|
|
Database updates
Judgments (Criminal)
(1) Dehal Singh; (2) Dinesh Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 31 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. s. 20 - Possession of narcotic - Conviction - Challenged - Trial court convicted appellants u/s. 20 of Act, 1985 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each - HC dismissed appeal filed against said order - Appellants filed appeal submitting that two samples of 50 gms. each were taken and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination, but net weight of the sample received in the laboratory was 65.5606 gms, hence, this discrepancy in weight of sample, casts serious doubt to the credibility of the prosecution case - Whether in view of the evidence order of the HC and trial court could be upheld? - Held, impugned vehicle was intercepted and searched on a highway and impugned substance was weight in the weighting scale of grocery shop and it is common knowledge that weighing scale and weight kept in the grocery shop was not of such standard which can weigh articles with great accuracy and therefore difference of 15 gms. in weight, is not of much significance - Moreover, both the appellants have been found travelling in the vehicle from which impugned substance was recovered - Once possession is established the Court can presume that the accused was in conscious possession - Impugned order of HC and trial court upheld - Appeals dismissed.
|
(1) C. Muniappan and others; (2) D. K. Rajendran and others etc. vs State of Tamil Nadu
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 30 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Indian Police Act, 1861, ss. 30-A and 61 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 147, 148, 149, 188, 436 and 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 195(a)(i) - Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, ss. 3 and 4 - Murder - Conviction - Death sentence - Challenged - In view of naxalite activities, the Deputy Superintendent of Police promulgated a prohibitory order u/ss. 30-A and 61 of the Indian Police Act, 1861 - During this period to protest against court order convicting former Chief Minister political party members resorted to dharnas and took out processions - Accused, along with other political workers formed an unlawful assembly indulging in a 'road roko agitation', under the leadership of A.1, in violation of the prohibitory order - A.2, A.3 and A.4 sprinkled petrol inside the bus carrying around 47 girls student - Three students were burnt alive inside while some of the students suffered burn injuries - FIR was lodged u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 436 and 302 of IPC and u/ss. 3 and 4 of the Act, 1992 was registered - Sessions Court framed charges against all accused persons - 28 accused were convicted u/ss. 188, 341 IPC and 3 and 4 of Act, 1992 r/w s. 149 of IPC - All of them except A.24 were convicted for offence u/s. 147 IPC, whereas A.24, was convicted, for an offence u/s. 148 IPC - A.2, 3 and 4 were sentenced to death - On appeals, HC modified the conviction of A.24 u/s. 148 of IPC as being u/s. 147 IPC - Accused nos. 1, 5 to 14, 16 to 21, 23 to 26 and 28 to 31 were awarded different punishment for different offences - Conviction and sentence of death against A.2 to A.4 was confirmed - Hence, present appeals - (A) Whether conviction u/s. 188 of IPC was justified? - Held, s. 195(a)(i) of CrPC bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable u/s. 188 of IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order - In the instant case, no such complaint was filed - It was not permissible for the Trial Court to frame a charge u/s. 188 of IPC hence charges u/s. 188 of IPC quashed - However, absence of a complaint u/s. 195 of CrPC does not falsify the genesis of the prosecution's case - There was ample evidence on record to show that there was a prohibitory order; which was issued by the competent officer one day before; it was violated - (B) Test Identification Parade - Held, Test Identification Parade is a part of the investigation and is very useful in a case where the accused are not known before-hand to the witnesses - It is used only to corroborate the evidence recorded in the court - Therefore, it is not substantive evidence - Accused should not be shown to any of the witnesses after arrest, and before holding the Test Identification Parade - In the present case, all the accused for whom Test Identification Parades were conducted were identified by some of the witnesses in the jail and in the court - (C) Hostile Witness - Held, evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence - In the instant case, some of the material witnesses turned hostile - Their evidence were taken into consideration by the courts below strictly in accordance with law and some omissions, improvements in the evidence of the PWs were very trivial in nature - (D) Death sentence - Held, "rarest of the rare case" comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful co-existence of the society - Where an accused does not act on any spur-of-the-moment provocation and executes that act in a deliberately planned and meticulously manner, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment for such a ghastly crime - Court has to consider whether any other punishment would be completely inadequate and what would be the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the case - In such matters, it is not only a nature of crime, but the background of criminal, his psychology, his social conditions, his mindset for committing the offence and effect of imposing alternative punishment on the society are also relevant factors - In the instant case, manner of the commission of the offence was extremely brutal, diabolical, grotesque and cruel - No cogent reason to interfere with the punishment of death sentence awarded to A.2, A.3 and A.4 - Appeals dismissed.
