THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI will hold examination for direct recruitment against 14 vacancies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on Sunday, the 06th April,2014-Last Date 06.02.2014 13/11/2013: While renewing the term of the appointment of the existing incumbents the State Government is required to consider their past performance and conduct in the light of the recommendations made by the District Judges and the District Magistrates. Therefore, the High Court could not have issued a Mandamus for renewal of the term of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other similarly situated persons and thereby frustrated the provisions of LR Manual and Section 24 Cr.P.C .- SUPREME COURT. 12 Nov. 2013- Registration of FIR by police in cognizable offence is must and action must be taken against officials for not lodging a case on the complaint filed in such offences.- Supreme Court.(PTI) 09/11/2013: Supreme Court stayed Gauhati High Court order that declared CBI as unconstitutional. 06-11-2013 -"while we decline to hold and declare that the DSPE Act, 1946, is not a valid piece of legislation, we do hold that the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE and the CBI cannot be treated as a ‘police force’ constituted under the DSPE Act, 1946"-GUWAHATI HIGH COURT
LATEST JUDGEMENTS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS
SEARCH JUDGEMENTS
Loading
 
Bombay High Court

Judgement Dated: 16-Jul-2009

Head note: Dowery Death:The antemortem injuries establish that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty. There was a demand for Rs.40,000/- which the deceased’s father could not fulfill. Circumstances establish that the harassment was in connection with dowry demand. Presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act must, therefore, arise. The appellant’s failure to explain how the deceased received ante-mortem injuries provide an important link in the chain of circumstances. Conviction affirmed: Bombay High Court.

Judgement:
JUDGMENT.:- (Per Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) 1. The appellant, who is original accused 1 was tried along with three others, who are original accused 2 to 4 respectively (since acquitted), in Sessions Case No.1 of 2003 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, the IPC). The accused were charged for having murdered Jayashree @ Jijabai (for convenience the deceased or Jijabai) or in the alternative for having subjected her to cruelty for dowry soon before her death. 2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 25/8/2003, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad convicted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer further RI for a period of 3 months. He was also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer further RI for a period of 6 months. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The rest of the accused were acquitted of all the charges. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence in this appeal. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the other accused as accused 2 to 4 respectively. 3. It is necessary to give the gist of the prosecution case. On 30/9/2002, Dinkar Ghule son of accused 3 went to Police Patil Rangnath Barku Kurade (PW-1) and informed him that a corpse of an unknown woman is seen in the well in his field in village Jalgaon, Nevur and requested him to come to the spot. Rangnath went to the field and found a corpse of a woman floating in the water in the well. He went to the Yeola Taluka Police Station and gave information about the said incident at 19.15 hours on the same day. The information was registered as Accidental Death No.39 of 2002. ASI Mahale went to the spot in the morning. He carried out an inquest panchnama. The corpse had decomposed to some extent but, there were some injuries on it and, hence, he forwarded it for the postmortem examination to the Rural Hospital, Yeola. Postmortem was done and the medical officer opined that the death was caused because of cardio respiratory failure due to asphyxia due to throttling. 4. On the same day, Nitin Gavane (PW-2) and Walubai Gavane (PW-4) i.e. the brother and the mother of deceased Jijabai respectively were taken to Rural Hospital, Yeola by Nitins maternal uncle Kadam, who had sometime before inquired with them on phone as to where the deceased was and he was informed that she had gone to her in-laws house on 27/9/2002. On reaching the Rural Hospital, Yeola, they saw the corpse of a woman. They were convinced that it was Jijabai. Hence, after the cremation, PW-2 Nitin lodged the complaint (Ex-41) at 20.10 hours. 5. In his complaint, PW-2 Nitin, inter alia narrated the manner in which the deceased was ill-treated by her inlaws and how demand of money was made from her. PW-2 Nitin stated that the in-laws of the deceased used to ill-treat and insult her because she could not fulfill their demand of money. They used to tell her that her parents did not give sufficient dowry and, therefore, she should bring Rs.40,000/- for Hero Honda Motorcycle. They conspired and killed her and threw her corpse in the well because Rs.40,000/- were not paid to them. We shall advert to this more in detail a little later. On the basis of this complaint, investigation was set into motion. After completion of investigation, the accused came to be charged as aforesaid. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. The star witnesses of the prosecution are PW-2 Nitin Gavane, the brother of the deceased and PW-4 Walubai Gavane, the mother of the deceased. Details of investigation have been given by PW-7 PI Chandrakant Thorat, who was attached to Yeola Police Station at the relevant time. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused did not lead any evidence. According to the accused, they were falsely implicated in the case. After perusing the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused 2 to 4 and convicted the appellant as aforesaid and, hence, this appeal by the appellant. 7. We have heard, at great length, Mr. Shinde, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence on record consists of interested testimony of brother and mother of the deceased, which does not inspire confidence. He submitted that the prosecution has not adduced evidence of any independent witnesses to substantiate its case. He submitted that the evidence on record does not satisfactorily establish the identity of the deceased. He drew our attention to the evidence of PW-3 Balnath Ghule, the Police Patil, who stated that the corpse of a woman was taken out from the well in his presence and that he could not state whose corpse it was. He submitted that there is also discrepancy about the colour of the saree, which is mentioned in the inquest panchnama and the colour of the saree which is mentioned by PW-1 Kurade and mentioned in Ex-39 which is the report made by him. He further submitted that the evidence of PW-2 Nitin Gavane and PW-4 Walubai Gavane does not indicate that the alleged demand of money had any connection with dowry. He drew our attention to the definition of the term dowry as found in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, the Dowry Act). Dowry is defined thereunder as any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. He submitted that there is no evidence on record to indicate that the money allegedly demanded from the deceased had any connection with the deceaseds marriage with accused 1. In this connection, learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 763, Shivanand Mallappa Koti v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 2314, Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 3050, M. Srinivasulu v. State of A.P., AIR 2007 SC 3146, Hira Lal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2865 and Kaliyaperumal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828. 8. Learned counsel pointed out that learned Judge has recorded a finding that the demand of money by all the accused in connection with the marriage of the deceased is not proved by the prosecution. He submitted that therefore learned Judge could not have convicted accused 1 under Section 304-B of the IPC. Learned counsel further submitted that assuming cruelty is established that would be sufficient to convict the accused under Section 498-A of the IPC but unless there was evidence of dowry demand, Section 304-B of the IPC would not be attracted. In this connection he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pyare Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 11 SCC 552. Learned counsel pointed out that the deceased had lodged a complaint against all the accused in the police station at Yeola on 30/3/2000. Thereafter, there was a compromise in the police station in 2000 and it was agreed that accused 1 and the deceased would stay separately in the village and accordingly it is the case of the prosecution as stated by PW-4 Walubai that they resided separately for a period of one month. Leaned counsel submitted that there is nothing to indicate that the deceased and accused 1 stayed together after the period of one month and they were staying together at the time of the incident. He submitted that this is evident from the evidence of PW-2 Nitin who has stated that on 1/10/2002 his maternal uncle asked him on phone whether the deceased was staying with the in-laws or with her parents. Learned counsel submitted that the incident in question took place on 30/9/2002 much after the compromise. The alleged illtreatment was prior to the compromise. Therefore, there is no proximity between the ill-treatment or cruelty allegedly meted out to Jijabai and her death. Hence, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act will not arise in this case. Learned counsel submitted that PW-2 Nitin Gavane and PW-4 Walubai Gavane had made improvements in their evidence in the court. The omissions in their evidence are vital omissions and they suggest that the prosecution has concocted the case of dowry death. Learned counsel submitted that therefore this is a fit case where the conviction and sentence should be set aside. 9. Ms. Bhonsale, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand, submitted that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the demand for money was in connection with the marriage of the deceased. In this connection, she relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 1933, Vidhya Devi & Anr. v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1757 and Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 958. She submitted that the demand for dowry may be direct or indirect. In a given case, there may not be direct demand for dowry but the demand may be for things like scooter, car, etc. If the circumstances suggest that such demands were in the nature of demand for dowry as they had connection with marriage, conviction under Section 304-B should follow. Learned A.P.P. submitted that there were several injuries on the deceased. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the deceased was assaulted and then pushed in the well is made out. The injuries suffered by the deceased indicate that before she was thrown in the well, she was beaten up. Learned A.P.P. submitted that this is, therefore, a fit case where the conviction should be maintained. 10. Before we come to grips with the other rival contentions, it is necessary to deal with the attempt made by the defence to dispute the identity of the dead body found in the well. Genuineness of the inquest panchnama, Ex-22 has been admitted by the defence. It is pointed out to us that in the inquest panchnama, the sari found on the corpse recovered from the well is described as of faint yellow colour having dots. Our attention is drawn to the evidence of PW-1 Kurade, police patil of village Jalgaon, Nevur. He has stated that on 30/9/2002 at 5.00 p.m., Dinkar Ghule, the son of Changdeo Ghule (original accused 3 since acquitted) came to him and informed him that a corpse of an unknown person was floating in the well situated in his field. According to PW-1 Kurade, he went with Dinkar Ghule to the well at 6.00 p.m. and saw the dead body. He then made a report at the Yeola Police Station which is at Ex-39. Learned counsel pointed out that in the said report the sari worn by the deceased is described as red colour sari. Learned counsel further pointed out that PW-3 Balnath Ghule who is the panch to the inquest panchnama has admitted its contents but has not identified the corpse as that of the appellants wife. Learned counsel submitted that it is therefore extremely doubtful whether the corpse recovered from the well was that of the wife of the appellant. 11. It is not possible for us to accept this submission. So far as report, Ex-39 is concerned, its truthfulness becomes suspect because it is lodged on the say of the brother of the appellant who had gone on to say that the corpse was of an unknown person. PW-1 Kurade has stated that when he went to the well except the members of the family of the accused nobody was present and they told him that corpse was of an unknown person. The corpse was not taken out at 6.00 p.m. when PW-1 Kurade went there. It was taken out when inquest panchnama was made at 7.45 p.m. Colour mentioned in the inquest panchnama was ascertained when the corpse was taken out and therefore that colour will have to be accepted as the colour of the sari found on the corpse rather than the colour mentioned in report, Ex-39 and as deposed to by PW-1 Kurade. PW-3 Balnath Ghules refusal to identify the corpse is not surprising because he has admitted in the cross-examination that the appellant is related to him. PW-2 Nitin, brother of the deceased identified the corpse as that of his sister. PW-5 Walubai the mother of the deceased also identified the corpse as that of her daughter. In our opinion, therefore, identity of the corpse as the wife of the appellant can hardly be doubted. 12. It is necessary to go to the post-mortem notes before approaching the depositions of the witnesses. The cause of death is stated to be cardio-respiratory failure due to asphyxia due to throttling. Column 17 notes twenty six surface wounds and injuries and column 18(a) states that all injuries are ante-mortem. Left side thyroid cartilage fracture and abrasions around the neck are noticed. Medical certificate, Ex-50 issued by the Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Yeola (Nasik) states that the injuries received by the deceased on her head below her eyes could be caused by hands and the neck of the deceased was pressed by hands. The certificate further states that the deceased died 24 hours prior to the post-mortem. The post-mortem was done on 1/10/2002 at 3.45 p.m. Therefore, the death must have been caused at about 3.45 p.m. on 30/9/2002. The suggestion made by the defence that the deceased was not staying with the appellant is not well founded. From the evidence of PW-2 Nitin and PW-4 Walubai, it appears that the accused used to ill-treat the deceased. They wanted Rs.40,000/- for purchasing Hero Honda motorcycle. She used to tell them how badly she was treated in the matrimonial home when she used to come to her parents. About one year back, the deceased was driven out of her house by her in-laws after beating her. She lodged a complaint in the police station. A compromise was effected and due to the mediation of the uncle of the appellant, the deceased went back to the matrimonial home. About 2 to 3 days prior to the incident, the deceased was again driven out of the house. She came to her parents house. Her father explained to her that he did not have money to give her in-laws. On 27/9/2002, she returned to her in-laws, but kept her son with her parents. PW-2 Nitin has clearly stated that at that time she was staying with her in-laws. This version has not, in any way, been damaged in the cross-examination. It is not even suggested to PW-2 Nitin and PW-4 Walubai that after the compromise the deceased was staying with her parents. Therefore, the prosecution has established that prior to her death, the deceased was staying with the appellant. If the deceased was staying with the appellant, the appellant must explain how the deceased received such injuries. The case of suicide is not consistent with ante-mortem injuries of this nature. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that anyone else was interested in killing the deceased or this could be the job of someone else. It was for the appellant to explain how the deceased received the injuries. He has failed to do so. Adverse inference needs to be drawn against the appellant.
                   
