1 | STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. CHANDRAPRAKASH KEWAL CHAND JAIN | Coram: AHMADI, A.M. (J) | 18/01/1990 | Indian 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, the | The 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 c | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
2 | VISHAL JEET Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. | Coram: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) | 02/05/1990 | Constitution 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 not | The 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 forc | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
3 | KISHORE CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH | Coram: RAMASWAMY, K. | 29/08/1990 | Indian 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 offenc | The 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 a | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
4 | SHAM SUNDER Vs. PURAN AND ANR. | Coram: FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) | 21/09/1990 | Indian 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--W | Respondent 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 patties | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
5 | DILAVER HUSSAIN SON OF MOHAMMADBHAILALIWALA ETC. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. | Coram: SAHAI, R.M. (J) | 05/10/1990 | Indian 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 co | The 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 of | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
6 | BUDHWA ALIAS RAMCHARAN AND ORS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH | Coram: FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) | 05/10/1990 | Indian 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 sifting | The 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 l | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
7 | BRATHI ALIAS SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB | Coram: KULDIP SINGH (J) | 31/10/1990 | Indian 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--Op | The 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 in | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
8 | SMT. SHANTI AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA | Coram: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) | 13/11/1990 | Indian 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 3 | The 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 counts | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
9 | PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA | Coram: KULDIP SINGH (J) | 07/12/1990 | Indian 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 the | The 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 appe | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
10 | JAI PRAKASH Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) | Coram: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) | 05/02/1991 | Indian 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 meanin | The 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 ad | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
11 | DARYAO SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH | Coram: AHMADI, A.M. (J) | 15/02/1991 | Indian 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 app | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
12 | K.NAGAMALLESHWARA RAO AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH | Coram: RAMASWAMI, V. (J) II | 14/03/1991 | Criminal 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. a | The 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 awarde | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
13 | MAHESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF DELHI | Coram: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) | 03/04/1991 | Constitution 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 of | Appellants 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 |
14 | JAHARLAL DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA | Coram: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) | 12/04/1991 | Indian 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 convic | The 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 regarding | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
15 | BOLLAVARAM PEDDA NARSI REDDY AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH | Coram: FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) | 07/05/1991 | Supreme 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 did | The 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, 3 | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgemen |
Comments
Post a Comment