|
State of Andhra Pradesh vs M. Narasimha Rao
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 27 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 302 - Murder - Acquittal - Sustainability - Respondent allegedly murdered the deceased - Trial Court convicted the respondent for murder - Respondent filed appeal before the HC - HC acquitted the respondent - Hence, present appeal by the appellant/State - Whether acquittal by HC is sustainable - Held, evidence of the eye-witness was completely trustworthy - Eye-witness account was fully corroborated by the medical evidence - Eye-witness fully supported the prosecution story, however, HC, erroneously, did not consider the evidence of eye-witness - No delay in recording of the FIR - Therefore, impugned HC order is set aside and convicted the respondent u/s. 302 of IPC - Appeal allowed.
|
Prathap and another vs State of Kerala
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 27 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 114, 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 302 - Murder - Conviction - Challenged - Appellants along with eight other persons were tried for offences punishable u/ss. 114, 143, 147, 148, 120-B and 302 r/w s. 149 of IPC - Prosecution cited PW-1, PW-2. PW-4 and PW-5 to PW-10 as eye-witnesses - Trial Court on the basis of evidence given by the eye-witnesses held that the participation in the assault by appellants was proved beyond doubt - Conspiracy was held to be proved on the basis of the evidence given by PW3 - Trial court convicted appellants u/s. 302 r/w s. 149 of IPC - A.3 and A.8 to A.10 were acquitted - On appeal, HC held that there was clear evidence that both the appellants participated and formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit the murder of the deceased - However, the conviction u/s. 120-B of IPC was set aside - Present appeals - (A) Whether presence of the eye-witnesses was doubtful? - Held, Trial Court and HC correctly relied upon the unflinching, coherent and consistent evidence given by PW1 - Evidence given by PW1 was corroborated by PW2 in every material particular - Further, weapons used by the appellants and the injuries caused have been specifically mentioned by PW1 and PW2 - As per medical evidence also death resulted from the injuries caused by the appellants and the other accused with their respective weapons - No reason at all to disbelieve the evidence of the eye-witnesses - (B) Whether in view of fact the all the other co-accused were acquitted; the appellants also deserve to be acquitted on the ground of parity? - Held, it is always open to a court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who had been convicted - Both the Courts below have applied the aforesaid principle in distinguishing the case of the appellants from those who have been acquitted - Courts below rightly declined to acquit the appellants on the principle of parity - Trial Court and HC rightly convicted the appellants as the facts and circumstances of the case unequivocally prove the existence of the common object of the appellants - Appeals dismissed.
|
Shaikh Sattar vs State of Maharashtra
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 27 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 302 and 498A - Murder - Cruelty - Conviction - Challenged - Appellant convicted for offences punishable u/ss. 302 and 498A of IPC - Trial Court held that appellant was harassing the deceased and her family members as they were not able to give him the money demanded - Trial Court disbelieved the plea of the appellant that the deceased had been killed when a stone fell on her head while she was trying to pull a quilt from over the tin roof of the shed in front of the house - Conviction upheld by HC - Hence, present appeal - Whether the course adopted and the conclusions reached by both the Courts, erroneous or illegal? - Appellant submitted that Trial Court and HC wrongly disbelieved the plea of alibi of the appellant - Held, burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay upon the appellant - Plea of alibi had to be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the appellant - When a plea of alibi is raised by an accused it is for the accused to establish the said plea by positive evidence which has not been led in the present case - In the present case, appellant failed to bring on record any facts or circumstances which would make the plea of his absence even probable, let alone, being proved beyond reasonable doubt - However, failure of the plea of alibi would not necessarily lead to the success of the prosecution case which has to be independently proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt - Being aware of the aforesaid principle of law, Trial Court as also the HC examined the circumstantial evidence to exclude the possibility of the innocence of the appellant - Trial Court and HC examined all the material circumstances to ensure that the guilt of the appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt - No reason to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court as also the HC - Appeal dismissed.