                      13. It is now necessary to go the material evidence on record. PW-2 Nitin stated in his evidence that the deceased lived peacefully with the accused for about one year after marriage. Thereafter, all the accused started demanding money for purchasing tempo and for running a hotel. On that count, they started beating the deceased. They used to beat her and drive her out of the house. This happened on two or three occasions. The father of the deceased used to take her back to the house. He used to tell accused 3 i.e. the father-in-law of the deceased that they did not have money to fulfill their demand. But the conduct of the accused did not improve. The deceased lodged a complaint on 30/3/2000 at the police station. Thereafter, there was a compromise. The deceased was sent back to the matrimonial house. However, the appellant started beating her and making a demand of Rs.40,000/- for purchasing motorcycle. Two to three days prior to the incident, the deceased was beaten up and driven out of the house. The deceased came to her parents house and narrated the incident. Her father told her that he did not have money and sent her back. She returned to her in-laws alone. She kept her son with her father. This version of PW-2 Nitin has remained unscathed in cross-examination. The demand of Rs. 40,000/- made by the appellant for purchasing Hero Honda Motorcycle and beating given by him to her has not been challenged in the cross-examination. PW-2 Nitin denied that he had falsely stated that Rs.40,000/- were demanded for purchasing motorcycle. PW-2 Nitins evidence establishes the role played by the appellant in this henious crime. Though he did not describe the demand of Rs.40,000/- as related to dowry his complaint Ex-41 bears out this case. Besides, no omissions have been brought on record in his cross-examination. 14. PW-4 Walubai, the mother of the deceased supported PW-2 Nitin. She stated that for about one year after the marriage, the deceased was treated properly in her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the accused started beating her. They used to ask the deceased to bring money for running a hotel and for buying a tempo. The deceased used to come home and tell her woes to her parents. This witness specifically stated that it is the appellant who used to beat the deceased and drive her out. She corroborated PW-2 Nitin on the aspect of compromise. She stated that as per the compromise, the appellant and the deceased were to stay separately. Accordingly, they resided separately for one month. But the deceased came to the parents house and told her that the appellant was not staying with her in the separate house and, therefore, she had taken all the utensils to the house of the accused. She also told her that the accused were asking for Rs.40,000/- for purchasing motorcycle. 15. In the cross-examination of PW-4 Walubai, certain minor omissions have been brought on record. It appears that she did not tell the police that the deceased told her that the appellant does not stay with her in the tenanted house but stays in his house in the field and, therefore, she had taken the utensils to her in-laws house in the field. She also omitted to tell the police that on two occasions, they had given Rs.10,000/- to the deceased for giving that amount to the appellant. These omissions do not make PW-4 Walubai an unreliable witness. They are minor omissions. On the major aspect, like demand of Rs. 40,000/- and beating of the deceased by the appellant, there are no omissions. She has not been cross-examined on the material aspect. We have no reason to disbelieve her. In our opinion, PW-2 Nitin and PW-4 Walubai are reliable witnesses. 16. Relying on judgments of the Supreme Court, it is contended that the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 304-B of the IPC because assuming some demands of money were made, there is no co-relation between the demands and marriage of the appellant and, therefore, the alleged demand will not fall within the ambit of the term dowry as defined under the Dowry Act. It was argued that the witnesses never stated that the demand of Rs.40,000/- was related to dowry. It was also argued that there is no proximity between the incident in question and the alleged cruelty because the parties had entered into a compromise in 2000. We shall, therefore, refer to relevant provisions of law and the judgments cited by the parties. 17. Section 304-B of the IPC reads as under : 304-B. Dowry death – (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called dowry death, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 18. Section 2 of the Dowry Act reads as under : 2. Definition of `dowry. - In this Act, dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly - (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. 19. Section 498-A of the IPC reads as under : 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, cruelty means - (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 20. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act raises a presumption as regards dowry death. It reads as under: 113-B. Presumption as to dowry death. - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. 21. Having seen the provisions of law, we shall first turn to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Prem Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2009 SC 1242. In that case, the accused were charged under Section 306 and Section 304 Part B of the IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Act. The trial court had observed that the deceased had committed suicide; that the death had taken place within seven years of marriage, that when the deceased had gone to her fathers house for her brothers marriage, nobody came to take her home; that when the prosecution witnesses had gone to the matrimonial house of the deceased, her mother-in-law expressed displeasure and asked them to take away the deceased and that the statement of the mother-in-law is objectionable to some extent, but no case of dowry death or abetment of suicide is made out from her statement. The trial court acquitted all the accused. On appeal by the State, the High Court maintained the acquittal of all the accused except that of the mother-in-law. The mother-in-law was sentenced for the offences alleged against her. It was argued before the Supreme Court, inter alia, that there has to be an agreement at the time of marriage in view of the words agreed to be given occurring in Section 2 of the Dowry Act which contains definition of the term Dowry and in the absence of any such evidence, there can be no demand of dowry. The Supreme Court negatived this submission while upholding the High Courts judgment. Following are the material observations of the Supreme Court. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 304-B, IPC which makes demand of dowry itself punishable. Demand neither conceives nor would conceive of any agreement. If for convicting any offender, agreement for dowry is to be proved, hardly any offenders would come under the clutches of law. When Section 304- B refers to demand of dowry, it refers to the demand of property or valuable security as referred to in the definition of dowry under the Act. The argument that there is no demand of dowry, in the present case, has no force. In cases of dowry deaths and suicides, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inferences can be drawn on the basis of such evidence. That could be either direct or indirect. It is significant that Section 4 of the Act, was also amended by means of Act 63 of 1984, under which it is an offence to demand dowry directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride. The word agreement referred to in Section 2 has to be inferred on the facts and circumstances of each case. The interpretation that the accused seek, that conviction can only be if there is agreement for dowry, is misconceived. This would be contrary to the mandate and object of the Act. Dowry definition is to be interpreted with the other provisions of the Act including Section 3, which refers to giving or taking dowry and Section 4 which deals with a penalty for demanding dowry, under the Act and the IPC. This makes it clear that even demand of dowry on other ingredients being satisfied is punishable. It is not always necessary that there be any agreement for dowry. 22. Thus, circumstantial evidence plays an important role in dowry deaths. From the evidence on record, inference can be drawn that there was a dowry demand. Demand for dowry could be direct or indirect. There may be no direct evidence of agreement. Yet, the circumstances may be so eloquent that demand for dowry could be easily spelt out.

