1STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. CHANDRAPRAKASH KEWAL CHAND JAINCoram: AHMADI, A.M. (J)18/01/1990Indian Evidence Act--Sections 39, 114, 118 and 133--Victim of sex offence--Victim of crime--Court to evalu- ate evidence so as to protect rights of women extent of corroboration needed--Notion that except in rarest of rare cases, theThe respondent, a Sub-Inspector of police, was convicted under section 376 of I.P.C. for having committed rape on a young newly married girl of 19 or 20 years of age, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The respondent challenged his cClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
2VISHAL JEET Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.Coram: PANDIAN, S.R. (J)02/05/1990Constitution of India, 1950.: Article 32--Public inter- est litigation --Writ petition seeking directions for in- quiry against forced prostitution Devadasi and Jogin tradi- tions and rehabilitation of the victims--Held prostitution is notThe petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by way of public interest litigation seeking directions for (i) inquiry against police officials under whose jurisdiction the malady of forcClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
3KISHORE CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHCoram: RAMASWAMY, K.29/08/1990Indian Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 & 201--Conviction based on circumstantial evidence--Facts consistent with innocence of accused-Whether entitled to benefit of doubt--Tendency of free fabrication of record to implicate innocents in capital offencThe appellant was convicted under ss. 302 and 201 read with s. 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that he and the deceased were last seen together in village J on November 10, 1974 by PW. 7, owner of a dhaba-cum-liquor shop, and PW. 8, and aClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
4SHAM SUNDER Vs. PURAN AND ANR.Coram: FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)21/09/1990Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 304 Part-I--Con- viction --Life imprisonment---Second appeal--Converted to one under section 304 Part I and sentence reduced--No par- ticular reasons given--Validity of the conviction--Sen- tence--WRespondent 1 is the son of Respondent No. 2. Including Respondent No. 1 Respondent No. 2 had 4 sons. Respondent No. 2 owned a sugarcane field adjoining the wheat field of one P. One of the sons of Respondent-2 had burnt sugarcane pattiesClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
5DILAVER HUSSAIN SON OF MOHAMMADBHAILALIWALA ETC. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.Coram: SAHAI, R.M. (J)05/10/1990Indian Penal Code: Section 302--Crime emanating from com munal Frenzy--Law makes no distinction in leading of evi- dence or of its assessment--Held on facts prosecution left important lacuna--Failed to prove beyond doubt dreadful crime coThe agitation that started in February 1985 against government policy of reservation in the State of Gujarat turned into communal riots of shocking magnitude between Hindus and Muslims in March 1985, and resulted in mass exodus ofClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
6BUDHWA ALIAS RAMCHARAN AND ORS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHCoram: FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)05/10/1990Indian Penal Code, 1860: ss. 147, 149 & 302: Conviction under--Melee--Particularization of blows given impossible--Nature of injuries received by victim impor- tant--Need for observance of utmost care and caution in siftingThe appellants were convicted for offence under Ss. 147, 149 and 302 IPC for murdering a villager. The prosecution case was that motivated by group rivalry the accused persons numbering over fifteen attacked the deceased with tabbals and lClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
7BRATHI ALIAS SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJABCoram: KULDIP SINGH (J)31/10/1990Indian Penal Code--Sections 34 and 302--Criminal liabil- ity-Primarily attaches to person who actually commits the offence--Several persons alleged to have committed offence in furtherance of common intention--All except one acquit- ted--OpThe appellant and his uncle Teja Singh were tried for an offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. for committing the murder of one Sucha Singh. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant and Teja Singh in furtherance of their common inClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
8SMT. SHANTI AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF HARYANACoram: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)13/11/1990Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 304-B and 498-A--Scope of. Dowry Death--Relative of the husband of a woman subject- ing her to cruelty--Woman's death occurring in unnatural circumstances--Prosecution of Accused-Conviction under sec- tion 3The appellants, along with three other co-accused, were charged of committing a dowry death. They were prosecuted under sections 201, 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court convicted the appellants on all the countsClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
9PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANACoram: KULDIP SINGH (J)07/12/1990Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 326/34. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 173. Criminal Trial--Accused charged under Sections 302 and 326 vicariously with the aid of Section 34--On the date of charge-sheet no material with theThe appellant and his co-accused were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 302,326 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and four years respectively. On appeClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
10JAI PRAKASH Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)Coram: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)05/02/1991Indian Penal Code-Section 300 Clause Thirdly, 302-Held `intention' if established as ingredient-Offence would be murder-`intention' `motive', `knowledge'-Difference explained-Words `intention'-`Knowledge' in Section 300-True meaninThe appellant, had illicit connection with Agya Devi (P.W. 3), wife of the deceased and in that connection he used to visit her house quit frequently to which the deceased and his two brothers & mother living separately in the adClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
11DARYAO SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHCoram: AHMADI, A.M. (J)15/02/1991Indian Penal Code--Sections 34 and 302--Murder--Time of death--Blisters appearing on body--How far evidences the date and time of death.The appellant has been convicted under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, by the high Court, for the murder of one Nagji, with whom he had strained relations. According to the prosecution there was bad blood between the family of the appClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
12K.NAGAMALLESHWARA RAO AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHCoram: RAMASWAMI, V. (J) II14/03/1991Criminal Law: Indian Penal Code, 1980-Section 302 and 34-Deceased attacked by several persons -no specific overt act attributed to the accused and instead bald statements that 15 persons caused injuries to deceased make in the F.I.R. aThe 4 appellants along with 11 others were tried for murder and for causing injuries. The learned sessions judge while acquitting all others of all the charges, convicted A- 1, A-2, A-5 and A-1 on different counts. The sentences awardeClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
13MAHESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF DELHICoram: PANDIAN, S.R. (J)03/04/1991Constitution of India: Article 136-Court's power to interfere with concurrent findings of fact- scope of. Indian Penal Code, 1860: S. 302 r/w s. 34-Death due to homicidal violence-Murder trial-Evidence-Place of occurrence and cause ofAppellants in Criminal Appeals nos. 628 and 432 of 1979 were accused nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the trial court. Deceased was brother-in-law (sister's husband) of accused no.1-At the time of marriage of P.W. 4 (sister of accused no.1)Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
14JAHARLAL DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSACoram: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)12/04/1991Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302 and 376- Rape and murder- Criminal trial-Death penalty-Circumstantial evidence-Sufficiency of evidence for conviction-Gravity of offence cannot overweigh legal proof- Caution against basing convicThe appellant was tried for rape and murder of a girl aged five years. The entire evidence against him was circumstantial: (a) the accused and the deceased were last seen together; (b) false explanation given by the accused regardingClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
15BOLLAVARAM PEDDA NARSI REDDY AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHCoram: FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)07/05/1991Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Apellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970: Section 2. Indian Penal Code 1860: Section 302 and 149. Criminal Law-Murder-Identification of accused- Circumstances showing that eye-witnesses didThe appellants (A-1 to A-3 and A-5-6), along with Co- accused (A-4), were prosecuted under sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Test identification parades were conducted by the Magistrates in which A-6 was identified by PWs 1, 2, 3Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgemen

Comments