|
State of Maharashtra and others vs Arun Gulab Gawali and others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 27 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 34, 120, 384, 386 and 506(ii) - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Complainant lodged a complaint u/ss. 384, 386, 506(ii), 120, 34 of IPC - Complainant filed writ petition alleging harassment by the police and seeking the direction of removal of surveillance by police - Complainant submitted that he was in police custody/police protection and he was forced to write the aforesaid complaint - Wife of the complainant, made an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate for issuing direction to the police to release her husband or produce him before the court - Immediately after filing of the said application, complainant was released - Thereafter, Wife of the complainant filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission stating that her husband had been confined in police custody, tortured and was forcibly made to sign some papers - Complainant filed application stating that he did not want to proceed with the complaint, which was rejected - Writ petition was filed for quashing of FIR/complaint was filed, which was allowed - Hence, present appeal - Whether HC was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings? - Held, a claim founded on a denial by the complainant even before the trial commences coupled with an allegation that the police had compelled the lodging of a false FIR, was a matter which requires further investigation as the charge is levelled against the police - HC proceeded on the perception that as the complainant himself was not supporting the complaint, he would not support the case of the prosecution and there would be no chance of conviction, thus the trial itself would be a futile exercise - Quashing of FIR/Complaint on such a ground cannot be held to be justified in law - However, there was a persistent stand taken by wife of complainant that the complaint was not made voluntarily and her husband and other family members had been subjected to great deal of harassment and persecution by the police for no fault of theirs - In such a fact-situation, the possibility that the allegations made by complainant and by wife of complainant in their complaints/applications/writ petitions may be true, cannot be ruled out - Thus, it was a fit case, where in order to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice, the inherent powers of the Court to quash the FIR/complaint could have been exercised - Complaint was liable to be quashed, though for different reasons - Appeal dismissed.
|
Prahlad Mahto and others vs State of Jharkhand
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 27 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - HC and trial court held accused nos. 1 to 7 (appellants) were involved in the death of the deceased - Appellants filed appeal against said order submitting that post-mortem report and the injury report of the deceased and the injured witnesses respectively did not show the presence of any injuries that could have been caused by them - Whether appeal filed by appellants against order of the HC could be allowed? - Held, it is often difficult to arrive at a true assessment as to what has happened but in a case of deep rooted group 2 rivalry and animosity between the rival parties and in the face of the fact that a large number of accused have been involved, the possibility of false implication cannot be entirely ruled out - In present case, whereas accused no. 4, 5 and 6 have been attributed specific injuries, the others have been given general roles that they too had caused injuries - There is thus possibility that some of the accused could have been booked falsely - Hence, appeal of accused no. 4, 5 and 5 dismissed and appeal of accused no. 1, 2, and 3 allowed - Appeal disposed of.