                      23. It is necessary to examine the present case in the light of the above judgment. PW-2 Nitin has spoken about the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased. He stated that she used to be driven out of the matrimonial house because her father could not fulfill the demand of money made by her in-laws. There was a compromise. But that did not work. The ill-treatment continued. The appellant started beating the deceased. He demanded Rs.40,000/- for purchasing motorcycle. Though PW-2 Nitin does not describe this demand as a dowry demand in his evidence, in his FIR, Ex-41, he states that the appellant and other accused used to tell the deceased that her parents had not given enough dowry and, therefore, she should bring Rs.40,000/- from them for the purchase of a motorcycle. PW-4 Walubai also referred to this demand in her evidence. She stated that the accused wanted Rs. 40,000/- for buying a motorcycle. In our opinion, if this demand is examined against the backdrop of other circumstances like the earlier ill-treatment, the deceased coming to the parents house, complaining about the appellant, her leaving the child with her parents and going back to the matrimonial home and her death with antemortem injuries, the only inference that can be drawn is that the demand of Rs.40,000/- was a dowry demand and was in connection with the marriage of the appellant and the deceased. 24. In Pyarelals case, on which Mr. Shinde has placed reliance, the Supreme Court was considering whether the appellant therein can be held guilty of offence under Section 304-B of the IPC on account of the suicide committed by his wife within seven years of marriage, which can be called dowry death. The deceased therein had got married to the appellant therein on 27/8/1983. Relations between the two deteriorated. The appellant was stated to be beating the deceased and making demands for money. There was a compromise on 1/2/1987. In terms thereof, the deceased went to the house of the appellant. The deceased consumed poison in the appellants house on 19/12/1987 and died. The case of the prosecution as stated by PW-11, the father of the deceased was that on two previous Sundays prior to the death i.e. on 6/12/1987 and 13/12/1987, the deceased visited PW-11. The deceased complained that the appellant was harassing and maltreating her. She expressed her desire to live with PW-11. On facts, the Supreme Court came to a conclusion that the evidence of PW-11 was simple and plain that the death of the deceased was occasioned not on account of any demand of dowry but because of various other factors. The Supreme Court observed that the demand of dowry arose after the marriage over which there were differences between the parties which were settled and got receded when the deceased resumed cohabitation with the appellant on 2/2/1987. The Supreme Court observed that there is no whisper thereafter of any dowry and, therefore, cruelty inflicted on the deceased is not a relevant circumstance to maintain the conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC. The Supreme Court observed that unless there was evidence of dowry demand, Section 304-B of the IPC would not be attracted. In our opinion, this judgment will have to be confined to its own facts. In this case, evidence of PW-2 Nitin and PW-4 Walubai, the brother and mother respectively of the deceased establish that after the compromise, the ill-treatment did not subside. The deceased on her every visit to the parents house used to narrate the incidents of cruelty. Thus, there is no question of differences receding. As we have already noted, the circumstances on record clearly establish that the appellant was ill-treating the deceased for dowry. 25. In Appa Sahebs case, the deceased was married to appellant 1 Appa Saheb about two and half years prior to the date of the incident which took place on 15/9/1991. On that day, the deceased took poison and died in the house of appellant 1. The Supreme Court considered the evidence of the mother and the father of the deceased and on facts, came to a conclusion that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the appellants on account of domestic reason as stated by the father and mother of the deceased. The Supreme Court came to a conclusion that the demand of money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the word is normally understood. The Supreme Court observed that the evidence adduced by the prosecution did not show that any demand for dowry as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Act was made by the appellant as what was allegedly asked for was some money for making domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. The Supreme Court observed that since the essential ingredient of Section 498-A of the IPC that is the demand for dowry was not established, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. In our opinion, this judgment is not applicable to the present case. In this case, the demands were not made on account of any financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses like purchasing manure. The demand of Rs. 40,000/- was made for purchasing a Hero Honda Motorcycle. Therefore, this demand cannot be termed as a demand for some urgent domestic cause. We have already discussed how it amounts to a dowry demand related to the marriage. Reliance placed on this judgment is, therefore, misplaced. 26. In Shivanandans case, the appellant was married to one Shobha (the deceased), who was the daughter of PW-1 and PW-2, the father and the mother respectively. The deceased received burn injuries in her house. The prosecutions case was that the appellant set her on fire for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. On facts, the Supreme Court observed that the evidence on record on the aspect of demand of dowry could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court observed that the letters on which the prosecution had placed reliance had no reference to any demand of dowry. In fact, in Ex-P-2, the deceased had written to her mother that she had promised to pay for some article which the mother-in-law has purchased and that she was embarrassed that her parents were not paying the money though her mother-in-law has never asked for it. The Supreme Court observed that this was not the case of demand for any property or any valuable security. On the contrary, the deceased had objected to her parents not paying for something which her motherin- law had spent money. To the similar effect, was letter Ex-P-3. Another letter, Ex-P-4 also did not speak of any demand and this letter was written three years prior to the occurrence. The Supreme Court observed that the evidence indicated that half of the marriage expenses were borne by the appellant and his family and in the circumstances the prosecution had failed to prove offence under Section 498-A of the IPC which was alleged against the appellant and members of his family. It must be stated here that the appellant and the members of his family were also charged under Section 302 of the IPC but the trial court had acquitted them. In our opinion, the facts of the case cannot be equated with the facts of the present case. In this case, there are no letters on record demolishing the case of demand of dowry. There is the testimony of bother and mother of the deceased which inspires confidence. A few days prior to her death, the deceased had come home and told her parents that she was ill-treated as her parents were not in a position to pay money to her in-laws. The deceased had sustained antemortem injuries. The evidence in this case is much stronger than the evidence in Shivanandans case, which was before the Supreme Court. 27. In M. Srinivasulus case, the deceased was married to appellant 1 on 21/5/1989. The case of the prosecution was that due to persistent ill-treatment and cruelty meted out by the appellant and members of his family, on 17/9/1992 at 9.30 a.m., the deceased set herself ablaze and died with 100% burn injuries in the hospital. On facts, the Supreme Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution version primarily rested on three documents and careful reading of those documents which were addressed by the deceased showed that there was in fact no allegation of any demand of dowry made by the accused. The Supreme Court discussed all the three letters wherein the deceased had expressed that she was happy in her in-laws place and her in-laws were taking good care of her. In one letter she had written that she was forced to marry the accused against her wishes and later on it created a lot of problems for her. The Supreme Court observed that the underlying effect of the letters was that the deceased was not agreeable to get married to the appellant, she wanted to continue her studies and she was married against her wishes. In one letter, she had said that she did not want to go to her parents house for Gangamma festival as her husband was taking due care of her. The Supreme Court noted that there was no mention of any demand for dowry in these letters. Therefore, the conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC cannot be maintained. In this case, there is no evidence on record suggesting that the deceased was happy in her husbands house. In fact, the evidence discloses that the relations were so strained that talks of compromise took place, that compromise was reduced into writing and then the deceased went to the appellants house. Thereafter she was again driven out. She used to go to her parents house and complain about the illtreatment and her parents used to send her back. It is, therefore, difficult to equate the facts of Srinivasulus case with the facts of the present case. This judgment is, therefore, not applicable to the present case. 28. In Hira Lals case, at the time of marriage there was no demand for dowry, but subsequently demands were made and ill-treatment was meted out to the deceased. The Supreme Court was considering whether the ill-treatment was soon before the death. The Supreme Court noted that the differences between the husband and the wife were ironed out on 30/11/1998 by way of settlement. There was no definite evidence about ill-treatment meted out to the deceased at any time, having immediate proximity to the death of the deceased on 14/4/1999 to attract Section 304-B of the IPC. This judgment does not help the appellant to canvass his submission that to constitute `dowry demand, the demand must have direct connection with the marriage. In any case, so far as proximity of the ill-treatment to the death is concerned, the evidence on record clearly establishes that though there was compromise in 2000, the compromise fell through and ill-treatment of the deceased continued. The deceased on her visits to her parents house used to tell them how she was ill-treated. In fact, the deceased had ante-mortem injuries. Therefore, cruelty not only mental but physical, is proved by the prosecution. The deceased went to her matrimonial house two to three days prior to the incident. Therefore, there is proximity between her death and illtreatment. 29. Learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the other accused of all the charges which include charge under Section 498-A of the IPC. The State has not appealed against that acquittal order and, therefore, we do not want to comment on that part of the prosecution case. But, in our opinion, the appellant has rightly been convicted under Sections 498-A and 304(B) of the IPC. Admittedly, the death occurred within seven years of the marriage of the deceased with the appellant. The antemortem injuries suffered by her establish that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty. There was a demand for Rs.40,000/- which the deceaseds father could not fulfill. Circumstances establish that the harassment was in connection with dowry demand. Presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act must, therefore, arise. The appellants failure to explain how the deceased received ante-mortem injuries provide an important link in the chain of circumstances. In our opinion, in this case, all the circumstances unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant. The appeal, therefore, has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.G. KETKAR, J.]

