Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR2916; JT2009(8)SC688; RLW2009(2)SC2290; 2009(9)SCALE62; 2009(7)LC3407(SC)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 31.01.2003 passed by the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Bombay, convicting the appellant herein under the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short `IPC'). The trial court, after convicting the appellant under Section 376 IPC sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The said sentence was, however, altered by the High Court by awarding a sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.2. Facts briefly stated are as under:Prosecutrix Shobha Bhaurao Ramteke was a working woman and was working in Battery Company at Vardhman Nagar. According to the allegations made in the First Information Report filed by her, she met the accused-ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2561; 2009(3)AWC2794(SC); JT2009(9)SC160; (2009)6MLJ77(SC); 2009(9)SCALE46; 2009(7)LC3380(SC); 2009AIRSCW4471; 2009(4)LHSC2327
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. Leave granted.2. The subject matter of challenge before this Court is the judgment and order dated 1st December, 2006 passed by a Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal 617/2004 and in the cross objection 47/2006 filed under Order 41, Rule 22 against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.04 passed in Original Suit No. 6169/92 by the XX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.3. The dispute arose out of a partition suit filed by i) Smt. Nagarathnamma wife of late G. Srinivas and ii) by G. Hemlata who was a minor at the time of filing of the suit in 1992. Plaintiff was the only child of the plaintiff No. 1, who was her mother and natural guardian and she represented the plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs are respondent Nos. 1 & 2 before this Court.4. This suit was filed for partition claiming 1/3rd share in suit properties and also claiming separate possession by metes and bounds and for mesne profits and other inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(9)SC69; 2009(9)SCALE155; 2009(4)LHSC2631; (2009)14SCC541
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated 20.2.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 188/2003 by which appeal against the judgment and order of the Sessions Court Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 87(K)/97 (GR. Case No. 47/95) has been dismissed wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 376 Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for another six months. However, the High Court reduced the sentence to four years and fine to Rs. 1000/-.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the appellant Mussauddin Ahmed alias Musa allegedly abducted a minor girl namely Mira Begum on 7.1.1995 took her to a hotel and committed rape on her.3. The victim PW.4 Mira Begum was working as a maid servant in the house of PW.2 Abdul Hai Laskar and his wife PW.3 Hasmat Ara Begum at Gandhi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(9)SCALE235; (2009)7SCC178; 2009AIRSCW4714; 2009(4)LHSC2691
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.3.2003 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 160-SB and 161-SB of 1990 by which the High Court has dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant against the judgments and orders of the Sessions Judge dated 3.5.1990 passed in Sessions Case No. 71 of 1988 wherein the appellant stood convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- and in default of payment of fine to further R.I. for one year and in Sessions Case No. 81 of 1989, wherein appellant stood convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. However, the High Court reduced the sentence under Section 307 IPC from three years to one year but enhanced the fine from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 15,000/-. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC3188; 2009CriLJ4157; JT2009(8)SC657; 2009(9)SCALE81
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Allahabad whereby and whereunder the High Court acquitted Nandu Vishwakarma, Kalu and Lalloo from the charges under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the IPC') read with Section 34 and also under Section 367 read with Section 34 IPC.2. Before dealing with the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and in order to appreciate the said contentions it would be necessary to state a few facts leading to the registration of the aforesaid criminal case.3. Dangar Yadav, who is the elder brother of informant PW-1 (Prithivi Pal), and Gujrati Devi (PW-2), wife of the informant are residents of village Samraha, Police Station Karchana. The respondents who are accused in the present case are residents of another village namely village Dubawal, Police Station Sarai Inayat. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that both the informant side...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2869; JT2009(8)SC648; 2009(9)SCALE48; 2009AIRSCW5206; 2009(4)LHSC2727
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court on 31.08.2000 affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla convicting the accused-appellant herein under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to also undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of one year.2. The accused-appellant herein was tried for an offence of murder punishable under Section 302, IPC for allegedly committing the murder of her co-wife Shama Devi, on 02.06.1996 at her house in Village Atgaon, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla.3. The accused-appellant Jagriti Devi is the legally wedded wife of one Mohinder Singh who was a resident of village Atgaon. Out of the aforesaid wedlock, the accused-appellant gave birth to five children, four daughters and one son. The husban...
Tag this Judgment!