|
(1) Babubhai; (2) State of Gujarat and others vs (1) State of Gujarat and others; (2) Ganeshbhai Jakshibhai Bharwad and others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 26 Aug 2010]
(A) Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 332, 333, 436 and 427 - Bombay Police Act, 1951, s. 135 - Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act, 1984, ss. 3 and 7 - Altercation took place between members of the two communities over the plying of rickshaws - In the incident, more than 20 persons were injured and three houses were set on fire and several police personnel were also injured - FIR was registered u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 332, 333, 436 and 427 of the IPC r/w s. 135 of the Act, 1951 and ss. 3, 7 of Act, 1984 - No name were given in FIR - Another FIR was registered on the same date wherein it was alleged that an incident took place on the same day in which 18 persons were named as accused - Accused in both the cases filed special criminal application praying for investigation by an independent agency and another application for quashing criminal cases - Twenty two persons were arrested - On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 10.10.2008 against 12 accused persons and the case was committed to Sessions Court - HC quashed the second FIR and clubbed the investigation of the said FIR along with the investigation of the other FIR and investigation was transferred to the State CID Crime Branch - Hence, present appeals - (A) Two FIRs - Whether FIRs could be clubbed? - Held, in a case where more than one piece of information be given to the Police Officer In-charge in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences, Court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction - If the answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed - However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible - In the present case, both the FIRs pertain to the two crimes committed in the same transaction - Scene of offence panchnamas establish clearly that the incidents in both the cases could not be distinct and independent of each other - HC reached the correct conclusion and second FIR was liable to be quashed - (B) Tainted Investigation - Held, in exceptional circumstances, the court in order to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice, if it considers necessary, may direct for investigation de novo wherein the case presents exceptional circumstances - In such a situation, it may be in the interest of justice that independent agency chosen by the HC makes a fresh investigation - In the present case, HC has given detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion that the investigation was totally one-sided, biased and mala fide - One party was favoured by the investigating agency - Charge sheets filed by the investigating agency in both the cases were against the same set of accused - Thus, the order of the HC requires modification to the extent that the charge sheets in both the cases and any order consequent thereto stand quashed - Appeals disposed of.(B) Criminal - Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950, arts. 20 and 21 - Investigation into a criminal offence - Held, investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive - Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed u/arts. 20 and 21 of the Constitution - Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law - Investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in tainted and biased manner - Appeals disposed of.
|
A. M. Bharvad and others vs State of Gujarat and others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 26 Aug 2010]
|
Reshma Devi and another vs State of Punjab and another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 25 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 304-B - Petitioners (accused no. 1 to 5) were tried for an offence punishable u/s. 304-B of IPC relating to the death of 'X', wife of accused no. 1 - Sessions Court convicted all the 5 accused u/s. 304-B of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each - On appeal, HC acquitted accused no. 3, 4 and 5 and confirmed conviction and sentence of accused no. 1 and 2 - SC vide order dt. 5.11.2008 upheld the order of the HC - Accused nos. 1 and 2 filed review petition submitting that accused no.2 had not been impleaded as a party in the criminal appeal filed by the respondent before this Court - Therefore, this Court ought not to have made any observation or order adverse to her interest - Accused also submitted that Government Order dt. 14.8.2002 vide which Government of Punjab provides remission of sentence of imprisonment for life in certain cases, had been misread by this Court and the observation that the benefits of remission under the said notification was not available to accused 1 and 2 was contrary to the said Government order - Whether submissions of accused could be accepted? - Held, as accused no.2 was not a party and as she was not heard, no observation could have been made in the judgment of this Court nor any direction could have been given to her detriment, that too in regard to a matter which was not the subject matter of the appeal - In respect of second contention, the special remission of 1 year under the Government Order dt. 14.8.2002 was available to persons convicted for a term of 7 years for the offence u/s. 304-B of IPC - This court, while disposing of the criminal appeal, under the erroneous assumption that the benefit of the said Government Order was not available to accused 1 and 2, overlooking the fact that benefit of remission under Part B thereof was in fact available - Judgment dt. 5.11.2008 is reviewed and paras 18 to 24 of the said judgment are deleted and instead the following is added: 'The appeals are therefore dismissed' - Order accordingly.