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note 2.4.2014- Judgement-- Nitish Katara Murder Case- After hearing Mr. Ram Jethmalani Senior Counsel for Vishal Yadav, Mr. U.R Lalit Senior Counsel for Vikas Yadav and Mr. Ravindra Kumar Kapoor learned counsel for Sukhdev Appellant the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Dismissed all the appeals.   Read Judgement

Court Guwahati High Court
Head Note 06 Nov-2013-"while we decline to hold and declare that the DSPE Act, 1946, is not a valid piece of legislation, we do hold that the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE and the CBI cannot be treated as a ‘police force’ constituted under the DSPE Act, 1946."--GUWAHATI HIGH COURT   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Conclusion: "We have held that the Delhi Legislative Assembly did not have the legislative competence to amend the Court Fees Act,1870. We have also held that the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012 adversely impacts the Part-III rights and results in violation of Article 38 and 39A of the Constitution of India….   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 13 sept.2013-"The impugned judgment of the trial Court has failed to notice and take into account the probabilities, material contradictions and the embellishments.."   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 13/9/2013: Held,"The impugned judgment of the trial Court has failed to notice and take into account the probabilities, material contradictions and the embellishments that have been highlighted above and therefore, in our opinion, the impugned order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained and is liable to be reversed." - Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 3/9/2013: Hostility of witnesses - Hon'ble Court took serious note-Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 2 Sept.2013- The earlier rejections of the bail prayer of the appellant were without following the required mandatory provisions.-All. H.C.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 2 Aug.2013-"Two of non-fatal injuries on deceased were simple in nature which also is clear indication that there was no unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder"   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note "It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences : (1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one."- Allahabad High Court relied upon Apex Court's judgement.-2.8.2013   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Directions issued,"whenever there is slightest suspicion the police should not hesitate in registering the crime also under section 376 IPC, and not show the crime only as a murder"-Allahbad High Court. Dated 9.7.2013   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note "Death reference rejected"-Allahabad High Court.Dated8.7.2013   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note "Cherge not framed-Effect analysed"-Allahabad High Court. Dated 3.5.2013   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Without establishing genuiness, photo can not be admitted in secondary evidence : Allahabad High Court- Dated 23/2/2012.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Police not to arrest accused persons for offences punishable upto imprisionment upto 7 years - provisions of 41(1)b,41A discussed and directions issued - Allahabad High Court - Dated 11.10.2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Applicability of Section 40 to 44 Evidence Act- "A Division Bench of this Court in Km. Rinki vs. State of U.P. & others, 2008 (3) JIC 267 (All.) (D.B.) and Hon'ble Single Judge in Raj Dularey Shukla v. State, 2006 (1) JIC 887 (All.) also propounded the same principle and held that if some of the accused are acquitted in a trial separately held, the other accused is not entitled to the benefit of acquittal order and his case is to be decided separately on the basis of the evidence adduced during his trial. 13. The aforesaid decisions have settled the legal position that judgments of courts of justice may be relevant under any of the provisions of sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act and not otherwise. In other words, if any judgment, order or decree of a court does not fulfill requirements of any of the aforesaid sections, it has no relevancy and must be held to be irrelevant. It is also well settled that every trial has to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced in the trial itself, therefore, the previous judgment of acquittal rendered in a trial, if it is not relevant under any of sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act has no relevancy in the subsequent trial being held against co-accused and he can not be permitted to claim any advantage of such judgment, which is merely an opinion of the judge on the basis of the evidence led in the previous trial. The only relevancy of such judgment is to decide the question of applicability of bar to the subsequent trial under section 300 of the Code as section 40 of the Evidence Act makes the previous judgment relevant only for such purposes and not otherwise. In such matters, sections 41 to 44 of the Evidence Act also have no application. In this view of the matter the proceeding of the session trial being held against the petitioners can not be quashed on the basis of the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of co-accused persons."- Allahabad High Court - Dated 1 9/09/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Interiem Bail pending final disposal of Bail u/s 389 Cr.P.C. - "Otherwise also General Rules (Criminal), applicable to lower courts and High Court Rules, applicable to high court, both provide for giving of notice of the bail application to the public prosecutor and as a well ingrained practise hearing of public prosecutor in matter of consideration of bail applications has become the rule of law. Consequently the law relating to the procedure to be followed in matters of consideration of bail applications prior to conviction holds good for post-conviction bail applications also. In this respect a full bench of our court in Smt.Amarawati's case(Supra) has held that interim bail pending consideration of final bail is permissible. It has been held therein as under- "40. We again make it clear that the learned Sessions Judge in his discretion can hear and decide the bail application under Section 439 on the same day of its filing provided notice is given to the Public Prosecutor, or he may not choose to do so. This is entirely a matter in the discretion of the learned Sessions Judge. There may also be cases where the learned Sessions Judge on the material available before him may decide to grant interim bail as he may feel that while he has sufficient material for giving interim bail he required further material for grant of final bail. In such cases also he can in his discretion, grant interim bail and he can hear the bail application finally after a few days. All these are matters which should ordinarily be left to his discretion." The aforesaid opinion by this court got it's approval by the apex court inLal kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Others: (2009) SCC 437 wherein it has been held by the apex court as under:- "Learned counsel for the appellant apprehends that the appellant will be arrested as there is no provision for anticipatory bail in the State of U.P. He placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Amarawati v. State of U.P. in which a seven-Judge Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the court, if it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application. The Full Bench also observed that arrest is not a must whenever an FIR of a cognizable offence is lodged. The Full Bench placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. We fully agree with the view of the High Court in Amarawati case and we direct that the said decision be followed by all courts in U.P. in letter and spirit, particularly since the provision for anticipatory bail does not exist in U.P. In appropriate cases interim bail should be granted pending disposal of the final bail application, since arrest and detention of a person can cause irreparable loss to a person's reputation, as held by this Court in Joginder Kumar Case. Also, arrest is not a must in all cases of cognizable offences, and in deciding whether to arrest or not the police officer must be guided and act according to the principles laid down in Joginder Kumar Case." Thus from the above discussion the law has been crystallised that pending consideration of final bail prayer an accused can be granted interim bail and hence the answer to the mooted question is that the proviso to section 389 of the Code does put an embargo nor does it curtails power of appellate court to grant interim bail. A Proviso cannot take away right conferred by parent provision and has to be read down to harmonise it with the parent section. On this aspect support can be had from apex court decision in Dadu alias Tulsidas(Supra) wherein Apex Court has observed as under:- "Providing a right of appeal but totally disarming the Court from granting interim relief in the form of suspension of sentence would be unjust, unfair and violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution particularly when no mechanism is provided for early disposal of the appeal. The pendency of criminal litigation and the experience in dealing with pending matters indicate no possibility of early hearing of the appeal and its disposal on merits at least in many High Courts. As the present is not the occasion to dilate on the causes for such delay, we restrain ourselves from that exercise. In this view of the matter, the appellate powers of the Court cannot be denuded by Executive or judicial process".- Allahabad High Court - Dated 14/09/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Non Compliance of Section 8(c),42(1)(2),50,57 N.D.P.S.Act and 100,165,313 Cr.P.C.- Its effect - Fatal to Prosecution.
Case Laws Discussed:
1.State of Rajasthan versus Shanti: AIR 2010 SC 43
2.Sarju versus State of U.P. AIR 2009 SC 3214
3.Constitution Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana [2009 (10) SCALE 255]
4.Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat
[(2000) 2 SCC 513]
5. Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 692]
6.Dilip versus Sate of M.P. :AIR 2007 SC 369
7.State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 299]
8.State of West Bengal Versus Babu Chakraborty : AIR 2004 SC 4324
9.State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 299
10.State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172,Constitution Bench
11.Union Of India Versus Shah Alam and others : AIR 2010 SC 1785
12.Dilip and Another v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 450 : (2006 AIR SCW 6246)
13.State of Punjab versus Hari Singh: AIR 2010 SC 1966
14.Avtar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (2002 (7) SCC 419)
15.Ganesh Gogoi versus State of Assam : AIR 2009 SC 2955
16.Basavaraj R. Patil and others v. State of Karnataka and others - (2000) 8 SCC 740
17.Ranvir Yadav versus State of Bihar: AIR 2009 SC (Suppl) 1439 - Allahabad High Court.
  Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note C.B.I.directed to investigate CMO`s Murders - Allahabad High Court - Dated 29/07/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Dr. Sachan`s Murder Case - Investigation ordered to be conducted by C.B.I.- Lucknow Bench, Allahabad High Court-Dated 14/07/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Notification No. (S.I.2942 [E]) Dated 18.11.2009 issued by the Government of India, providing that not only the weight of Heroin found on analysis but the entire substance is to be taken into account while deciding the quantity -

