent who was named in the First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') as an accused alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the 'SCST Act'). The prayer was for release of the respondent on bail. Although there was no allegation of any improper investigation, the High Court started monitoring the case at different points of time and passed various orders. Ultimately, it passed the impugned order where serious criticism was leveled against the State Government and police officials. It was stated that the police officials are not doing proper investigation in many cases as they were engaged for other unimportant work....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(8)SCALE655; 2007AIRSCW4124; (2007)3Crimes177(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)2126; 2007(3)KCCRSN177(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of Patna High Court. Appeals filed by the appellant and two co-accused were dismissed by a common judgment. 3. Accused Uma Shankar was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') for having committed murder of Manji Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). Accused appellant Kulwant Singh and Awadh Singh were charged in terms of Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC for having abetted the aforesaid murder of the deceased by Uma Shankar. The trial Court found that the accusations have been established against the accused persons, Kulwant and Awadh and accordingly sentenced each for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC. 4. Before the High Court the basic stand of the appellants was that there was absolutely no motive for the gruesome crime. The first information repo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(8)SCALE631; (2007)6SCC52; 2007AIRSCW4118
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Challenge before the High Court was in a Misc. Appeal in Civil Revision which has later converted to the Misc. Appeal relating to the judgment dated 15.11.1995 in Civil Suit No. 4-B/92 passed by a learned Second Additional District Judge, Shahdol deciding issue No. 7 framed in the suit.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Plaintiffs/respondents are brothers carrying on business in partnership at Shahdol. Appellant No. 2 at the relevant time in the year 1981 was Sales Tax Officer in the employment of appellant No. 1 State of Madhya Pradesh. It was averred by the plaintiffs respondents that the appellant No.2 in order to extract illegal gratification and to pressurize the respondents, misusing the office, conducted illegal search and seizure under the provisions of M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2452; 2007CriLJ3525; JT2007(9)SC184; 2007(8)SCALE634; 2007(2)LC803(SC); 2007AIRSCW4372; 2007LawHerald(SC)2204; (2007)3Crimes77(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. The trial Court i.e. learned IInd Additional Judge, Banda by his judgment dated 25.3.1981 found the appellant Krishna guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 307 and sentenced him to undergo RI for life and seven years respectively for the aforesaid offences. Though he was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC no separate sentence was awarded to him. Accused Sumera who was convicted for offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 323 read with Section 34 IPC has died. Appellant Kaira was similarly convicted. Sentence of imprisonment for life, three years and six months were respectively imposed for the above said offences. All the three accused persons preferred an appeal but since the appellant Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2397; 2007CriLJ3507; [2007(4)JCR51(SC)]; 2007(8)SCALE642; (2007)6SCC226
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Judge, Designated Court II, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.48 of 2001 holding that the proceedings can be legally continued against the appellant and took cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short the TADA Act') and Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the 'Arms Act').2. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass and a brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.The appellant and one Paljit Kaur @ Richpal Kaur @ Pali wife of Paramjit Singh had allegedly committed offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of TADA Act and Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act. Charge sheet was filed on 20.8.1993. The allegations related to alleged commission of offence on 5th December, 1992. By amendment to TADA Act, Section 20A(2) was introduced with effect from 22.5.1993 i.e. prior to filing of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(9)SC261; 2007(8)SCALE659
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench altering conviction of the respondent from one punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') to Section 304A IPC. Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation was awarded. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Shri Girdhari (PW-13) submitted a written report to S.H.0., P.S. Thoi, District Sikar, to the effect that in the intervening night of 13/14th March, 1997 his father Ram Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') went to his field for irrigation. Accused Chhittar due to enmity had fixed naked live electricity wire near the fencing with the intention to kill Ram Kumar. When in the night Ram Kumar came in contact with electric wire he died due to electrocution. At about 3.15 A.M. complainants' younger brother Murlidhar went to give tea to his father, and he also d...
Tag this Judgment!