|
Rajeswar Tiwari and others vs Nanda Kishore Roy
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 19 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 120-B and 406 - Quashing of complaint - Respondent (employee) filed a complaint u/ss. 461/468/406 r/w s. 120B of IPC against the appellants (employer) alleging discrimination by deducting an amount per month from monthly salary as Income Tax - Judicial Magistrate directed issuance of summons against the appellants for an offence u/ss. 406/120B of the IPC - Appellants filed application u/s. 482 of the CrPC for quashing of the complaint which was dismissed - Hence, present appeal - Held, adequate materials available to show that the proceedings are of a civil nature and same if adjudicated by the criminal court would be an abuse of process of court - In the present case, in view of the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act and assertion of the appellants the proper remedy for the respondent was to approach the authority/officer concerned and not by filing the complaint - Moreover, complaint does not disclose any case to proceed against the appellant - Hence, HC committed an error, firstly, in not assigning any reason and passing a cryptic order and secondly, failed to exercise its jurisdiction u/s. 482 when the complaint does not disclose any offence of criminal nature - Criminal proceedings quashed - Appeal allowed.
|
Keshav Dutt vs State of Haryana
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 19 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ss. 7, 13(1)(d) - Expert evidence without examination - Evidentiary value - Appellant/Meter Reader and two others allegedly demanded bribe from complainant by fudging the electricity meter records - Co-accused were arrested after laying a trap, however, charge-sheet was filed against appellant along with other co-accused persons - Trial Court convicted appellant u/ss. 7 r/w s. 13(1)(d) of the Act on the basis of handwriting expert's report which stated that handwriting in the meter reading records and handwriting of appellant were same - Appellant filed appeal before the HC - HC reduced appellant's sentence from 3 years to 1 years, however, confirmed the conviction u/s. 13(1)(d) - Hence the present appeal - Appellant contended that the opinion of handwriting expert cannot be admitted in evidence without examination of the handwriting expert - Held, when the Trial Court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert, it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the appellant and the other accused to cross-examine the said expert - Appellant and the other co-accused did not admit the report of the handwriting expert - Trial Court ought to have allowed the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine the expert and both the Trial Court and the HC erred in denying him such opportunity and shifting the onus on the accused to disprove the meter reading records which had not been formally proved by the prosecution - In the instant case, it is only the report of the handwriting expert, which connects the appellant with the offence on account of meter reading records which is said to be in his handwriting - Since the appellant had neither received the money nor was he present at the spot from where the other accused were apprehended, appellant's case has to be treated on a different footing - Since appellant's complicity has not been established beyond doubt, he must be given the benefit of doubt - Hence, judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s. 13(1)(d) of the Act, is set aside - Appeal allowed.
|
G. Parshwanath vs State of Karnataka
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 18 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 201 and 302 - Murder - Conviction - Circumstantial evidence - Challenged - Appellant allegedly murdered his wife and child and was convicted for offence punishable u/ss. 302 and 201 of IPC - Conviction confirmed by HC - Hence, present appeal - Held, in deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive - Facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved - There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court - In the present case, if all the circumstances mentioned are taken together coupled it lead to only one inference that in all human probability the murder of the deceased were committed by the appellant alone and none else - Further, offering of false explanation by the appellant regarding death of his wife and child will have to be regarded as an additional circumstance against him strengthening the chain of circumstances already firmly found - Appeal dismissed.
|
State (NCT of Delhi) vs Ajit Seth @ Ajji
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 17 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 302 and 364 - Murder - Death Sentence - Confirmation - Two young children were burnt to death by the respondent as he was under the impression that they were carrying tales of his illicit connection with their mother, co-accused, to their father - Trial Court, relying on the dying declarations made by the deceased children, convicted the respondent for offences punishable u/ss. 302 and 364 of the IPC but acquitted their mother (co-accused) - Matter remitted to HC for the confirmation of the death sentence - HC held that though the crime committed by the respondent was indeed heinous and barbaric but it still did not fall in the category of the 'rarest of rare cases', the death reference was accordingly disallowed - Hence, present appeal - Whether HC rightly held that case did not fall in the category of 'rarest of rare case'? - Held, as appellant has already completed his sentence of 20 years and has been released it would be a complete travesty of justice to allow this Appeal and to award a capital sentence at this stage - Court endorse the finding of the Trial Court that the crime committed by the respondent was indeed barbaric and called for no mercy but in the face of the facts, to send the respondent to the gallows at this stage too would be completely unjustified - Appeal dismissed.