Held "This notification can not be applied retospectively and has no aplication in instant case"-
Bail Allowed.-Allahabad High Court - Dated 30/05/2011.
  Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note "Exhibits Ka 15 and 16 have been got proved and exhibited by the prosecution itself and therefore it can not now resile from it`s contents." - Documents produced by Prosecution binding on them - Alladabad High Court - Dated 25/05/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Bail to Juvenile : "Merely by declaration of being a juvenile does not entitle a juvenile in conflict with law to be released on bail as a matter of right"-Section 12 analysed - Allahabad High Court - Dated 24.05.2011   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Directions to CBI to investigate any other offence-" The direction to CBI to investigate "any other offence" is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously, direction for investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have been committed or a person`s involvement is prima facie established, but a direction to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of "LIFE" and "LIBERTY" guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. This direction is in complete negation of various decisions of this Court in which the concept of "LIFE" has been explained in a manner which has infused "LIFE" into the letters of Article 21"- Allahabad High Court- Dated 20/05/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note False Case against Civil Judge J.D.,Nazibabad by U.P. Police in connivance with Administration - " We are constrained to observe that it is indeed a serious matter that even a judicial officer has not been spared and every effort has been made to browbeat him by the administration.":Allahabad High Court-Dated 17/05/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Allahabad High Court directs Central and U.P.Govt.to amend sec. 354 I.P.C.triable by court of sessions and non-bailable:"Looking to the rampant and daily increasing prevalence of such crimes of sexual violence in the State of U.P., in Delhi and in other places we think that it is high time that the State of U.P. and even the Union of India should become sensitive to this grave issue, and consider imposing stringent laws for putting a check on such crimes of sexual violence against women and children. We therefore recommend that the State of U.P. and the Union of India consider amending the provisions of section 354 IPC and the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure by prescribing a higher sentence for the offence and for making it non-bailable and triable by a Court of Session. Copy of this order may be forwarded to the Law Commissions, of U.P and the Centre, and also to the Law( Secretary) U.P. and the Union of India within 15 days for appropriate action and recommendations." - Allahabad High Court - Dated 09/05/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note If the trial of a juvenile offender has already commenced, the provisions of Section 20 of Juvenile Justice Act will have applicability.
Perusal of the record in the instant revision indicates that the trial was pending since last seven years. The trial is at the fag-end as the entire evidences of the prosecution and the accused have already been over. It is at this stage of the fag-end of the trial that the revisionist has prayed vide Paper No. 275 Kha to send his matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, which prayer has been refused by impugned order dated 8.2.2011.
It seems that only to delay the trial and lingering on the proceedings of a murder and an attempt to murder case, the said application was filed by the revisionist. When the evidences were being led and the accused were cross examining the witnesses, no grievance was raised by the revisionist for sending his matter to the Juvenile Justice Board. Much of the water has already been flown and it is too late in the day for the revisionist to rue that his matter has not been transferred to juvenile Justice Board. Opinion of the trial Judge as is recorded in the impugned order dated 8.2.2011, cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal.
This revision being bereft of merits, is hereby dismissed:Allahabad High Court.Dated 30/03/2011.
  Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Transfer Petition -"The sessions trial is about to conclude. Most of the arguments have been heard by Mr. Ramashraya Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, at this juncture, transfer of the case would not only be improper but would also result in causing delay in the disposal of the case. It is true that the presiding officer has closed the arguments and required the accused to file written arguments but still it is open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to permit the accused to make oral submissions also. It is expected that the learned Additional Sessions Judge will proceed accordingly if any request for oral submission is made from the accused persons or their counsel, whose arguments (oral submissions) have not been heard. ... For the reasons discussed above, the transfer application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed" : Allahabad High Court. ________________________________________   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Appeal against conviction under 307 IPC-Medical Report cooked up-Investigation not fair-313 Cr.PC not complied with-appeal allowed-conviction set aside.- Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note There was a time gap of about three hours between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen together. Even otherwise the last seen evidence has to be connected with some other corroboration.
... PW14 had only seen the deceased along with the accused, merely this evidence was not sufficient to prove the circumstance of last seen.
18. Therefore, we discard the testimony of PW14 as we have found serious improbability in the version of the last seen evidence
It is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to prove all the incriminating circumstances beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and the circumstances so proved should complete the chain of events linking the accused with commission of the crime. There should not be left any chinks in such a chain and no circumstance should be of such a nature which could lead to any inference of innocence of the accused. All circumstances so alleged and proved must show the involvement of the accused in the crime.
28. It is settled law that if the motive which is set out by the prosecution is not proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt the other incriminating circumstantial evidence may lose its importance and it may lead the court to draw an inference that perhaps the appellant was not involved in this crime.
Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted:Delhi High Court-MANMOHAN SINGH, J BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
  Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code: No person can be added as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after closer of the case:Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Cognizance of offence-Passing of the summoning order without obtaining relevant materials in support of the information,not proper. Summoning order quashed:Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Chhattisgarh High Court
Head Note Hostile Witness- Binding on prosecution- CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT DATED-10 FEB 2011   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note The distinction between the nature of burden that rests on an accused under Section 105, Evidence Act to establish a plea of self-defence and the one cast on the prosecution by Section 101 to prove its case is overlooked-The appellant has been able to establish a preponderance of probabilities in favour of the plea of private defence-The appeal is allowed. --DELHI HIGH COURT-JUDGEMENT DATED- 19.1.2011   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note NO MOTIVE-RECOVERY NOT FREE DOUBTS-CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCE NOT COMPLETE-LAST SEEN DOUBTED-APPEAL ALLOWED- DELHI HIGH COURT-DATED 04.01.2011   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 156(3)Cr.pc-Interlocutory Order-no criminal revision will lie against the orders passed by the Magistrate directing investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C- ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT-FULL BENCH-DATED 20 DEC 2010   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note FIR -Arrest of the petitioners stayed as a consequence of FIR - Allahabad High Court- Dated 10/12/2010   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note FIR-to be displayed on Delhi Police website- ---Delhi High Court passes directions : (A) An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. (B) An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in a criminal case and his name may be finding place in a First Information Report can submit an application through his representative / agent / parokar for grant of a certified copy before the concerned police officer or to the Superintendent of Police on payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy from the court. On such application being made, the copy shall be supplied within twenty-four hours. (C) Once the First Information Report is forwarded by the police station to the concerned Magistrate or any Special Judge, on an application being filed for certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same shall be given by the court concerned within two working days. The aforesaid direction has nothing to do with the statutory mandate inhered under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. (D) The copies of the FIR, unless reasons recorded regard being had to the nature of the offence that the same is sensitive in nature, should be uploaded on the Delhi Police website within twenty-four hours of lodging of the FIR so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the court as per law for redressal of his grievances. (E) The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website of Delhi Police shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police and that too by way of a speaking order. A decision so taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Police shall also be duly communicated to the Area magistrate. (F) The word =sensitive‘ apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard being had to the nature of the FIR. (G) In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person grieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation with the Commissioner of Police who shall constitute a committee of three high officers and the committee shall deal with the said grievance within three days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to the grieved person. (H) The Commissioner of Police shall constitute the committee within eight weeks from today. (I) In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of the FIR regard being had to the sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the accused / his authorized representative / parokar to file an application for grant of certified copy before the court to which the FIR has been sent and the same shall be provided in quite promptitude by the concerned court not beyond three days of the submission of the application. (J) The directions for uploading the FIR on the website of the Delhi Police shall be given effect from 1st February, 2011   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note First Information Report- Sec 306/504/120B IPC- FIR-Arrest of the petitioners stayed as a consequence of FIR-Order-Allahabad High Court, Dated-29-11-2010   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note A word used at different place in the Act or Rule may have different meaning according to its context--ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT-- Order Dated - 26/10/2010 at Allahabad.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad, Lucknow Bench -Justice S U Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal,Justice D V Sharma .J,J,J
