Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1- As questions involved in these petitions are similar and as the reliefs claimed are also identical, both the writ petitions are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, documents and material available in the paper book filed in Writ Petition No.3789/2000 are referred to in the order.2- Originally when W.P.No.3789/2000 was filed, there were 125 petitioners. However, during the pendency of the petition most of the petitioners have withdrawn and have stated that they are not interested in the lis. Accordingly, W.P.No.3789/2000 is presently pursued only by the following petitioners - No.1 Shri G.V.S. Shastri; No.27 Mrs. Rani Shrivastava; No.72 Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma; No.102 Ms. Zafar Nazish Fatma; No.111 Mr. Mudgal Harish Kumar; No.122 Shri Shakti Sharan Shrivastava; and, No.124 Shri Indra Bahadur Singh Baghel, i.e.. only seven petitioners are indicated hereinabove are pursuing W.P.No.3789/2000 and this order shall be applicable only to these seven petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No.180/93, decided on 6.12.94.2. Appellant has been convicted under Section 363, 366, 376 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years for each of the three offences, by the impugned judgment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.3. According to prosecution, at the relevant time complainant Laxman had sent his minor daughter aged about thirteen years (hereinafter referred to as 'victim') to the place of his son-in-law, Narayan at village Kituwa, as his elder daughter had delivered a child. On 9.5.93 complainant Laxman was informed by Narayan that about ten days back his relative Sevak had come to him in search of work and had stayed with him; next day Narayan had sent the victim alongwith appellant Sevak to Rahatgarh for purchasing bangles, but appellant did not come back and enticed her for marrying him. When N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 378(3)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 24th September, 1994 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sausar, Distt. Chhindwara in Criminal Case No.342/82 whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charge under Section 409 and in alternative under Section 420, IPC.2. As per prosecution case, M.C.Tiwari, Ranger, Pandurana lodged the FIR (Ex.P/3) in Police Station Pandurana making allegation that 5 cubic metre Sagon (teak) wood was missing having cost approximately of Rs.7,000/-. It has been further alleged that on 25/7/1978 at about 2.00 a.m. in the night Truck No.MHG 5024 had been loaded and unloaded at Gurunanak Saw Mill, Pandurana, however, by playing fraud with the State, the said Sagon wood has been sold. Offence was registered and the challan was filed after investigation.3. The trial Court has taken cognizance and the charge under Section 409, in alternative under Section 420, IPC was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No.817/1995 (Lakhansingh v. State of M.P.) and Criminal Appeal No.917/1995 (Pappoo alias Vijay Singh v. State of M.P.).2. All the three appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 30/05/1995 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No.32/1990, whereby all the accused persons were convicted for the offence under Section 399 read with Section 402 of IPC and directed to suffer five years' rigorous imprisonment to each and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further six months' imprisonment each under Section 399 of IPC and to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment to each and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further three months' rigorous imprisonment each under Section 402 of IPC.3. As per prosecution case, SHO, Dharampur R.P.S. Parihar (PW-9) received an intimation on 19/1/1990 from the informer that accused Shera and other co-accused persons are making a pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.9.1995 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Sessions Trial No. 29/91 convicting appellant Tikaram for offences under sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of the IPC and directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and fine of Rs.200/- under section 498-A of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs.200/- under section 306 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs.200/- under section 304-B of the IPC.2. As per prosecution story deceased Kesharbai was married with appellant No.1 Tikaram. Appellant No. 2 Beniram is the father- in-law and appellant No. 3 Benubai is the mother-in-law of the deceased. During pendency of this appeal they have died. However, as per orders dated 1.2.1998 and 21.6.2004 the appeal stood abated against them. However, this appeal only survives for appellant No.1 Tikaram. At the time of solemnization of the marriage accused persons demanded golden ring a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 10-10-1995, passed by Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, in S.T. No. 109/1992 by which he was convicted for offence under Section 376 read with Sec.511 I.P.C. and inflicted sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 500/-. In default he has to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.2. In short the prosecution story is that on 20-3-1992, the prosecutrix (PW2) was all alone in her house at village Gova, district Tikamgarh. At about 7:00 pm accused suddenly entered the house and threw the prosecutrix on earth, unwrapped the saree worn by her and committed rape. Witnesses Lakhan, Ganesh (PW1) and Vijay (PW3) had seen the accused when he was entering the house of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix on 21-3-1992 at about 4:40 pm lodged FIR regarding the incident. Ultimately Police A.J.K. had submitted challan. J.M.F.C. Jatara committed the case for sessions trial to Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh.3. After due trial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. The appellant/State has filed this appeal against judgment dated 28.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 432/1991 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Harda by which the respondents have been acquitted of the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It is undisputed that the respondent Ramlal S/o Chhanoo Dahiya alongwith other co-accused Manuj S/o. Chhanoo Dahiya, Mishrilal S/o. Chhanoo Dahiya, Sabulal S/o. Chhanoo Dahiya and Chhotelal S/o. Chhanoo Dahiya were tried for offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC and they were acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Harda.3. The State of Madhya Pradesh prayed for leave to appeal against all the acquitted persons under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure but this Court vide order dated 1.12.1995 granted leave to appeal only against the respondent Ramlal S/o. Chhanoo Dahiya.4. In short, the prosecution case was that on 15.2.87 some employees of Forest Department were sitting in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Appellants have preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and order of sentence passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Teekamgarh in S.T. No.74/94, decided on 15.5.95.2. Appellant Achhelal has been convicted under Section 376, 342 of IPC, while appellant Amanchain has been convicted under Section 376/34, 342/34 of IPC and each of them sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and three months for the respective offences by the impugned judgment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.3. According to prosecution, on 15.6.94 about 6 'O'clock in the evening at village Minoura appellant Amanchain came to the house of the prosecutrix in presence of her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and called her to his house for certain talks. Prosecutrix asked her mother-in-law and then went alongwith appellant Amanchain to the nearby house of appellant Achhelal, where his mother Jankiya and two sisters were also present; her sister-in-law Karodibai also fallowed he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Since both the appeals arise of the common impugned judgment they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Appellants have filed these appeals against the judgment dated 22.1.2007 passed by Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.248/2006 convicting the appellants under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.200/-.3. In short the prosecution case is that Guddo Bai was living with her husband Shiv Kumar, the deceased, in village Munda Tola within the jurisdiction of police station Bargi, District Jabalpur. Shiv Kumar had received agricultural land from his maternal grand- parents. On 21.4.2006, in the early morning at about 4:00 a.m. accused Jeewanlal came to his house and asked him to accompany for searching his lost cow. Shiv Kumar went away with Jeewanlal and Guddo Bai kept on sleeping. At sun rise at about 7:00 a.m., son of Anandi Gond came to her and informed that Shiv Kumar was lyi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29/10/2002 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.25-B/2001 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- has been decreed along with interest.2. The plaintiff's case, in brief, is that an agreement to sale dated 9/3/1998 (Ex.P/1) was executed by the defendant in his favour with respect to a Plot No.23 situated near T.B.Hospital, Idgah Hills, Bhopal admeasuring 38x 68 total area thereof comes to 2584 sq.ft. for a total consideration of Rs.7,75,200/-. In furtherance to the said agreement Rs.50,000/- has been paid in advance and Rs.50,000/- has further been paid after a month as specified in the terms and conditions of the agreement. The defendant could not comply the conditions specified in Clause-(4), (6) and (7) of the said agreement, however, another agreement was executed on 10/7/1998 (Ex.P/2) granting more time to comply the said conditions up to 30/7/1998. But, they s...
Tag this Judgment!