|
Madan Mohan Singh vs State of Gujarat and another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 17 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 306 and 294 - Abetment of suicide - 'X' widow of 'Y' filed an FIR alleging that petitioner her husband's supervisor caused her husband to commit suicide - Petitioner challenged said FIR submitting that even if the whole report is accepted as it is, it did not disclose any offence much less the offences u/ss. 306 and 294 of IPC - HC dismissed the petition - Hence, present appeal - Whether FIR filed by 'X' against petitioner could be quashed? - Held, there is no nexus between the so called suicide and any of the alleged acts on the part of the petitioner - For a prosecution u/s. 306, IPC, much more material is required - In the absence of specific allegation and material of definite nature, it would be hazardous to ask the petitioner to face trial - Moreover, as regards the suicide note, it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him - The suicide note and the FIR do not impress at all - They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the petitioner that the deceased might commit suicide - FIR quashed - Appeal allowed.
|
Chakali Maddilety and others vs State of Andhra Pradesh
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 16 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 302 and 148 - Murder - Conviction - Challenged - Accused caused injuries to the deceased who succumbed to the injuries - Trial Court convicted appellant nos A-1, A-3, A5, A6 and A7 guilty of offences punishable u/ss. 148 and 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each for an offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC and 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each for an offence punishable u/s. 148 IPC - Trial Court acquitted A2 and A4 of all the charges - HC dismissed appeal filed against said order - Hence, present appeal - Whether trial court rightly convicted appellant nos. A-1, A-3, A5, A6 and A7 u/ss. 148 and 302 IPC? - Held, FIR had been lodged most promptly i.e. within a period of 2 hours and all the appellants were named therein - Moreover, statements of PW1 and PW2 have been consistent - Their version stands fully corroborated by the medical evidence - Thus, no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the tribunal - Appeal dismissed.
|
Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 16 Aug 2010]
Advocates & Judges - Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Appellant was convicted under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Trial Court sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine - Appellant filed appeal before the HC, however, his counsel failed to appear before the HC - HC considered the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and disposed the appeal - Appellant contended that since he was behind the bar and could not make alternative arrangement, HC had also failed to arrange a counsel for him at the State expense - Held, relied on the three Judge Bench decision of SC in Bani Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P., 1996 INDLAW SC 3941 - Impugned HC judgment is set aside in view of the special circumstances that the appellant was behind the bar and had no opportunity to make alternative arrangement - Matter remitted back to HC for fresh disposal after affording opportunity to both sides particularly, to the appellant - Appeal disposed of.
|
Virender Prasad Singh vs Rajesh Bhardwaj and others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 16 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 120-B, 201 and 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ss. 173(8) and 438 - Re-investigation - Respondent/accused was facing charges of offences u/ss. 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC - Application for orders u/s. 438 of the CrPC filed by respondent/accused before the Sessions Court was dismissed - Petition filed for the same relief was dismissed by the HC - Appeal filed thereagainst dismissed by SC - Thereafter, another petition was filed by the mother of the respondent no. 1-accused praying for re-investigation of the matter by another agency while at that time investigation was completed and the police was going to submit the charge sheet - HC directed re-examination of completed investigation by an officer of the rank of Director General of Police (DGP) - Whether order passed by HC justified? - Held, such a course was not necessary unless HC had examined the charge sheet which was filed and recorded its findings that the investigation was not properly conducted or it required further investigation u/s. 173(8) of CrPC - In the present case, HC has not even looked into the charge sheet nor has it examined the same - HC has not even considered the question of its own jurisdiction in the matter by observing that it is a matter which is to be considered at the stage of final hearing of the case - Therefore, it is clear that the HC has not applied its mind - Further, charge sheet was already filed in this matter and nothing was shown suggesting that there was a necessity of any further investigation, additional investigation or investigation by some other agency - Merely, because there appeared to be no supervision of a higher level officer, HC could not have simply called for the opinion of DGP without recording any finding on any justification - Impugned order of HC set aside - Appeal allowed.