Head Note AYODHYA RAM JANM BHOOMI-BABRI MASZID TITLE CASE--held--Ram Lala Idol not to be removed- Sunni Wakf Board suit dismissed.-- 1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram? The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also. 2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built? By whom? The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque. 3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple? The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure. 4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23rd, 1949? The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949. 2 5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred? O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time. 6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and outer courtyard? It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial. After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.......Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note BAIL ALLOWED-Appeal is not likely to be heard in near future- PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT-DATED 23rd SEPTEMBER 2010   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note No opportunity is required to be given if selection is made on the basis of a forged marksheet--ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT--Judgment/Order Dated - 25/8/2010 at Allahabad.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Witness Protection : Witness protection programme is an important aspect of criminal justice system: without it, no reforms are possible. If witnesses are afraid to come forward then irrespective of any measures justice cannot be administered. This case is a pointer - Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note There was no pre-meditation or pre-plan on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased, and the occurrence had taken place when the deceased, with another had entered the field of the appellant and engaged himself in an altercation with the appellant when the appellant had refused to part with bitterguard. Having regard to the attending circumstances in which the incident had taken place, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years for commission of offence punishable under Section 304, Part II, IPC."   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Dying declaration before police is admissible u/s 162 (2) CrPC.--ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT--Judgment/Order - Judgment/Order Dated - 16/4/2010 at Allahabad.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Intention to Cause Death : He who inflicts 13 stab wounds on the vital part of the body of a human being using a dagger having a blade of 21 cms length would certainly be attributed with the intention to cause the death of the victim : Delhi High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Circumstantial Evidence - Recovery of body and cycle of deceased from the appellant-witnesses reliable-Conviction Maintained : Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Period of Limitation : The period of limitation would start only from the date when ultimately, it was held by the competent Court that the criminal prosecution was a false prosecution. It is well-know maxim of law that an appeal/ revision is continuity of the criminal trial and criminal trial finally comes to an end when the last Court i.e. the Supreme Court, give its verdict: Delhi High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder : Accused causing death by his lisence weapon in marriage ceremony-convicted u/s 304II IPC for imprisionment of eight months already undergone and pay 3.5 lacs to dependant-2005 (116) DLT 634 Nehru Jain Vs. State NCT of Delhi Followed : Delhi High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Anticipatory Bail : Anticipatory Bail can not be denied merely on the ground that charge-sheet has been filed or the court has taken the cognizance- bail allowed- Supreme Court Followed : Delhi High Court- 26/02/2010.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Circumstantial Evidence : : Delhi High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Calcutta High Court
Head Note Delay in lodging FIR in Rape case : i) When there was considerable delay and the delay was not properly explained benefit must go to the defence. ii) A rape victim may think seriously before lodging complaint to the police as the onslaught of a social stigma may haunt her for life. Hence, delay might be possible in the case of a like nature. iii) If the complainant was victim and was injured in the incident delay in lodging the complaint would not be fatal : Calcutta High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Case of circumstantial evidence : Whether the circumstances against the appellant are established and lead only to his guilt or not- all circumstances must be proved : Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Cancellation of Bail : In Mubarak Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra: 2004 (2) SCC 362, State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi:2005 (8) SCC 21, and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan: 2004(7) SCC 528 it was observed that even when there is a prima facie apprehension of the likelihood of an attempt to derail the course of justice by tampering with the witnesses, the Court would be fully justified in cancelling the bail. Here as we have seen the eye witness, had actually turned hostile, and it was not only a case of an apprehension that an attempt would be made to tamper with the witnesses.Followed: Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Out of 17 general posts, 12 posts have been filled-up from the candidates belonging to the reserved category-on merit:Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note ANTICIPATORY BAIL-Section 438 CR.P.C-Inconsistency in medical report-Bail Allowed- PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT-DATED-2OTH NOV 2009   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Recovery Of Heroine:The recovery was made from the basement of building belonging to Mohd.Mobin Khan. It is also very strange that why would the applicant plant the recovered heroine and then would make a cool statement before officials that he himself had planted the heroinea:Allahabad High Court-Bail Granted   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Recovery of 20 Kg. Charas- Bail Refused-Dilip and another Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 450 , Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 321,State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350: 2005 (1) EFR 2008 Discussed : Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Bombay High Court
Head Note For the purposes of deduction under Chapter VIA, the gross total income has to be computed inter alia by deducting the deductions allowable under section 30 to 43D of the Act, including depreciation allowable under section 32 of the Act, even though the assessee has computed the total income under Chapter IV by disclaiming the current depreciation : Bombay High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note chargesheet for the offence under section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act submitted by the Circle Officer concerned on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Sub-Inspector not valid   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note The proximity of place of last seen vis-à-vis the place of murder having snapped in the instant case, we are of the opinion that in the facts of this case, it would be unsafe to conclude against the guilt of the appellant on the solitary circumstance of his seen in the company of the deceased in the house of the father of the deceased which house is at a distance of about 2 km from the place where the deceased: Delhi High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Application of judicial mind:Judicial Magistrate II, Court No. 14 Saharanpur, has passed the impugned order ignoring all judicial discipline. She has not at all applied her judicial mind and had only referred some of the judgements of this court, which are contrary to the opinion of the apex court, rendered in many decisions. Judicial order should be passed by applying judicial mind. By this judgement, I severely criticise the conduct of Judicial Magistrate, II, Saharanpur and record my serious displeasure against her order for passing such type of illegal orders. Judicial Magistrate II Court No. 14, Saharanpur is warned for future and is cautioned to be careful in passing judicial orders. She should have thought of that rape not only causes physical injury to the victim, but it leave scare on mind for life long and implant the victim with such ignominy, which is worst than her death and I say no more. Though, I was inclined to refer this matter to Administrative Committee for taking action against Judicial Magistrate II, Court No. 14 Saharanpur, but only for the reason that she is a young officer and have long career ahead, I refrain from such a stringent action:Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note On granting bail by one judge to any accused, another judge is not under obligation to grant bail to similarly placed accused on the basis of parity :Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Murder-single blow-intention to murder absent-partly allowed-convicted u/s 304 part 1-sentence of 7 years R.I. implanted: Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note Pre-arrest bail prayer refused:Punjab & Haryana High Court   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Limitation- Complaint barred by-calculation of mandatory 15 days period for notice under Negotiable Instrument Act: Delhi High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 302 IPC- FIR anti-timed-informant presence doubtful-investigation tainted-conviction set aside 302 IPC:Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 304-B-Sentence of life imprisionment-Cause of death not known-Sentence reduced to 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-: Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note Anticipatory Bail of Unit Manager of ICICI Company Deepak Kapila rejected : Punjab & Haryana High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Transfer Matters:In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1991 SC 531], Article 226 of the Constitution of India not to be invoked:Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note The degree of proof required in departmental enquiries is that of a preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is now well settled through a series of decisions by Apex Court: Delhi High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note Protection of life and liberty-petitioners are major and have married against the wishes of their parents.Proof of age and marriage certificated produced. Directions to SSP to look representation and take action: Punjab & Haryana High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note Apprehending - arrest and also harassment by the police and family members of petitioner- both major and married-Directions to SSP for proctection of life and liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Adult woman entitle to live independely and not to be detained in Nari Niketan because matter communally sensitive or parents unwilling to take her: Allahabad High Court [D.B.]   Read Judgement

