Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.512 OF2010KRISHNAN @ RAMASAMY & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st March, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.1009 of 2005. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellants for the offence under Section 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows: Prior to 4th April, 2004, the date of incident, the deceased Manikandan expressed his love to one Rajeswari, daughter of accused No.1, Krishnan @ Ramasamy and accused No.5, Selvam. For the said reason, there was a commotion which resulted in enmity between the accused on the one side and the deceased Manikandan on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.5899-5900 OF2014(Arising out of SLP (c) Nos.16958-59 of 2013) Sh. Sanjeev Lal Etc. Etc. Appellants Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh & Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.Leave granted. As facts of both the appeals are similar, at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, both the appeals had been heard together. Being aggrieved by the judgments delivered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in ITA Nos. 153 & 154 of 2012 dated 29th January, 2013, these appeals have been preferred by the assessees. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under: A residential house, being House No.267 situated in Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, was a self acquired property of Shri Amrit Lal, who had executed a Will whereby life interest in the aforestated house had been given to his wife and upon death of his wife, the house was to be given in favo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.593 OF2010PARAMSIVAM & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.This appeal is directed against judgment dated 27th April, 2009, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.441 of 2007. By the impugned judgment appeal preferred by the appellants- accused nos.1 to 3 has been dismissed and conviction of accused nos.1 to 3 u/s 364 IPC and accused no.1 u/s 302 IPC and accused nos.2 and 3 u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine imposed upon them have been confirmed.2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows: Deceased Mani alias Parai Mani took lease of the land in S.F. No.427/1 of Vadapudur village belonging to PW3-Krishnasamy and PW6-Ramasamy. Accused No.6-Nagarathinam was the neighbouring land owner. Since Accused No.1- Paramasivam and Accused No.6-Nagar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1188 OF2009MANOHAR LAL APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENT JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.529-SB of 1994. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 304B IPC for which he stands sentenced to undergo RI for seven years.2. The case of the prosecution is that Phullan @ Darshana, (deceased) was married to the accused-Manohar Lal about 5 years prior to her death which took place on 27th August, 1991. She was subjected to harassment for dowry and finally she died on account of burn injuries. Raj Rani (PW-1), mother of the deceased on learning about the incident, went to Civil Hospital and found the victim dead. Thereafter she made statement (Exh.PD...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 2277-2278 OF2009DURYODHAN ROUT APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 8th January, 2008 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Death Reference Case No.2 of 2007 and J.Crl. A.No.12 of 2007. By the impugned judgment, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the appellant, his family background and the fact that the appellant had no criminal antecedent, the capital sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC has been commuted to life imprisonment; and rest of sentence remain unaltered.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11th September, 2004, at about 3 p.m. accused Duryodhan Rout, on the pretext that the deceased, Subhasin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.967-968 OF2010AMAR SINGH YADAV APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF U.P. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 16th February, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1942 of 2009 and Reference No.5 of 2009. By the impugned common judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302, 307 and 436 IPC and thereby answered the Reference in confirming the death sentence.2. The case of the prosecution in short is that Urmila Devi was married to accused Amar Singh Yadav, who was posted as Constable in Police Chowki Gurdev Palace, Kanpur. Three daughters, Mamta, aged 24 years; Pooja aged 22 years; and Sudha 18 years and one son, Pankaj Yadav, aged 13 years were born from their wedlock. Amar Singh had developed illicit re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. OF2014(@ out of SLP (C) Nos.36299-36303/2010) JAI KRISHAN (D) Thr. LRs. APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 16th July, 2005 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) at Nainital in first Appeal No.56 of 2001 (Old No.325/1995). By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the State of U.P., set aside part of the judgment and award dated 23rd March, 1995 passed by the Reference Court.3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 14th September, 1977 for the purpose of acquiring land measuring 36 acres situated at Glenmire Estate, cosycot and cosynook in Mussoorie. The acquisition was so made for the purp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2014(arising out of SLP©No.24083 of 2013) SANDHYA APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th March, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.1047 of 2013 whereby the High Court held that the appellant is not entitled for regularization of her service as per Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2005 and dismissed the writ petition.3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The Government of Maharashtra vide GR dated 30th June, 1961 framed recruitment rules of revenue clerks from amongst persons having qualification S.S.C. and within the age limit of 23 years (relaxable upto 26 years for reserved category candidates). Selected candidates were to be appointed in their offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.1535-1538 OF2004Balbir Appellant Versus Vazir & Ors. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1539 OF2004State of Rajasthan Appellant Versus Lichman & Anr Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1540 OF2004State of Rajasthan Appellant Versus Vazir & Ors. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1541 OF2004State of Rajasthan Appellant Versus Hoshiyar Singh & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 23/1/2004 passed by the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Murder Reference No.1 of 2002, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.781 of 2002, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.718 of 2002 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2003. Criminal Appeals No.1535-1538 of 2004 are filed by PW-4 Balbir and Criminal Appeal Nos. 1539, 1540 and 1541 of 2004 are filed by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of the accused. Since these appeals arise out o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.375 OF2010RAM KUMAR & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF M.P. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, J.The appellants, who were convicted under Sections 302/149 and 148, IPC by the Trial Court and whose conviction was altered by the High Court to Section 302/34, IPC, have filed this appeal by way of special leave, having been dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 4th December, 2008 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur passed in Criminal Appeal No.1467 of 2000.2. The facts in brief, as discerned from the prosecution story, are that on 8th November, 1999 at about 5.00 p.m., some quarrel took place between the complainant Hiralal (PW-1) on one side and appellant No.2 (Sukha Manidas) and two other accused on the other side. The complainant then rushed to the Police Station, Amdara along with his father (Mohanlal Sahu) for lodging a report against the accused who quarreled with him. ...
Tag this Judgment!