|
Preeti Gupta and another vs State of Jharkhand and another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, ss. 3 and 4 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, 120-B, 323, 341, 406 and 498-A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 482 - Quashing of complaint - Respondent no.2 filed a complaint u/ss. 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120-B of the IPC r/w ss. 3 and 4 of the Act against her husband and all immediate relations of her husband, namely, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law (appellants) - Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and passed the summoning order of the appellants - Appellants aggrieved by the said summoning order filed petition u/s. 482 of CrPC before HC, which was dismissed - Hence, present appeal - Whether HC was justified in not exercising its inherent powers u/s. 482 of the CrPC in the facts and circumstances of this case? - Held, powers possessed by the HC u/s. 482 of the CrPC are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise - Inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but court's failing to use the power for advancement of justice can also lead to grave injustice - In the present case, there were no specific allegations against the appellants in the complaint and none of the witnesses alleged any role of both the appellants - Permitting the complainant to pursue this complaint would be an abuse of the process of law - Complaint quashed against the appellants - Impugned judgment of HC set aside - Appeal allowed.Obiter dicterA serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.
|
State of Madhya Pradesh vs Harishankar Bhagwan Pd. Tripathi
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Socio-Economic - Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 161 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, s. 5(1)(d) r/w s. 5(2) - Demand of bribe - Acquittal - Legality - Respondent/Clerk in Excise department allegedly demanded illegal gratification from de facto complainant for issuing excise license - Special Police Establishment laid a trap and arrested the respondent - Respondent was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable u/s. 161 IPC r/w. ss. 5(1)(d), 5(2) of 1947 Act - Trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that sanction accorded for the prosecution of the respondent was improper and prosecution failed to prove its case - Appellant/State filed appeal before the HC, however, HC dismissed the appeal - Whether impugned HC order is sustainable - Held, both the Trial Court and HC had come to an erroneous finding that although the trap which had been laid was proved, the circumstances in which money was recovered from the sole respondent, had not been properly considered - No attempt was made by the defence to explain as to how the tainted currency came to be in the possession of the respondent - Principal Secretary of the State examined the records of the case while granting sanction for prosecution - While granting sanction the officer concerned was not required to indicate that he had personally scrutinized the file and had arrived at the satisfaction for granting sanction - Narration of events granting sanction for prosecution clearly indicated the case and the reason for grant of such sanction - Therefore, order granting sanction does not suffer from any infirmity which prompted the Courts below to acquit the respondent and hence the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is set aside - Matter remitted back to Trial Court for passing appropriate orders on the merits - Appeal allowed.