Court Bombay High Court
Head Note The exercise of monitoring the investigation and the power vested in the High Court to issue a writ of continuing mandamus would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where the investigation is so very unjust and unfair and is in unlawful exercise of statutory discretion, the court could interfere and monitor the investigation even after a report under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction: Bombay High Court   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note All the prosecution witnesses have been examined U/S 498-A,406,304-B,34 IPC, no ground for grant of bail made out.Bail refused:Punjab & Haryana High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Bombay High Court
Head Note Dowery Death:The antemortem injuries establish that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty. There was a demand for Rs.40,000/- which the deceased’s father could not fulfill. Circumstances establish that the harassment was in connection with dowry demand. Presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act must, therefore, arise. The appellant’s failure to explain how the deceased received ante-mortem injuries provide an important link in the chain of circumstances. Conviction affirmed: Bombay High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Recovery could not be initiated against the petitioner under the statutory provisions of assessment on the ground of theft of electricity, until petitioner s objection is decided, as per Cl.8.1 Electricity Supply Code ,2005 : ALL.H.C.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Only after the declaration of the result the petitioner has now started claiming that her candidature should be treated as Scheduled Caste candidates. This change cannot be permitted at such a belated stage.Petition dismissed: All. H.C.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Small or commercial quantity of Narcotic Drug is to be determined on the basis of actual contents in such drug - percentage of heroin in the recovered contraband was found 31.25%, meaning thereby that actual weight of heroin in the recovered contraband comes 93.75 gm, which is below commercial quantity as per entry 56 of Notification dated 19.10.2001 issued by Central Government -Bail granted: All. H.C.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex ....Delhi High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Second bail application on the same grounds is not maintainable : Allahabad High Court.-• Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. 1998(37) ACC 287, Gama and another v. State of U.P. 1986 (23) ACC 339, • State of Maharashtra Vs. Buddhikota Subha Rao 1989(26) ACC 503(SC), • Babu Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1978 Cr. L. J. 651 (SC), • Shahzad Hasan Khan V. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan 1987(24) ACC 425(SC) , • Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another 2005(51) ACC 727 (SC). , • Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (63) ACC 115[SC]- Discussed.   Read Judgement

Court Bombay High Court
Head Note State Government shall immediately take steps to train its all Executive Magistrates so that they understand as to how the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code have to be applied : Bombay HIgh Court   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note In Petition to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar ordered to take an appropriate action on the petition: Punjab & Haryana High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Whether the principle of parity can be the sole ground for granting Bail ? No :Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Revision against summoning order maintainable and not barred under sub section (2) of section 397 Cr.P.C.;Hon. Vijay Kumar Verma,J.: Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Long incaricuration in jail during trail is not perse illegal and would not be voilative of article 21 of constitution of India.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Notice to the prospective accused is not required to be issued prior to passing the order under section 319 Cr.P.C.:Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Merely ownership of the weapon did not makes out a case under Section 307 IPC and in any event Section 27 has no application.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Jail Detention during trial not perse illegal and not be violative of article 21 of Constitution...: ALL. H.C. Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (6 ACC 115, in which the Hon. Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal-Followed   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Jail Detention during trial not perse illegal and not be violative of article 21 of Constitution...: ALL. H.C. Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (6 ACC 115, in which the Hon. Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal-Followed   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Transfer Aplication- Supereme Court transfered the case to faimily court Banglore, where husband and wife last resided-Divorce petiton.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Death sentence in case of rape and murder of 10 years girl reduced to life inprisionment, case does not fall rare of rarest. Bachan Singh case followed.: SUPEREME COURT   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Evidence did not attribute any overt act to the appellant. The mere fact that he was in the company of the accused who were armed would not be sufficient to attract aplicability of section 34 IPC, accused acquitted : supreme court   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note The mere fact that one of the members of the Board or the District Magistrate or the Superintendent of Police or the Panchayat has recommended release of the convict from jail, is by itself of no consequence. The recommendation is of the Board and not........:SUPREME COURT   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note SUB-BROKER CARRYING BUISNESS WITHOUT SEBI REGISTRATION EFFECT:POWERS OF TRIBUNAL IMPOSITION OF PENALTY -SCOPE OF: SUPREME COURT   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Finding of trial judge regarding time of incident on the basis of stomach contents of deceased rejected,and high court view approved, conviction maintained: SUPREME COURT   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Section 302 read with 149 IPC:The role attributed was throwing bricks towards house of Aurangjeb, death was caused by gun shot,although accused did not caused fatal blow to deceased,but conviction maintained with help of 149 IPC.As,the acquitted accused were not mere onlookers, but they were members of unlawful assembly and they also had taken active part in the incident by throwing bricks thereby causing injuries to the injured Aurangzeb and Smt. Akbari.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Absence of direct evidence of complicity of accused-319 cr.p.c. not be invoked.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note An apprentice is not an employee : Supereme Court   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Vicarious Liability u/s 34 IPC -Bail can not be refused :Allahabad High Court,Hon. Shiv Charan,J. Hon. Vijay Kumar Verma,J.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Banks Recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles can only be done through legal means- Banks not to resort to use of muscle power for recovery of loans and persistently bothering borrower at odd hours   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Dyeing recorded by SHO in presence of doctor of hospital accepted by Supreme Court to base conviction- rules regarding recording of dyeing declaration by magistrate held merely procedural.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Division Bench referance answered in Neera Yadev case.----Section 19 Prevention of Corruption Act and 197 Criminal Procedure Code,120-B IPC   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Delay in FIR, Lack of names of witnesses at first instance, Statement to CRPF withheld by prosecution- all these stereo type arguments discarded, in the circumstances of the case.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note In appropriate cases, interim bail may be granted by subordinate courts pending disposal of bail applications.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Aggressor has no right of private defence. Active participation is not essential FOR applicability of section 149 IPC.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Mentioning the names of accused and witensses is not the requirement of law. In case of direct evidence, absence of motive looses significance.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST not be attracted in cases where the offence committed under IPC is punishable less than ten years imprisonment.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Interest is payable even if possession is taken prior to notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.   Read Judgement

Court Bombay High Court
Head Note Law laid down in Anant Vasantlal Sambre and Manohar Martandrao Kulkarni’s cases no more a good law to that extent.It is not a requirement under section 3 of the Atrocities Act that the complainant should disclose the caste of the accused in the complaint: Bombay High Court-Full Bench   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Medical evidence inconsistent to oral eye witness account,Held"conviction u/s 302 IPC can not be maintained and altered to 326 IPC   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note ALL. H.C.: Existence of an arbitration agreement is a sine quo non for invoking the jurisdiction of the court u/s 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note S.C.:Question of law not framed by high court, so case remmitted back.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Separate conviction and sentence under section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act simplicitor is illegal--Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note All.H.C.;Magistrate having no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence can not pass the order for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note All. H.C.:The Magistrate can pass order for further investigation on the final report.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note All.H,C.:Carrying the cow, bull or bullock within the State for slaughtering is no offence under Cow Slaughter Act   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note All. H.C.:Second or subsequent bail application can be considered on new ground or change of law.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note All.H.C.:Participation of all the accused in criminal act by doing some overt act is not necessary to attract Section 34 of I.P.C.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note All.H.C.:There is no parity in rejection of bail.   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note Murder Reference No.1 of 2007 accepted and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial Court. Resultantly, Crl.Appeal No.105-DB of 2007 (Vikram Singh @ Vicky Walia and others versus State of Punjab) dismissed:Punjab & Haryana High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Held"(1) The respondents shall not consider the applications submitted in pursuance of the advertisement dated 22nd October, 2003 (Annexure-2) for the time being and keep the process of appointment in abeyance so far as the petitioners are concerned;
(2) Applications of the petitioners for renewal shall be considered first, as required under Para 7.08 of the L.R. Manual and to be disposed of by a speaking and reasoned order;
(3) While considering the applications for renewal, the findings of fact shall be recorded by the authority concerned as to whether initial appointment of the petitioners had been made in accordance with law and in case, answer is negative, the applications for renewal shall be rejected forthwith.
(4) In case, the applications of the petitioners or any of them is rejected and renewal is not made, the said vacancies shall be filled up by the respondents in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Paras 7.03 and 7.06 of the L.R. Manual.
(5) The process shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from today" : Allahabad High Court. Dated 14/11/2003.
  Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Held,"In State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association (supra), it was observed by the Supreme Court that the Government or a public body represent public interests, and hence, there is an obligation on them to engage the most competent lawyers.
Time, has, therefore, come when this practice must stop so that highly competent lawyers of integrity and sound knowledge of law are appointed as Government Counsels and for this purpose we recommend to the State Government to consult Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court and suitably amend the L.R. Manual accordingly. Till that is done, ordinarily the recommendation of the District Judge, in the matter of appointment/renewal of the Government Counsels in the District Court in the State must ordinarily be accepted.": Allahabad High Court (DB)-Dated 1
  Read Judgement

Court Gujarat High Court
Head Note SECTION 18-EVIDENCE ACT- EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF SUGGESTION PUT IN CROSS EXAMINATION TO PROSECUTION WITNESS BY DEFENCE COUNSEL- NOT AN EVIDENCE--GUJARAT HIGH COURT   Read Judgement

Court CAT
Head Note Candidate is Called for Interview but not Selected.   Read Judgement

Court CAT
Head Note the applicant claiming that she was not called for interview despite possessing the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement published by the Commission and that the Commission can not shortlist the candidates on the basis of higher qualification and experience than those prescribed.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court - Vinod Prasad J.
Head Note Sentence and Compensation : Looking to the activity indulged into by the petitioner, it cannot be said that he does not deserve incarceration. How ever sentence has to be commensurate with the guilt of the accused. Judging from that angle it is detected that the illegal activity was carried out by the revisionist for a period of eighteen days. The maximum sentence, which has been provided under the Statute for offence under Section 294 IPC can extend to three months of imprisonment or with fine or with both. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the substantive sentence of the petitioner for two months R.I. is excessive and should be reduced and instead he should be implanted with heavy fine of Rs.30,000/- out of which compensation should be awarded to the the children for the agony suffered by them:Allahabad High Court - Dated 01/04/2011.   Read Judgement