|
M. A. A. Annamalai vs State of Karnataka and another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 12 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 415 and 420 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 482 - Money Circulation and Banning Act, 1978 - Respondent No.2 lodged a FIR alleging commission of offences u/s. 420 of IPC r/w ss. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act - Alleged offences were committed during the period between 24.05.1998 and 17.09.1999 - Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued a non bailable warrants against appellant (Director of company) - Appellant filed a petition before the HC u/s. 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings - Petition was dismissed - Hence, present appeal - Held, primary requirement to make out an offence of cheating u/s. 415 punishable u/s. 420 of IPC is dishonest/fraudulent intention at the time of inducement is made - In the present case, appellant ceased to be a Director of the company from 27.12.1997 whereas the alleged offences, if any, were committed during the period from 24.5.1998 to 17.9.1999 and therefore, appellant cannot be held responsible for any activities of the company after he ceased to be a Director of the company - Further, no specific allegation against the appellant in FIR - Impugned judgment of HC set aside and proceedings initiated against the appellant quashed - Appeal allowed
|
Jabar Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 12 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 302 and 326 - Conviction - Challenged - Appellant and four other accused persons was charged for offence punishable u/s. 302 of IPC - Trial Court on a perusal of evidence as also the four dying declarations held that the accused persons were not properly identified and as there appeared to be long enmity between the parties, the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out and accordingly acquitted appellant - On appeal, HC maintained the acquittal of four of the accused but reversed the judgment of the Trial Court with respect to appellant and convicted him u/s. 302 of IPC - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of eye witnesses' account of several persons including the wife of the deceased and the four dying declarations recorded at the instance of the deceased before several independent persons including an Executive Magistrate, conviction of the appellant is upheld - However, no where in the medical opinion was it observed that the gun shot injuries suffered by the deceased would have cause his death in the normal course of nature - In this view of the matter, case u/s. 302 of IPC cannot be spelt out against appellant and he would at the most be liable for conviction u/s. 326 of IPC - Conviction modified from s. 302 of the IPC to one u/s. 326 of the IPC - Appeal disposed of.
|
Amit Kumar and another vs State of Punjab
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 12 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 302 - Murder - Conviction - Challenged - Trial Court convicted appellants u/s. 302 r/w. s. 34 of IPC - Conviction upheld by HC - Hence, present appeal - (A) Dying declaration - Held, statement was spontaneous and sets out the correct version of the events leading to her being set on fire - Judicial Magistrate also stated that all safeguards were observed by him before recording the statement - Both the Courts below correctly relied on the dying declaration - (B) Evidence of witnesses - Held, no reason to doubt the presence of the witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW5 - Evidence of PW1, PW1 and PW5 was unflinching, coherent and consistent - Both the witnesses have withstood lengthy cross-examination without any loss of credibility - Their evidence cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are close relations of the deceased - Hence, Trial court as also HC meticulously examined and re-examined entire evidence to conclude that appellants were guilty of murdering deceased by setting her on fire as she and her parents had failed to meet demands of dowry - Entire body of evidence seems to leave no manner of doubt that the trial court as well as the HC correctly concluded that the appellants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt - Appeal dismissed.
|
Kishan Singh (D) through L.Rs. vs Gurpal Singh and others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 12 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 120-B, 420, 423, 467, 468 and 471 - Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed by the HC relying upon a finding of Civil Court on an issue involved in criminal proceedings in respect of the same subject matter? - Held, findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa - Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases - In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt - There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein - However, there may be cases where the provisions of ss. 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration - Appeal disposed of.
|
S. S. Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 12 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 306 - Abetment of suicide - Complainant-father of the deceased filed a private complaint before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in which it was alleged that the appellant and 'X' were responsible for abetting the suicide of his son and sought for their trial u/s. 306 IPC - Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the said complaint, summoned the appellant as well as 'X' to face trial u/s. 306 IPC - Trial court clubbed the complaint case with the State case and ordered for framing of the charge u/s. 306 IPC - Accordingly, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant along with 'X' - Appellant filed revision petition before HC against the order for framing of the charge - HC dismissed said petition and held that the material against the appellant was not just the suicide note but included threats, humiliating phrases etc. addressed to the deceased and his father over a period of few days - Hence, present appeal filed by appellant submitting that if the threat or the humiliating phrases etc. by the appellant had any impact on the deceased's mind or had led to the abetment to commit suicide then all these facts ought to have been mentioned in the suicide note - Whether it would be just and fair to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial in absence of any credible material against him? - Held, no - Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing - Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained - In the present case, no conviction can be legally sustained without any credible evidence or material on record against the appellant - The order of framing a charge u/s. 306 IPC against the appellant is palpably erroneous and unsustainable - Consequently, the order of framing charge u/s. 306 IPC against the appellant is quashed and all proceedings pending against him are also set aside - Appeal allowed.
|
|