| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
|
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 120(B), 201, 294(B), 323, 328, 354, 376, 384, 506(2)& 507— Information Technology Act — Sections 25 (1)(b)(a) & 67 (1) — Age of prosecutrix — 21 yrs — Education qualification of prosecutrix — Post Graduation — continued her relationship with the accused for considerable long time i.e. from 2004 to 2014 — FIR was lodged in 2015 — no discovery or recovery of electronic gadgets like Handycam etc. — No discovery of the ornaments — Applicant along with the prosecutrix had visited several Hotels during this period & booked rooms — not raised any alarm about the rape on any of the occasions — Co-accused with similar accusations had been considered for bail —Alleged abettor had been enlarged on anticipatory bail — Held, fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail. (Para 7) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 148, 149 & 302 — Evidence Act — S 3 —relevant fact— Alleged eye witness —Conduct of — did not render any help for shifting the injured to the hospital — slipped after incident — not being noticed by anyone — did not inform to police — went to hospital but did not have the courtesy to go inside the hospital to ascertain the condition —Delay in examination — vehicle used for transporting the injured to the hospital — ownership not established — presence of alleged eyewitnesses doubtful — not supported by any evidence of act or conduct — no corroboration — Held unexplained silence of the alleged eyewitnesses & delayed statement to the police — does not appear to be wholly reliable witnesses — Case not proved beyond reasonable doubt — Acquittal. (Para 10&11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Interpretation of Statute — IPC — S 188 — Interpretation of —It says that the culprit should administer to the victim — A substance which would be stupefied or poisonous with an intention to cause hurt to him — Possessing Gutka or Pan Masala or transporting Gutka or Pan Masala does not amount to administering it to any victim. (Para 17) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 188 — contempt of lawful authority of public servants — FSS Act — Ss 26 & 30 — IPC — S 188 —Order of commissioner for prohibiting manufacture of scented supari, tobacco, kharra etc. — Violation of — Held, this disobedience apparently does not tend to cause breach of law and order — Commissioner's order is not an order contemplated under Chapter 10 of the IPC — the prohibitory would not permit any one to apply Section 188, IPC to such breach or violation — possessing or transporting Gutka or Pan Masala did not amount to offence u/s 328 —Section 188, IPC is not applicable. (Para 17& 18) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Interpretation of Statute — IPC — Ss 272 — "adulterated food" —Interpretation of —Held, would mean mixing any material to food which would make the food unsafe and substandard. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 272 & 273— Gutka/Pan Masala found in possession of the applicant/ petitioner — not sent for food analysis —No certificate issued by the Food Analyst that Gutka or Pan Masala is adulterated food — the contravention of the prohibitory order is not punishable u/s 272 & 273. (Para 16) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 302 & 307 r/w 120-B — Indian Arms Act, 1959— Sections 25, 27 & 29 — Offences under — Evidence of the witnesses — Infirmities and contradictions in — Test Identification Parade — not conducted properly — and delay in — identity of the accused was not properly established — Acquittal upheld — CrPC — S 378 — Appeal against acquittal. (Para 18) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Interpretation of Statute — IPC — S304-B(1) — Term “soon before her death” — Satisfaction of — Demand — made about two years before the occurrence — Held, The same was too remote to the occurrence, and therefore, would not satisfy the requirement of “soon before her death” contemplated under Section 304B(1) — Evidence Act — S 3 —relevant fact. (Para 18) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 328 — Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence — Scope — Manufacturing, possession, selling of Gutka & Pan Masala — Would not amount to administering poison. (Para 19) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 328 — Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence — Gutka or Pan Masala — Applicability of — Evidence Act — S 45 — Expert opinion — Report of Food Analyst — Absence of — Held, it cannot be said that Gutka and Pan Masala are stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug— offering these items of Food would not amount to intention to cause hurt. — Sec. 328 not applicable. (Para 19) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376— No actual penetration — Hymen of the victim was found to be intact — no external injuries were found on the private part of the victim — Held, appears to be a case of attempt — might be a case under section 376 r/w 511. (Para 5) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 395 —Conviction under — sentence enhanced by High Court — Young age — value of the alleged loot very less — No recovery from the appellant — conviction maintained — Sentence reduced to already undergone.(Para 3) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
CrPC — S 482 — Quashing of proceedings — IPC — S 494 r/w 109, 114 & 34 — Settlement between the parties — Compounding of offence — petitioners have acted upon contents of compromise pursis — withdrawal of consent by respondent — on the ground that — consent terms in the present case were only notarized, but not filed before the court & — permission from the Court was not obtained — Held, submission can hardly be accepted — after taking undue advantage on the basis of compromise pursis, in pursuance of which petitioner had withdrawn criminal cases filed against respondent — & paid her substantial amount towards her maintenance — in pursuance of which, even Divorce Petition also disposed of — respondent No.1 cannot be allowed to go back and take disadvantage of technical problem on account of which case could not be disposed of earlier — proceedings quashed. (Para 12&15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 498A & 304B r/w 34 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 & 6 — Dowry death — Relatives of the husband of the deceased — Acquittal of — Appeal against — Neither harassment nor violence proved towards the deceased— dowry demand — not proved — No overt act attributed to respondent-accused — Acquittal upheld— CrPC — S 378 — Appeal against acquittal. (Para 20) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 498A & 304B r/w 34 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 & 6 — Dowry death— Demand — Monetary gifts to the husband & his family members — Return gifts to the family of the deceased by her in-laws — Held, the gifts were customary in nature exchanged during different ceremonies — the return gift by the in-laws of the deceased was also in conformity with the customary tradition for such occasions — Both families engaged in offering gifts to each other, in accord with the prevailing practice and tradition —Will not amount to demand. (Para 17) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 498A & 304B r/w 34 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 & 6 — Dowry death — Evidence Act — S 3 —relevant fact — Alleged dowry article used solely by the deceased — Sewing-machine — Allegation of demand — Statement by the mother of the deceased — deceased knew tailoring & the sewing-machine was given to her for tailoring clothes — Held, This was really a gift to the deceased & cannot be considered as a part of the demand made by the husband for himself or for his family members — Acquittal. (Para 19) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Evidence Act — S 3 —relevant fact — Test Identification Parade — Conducting of — Delay in — Attack by a mob in a crowded place — Eyewitnesses had little time to see the accused— the substantive evidence should be sufficiently corroborated by a test identification parade held soon after the occurrence — Any delay in holding the test identification parade may be held to be fatal to the prosecution case—Siddanki Ram Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh—Relied upon. (Para 16) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Evidence Act — S 3 —relevant fact — Test Identification Parade — Conducting of — Delay in — Much time was not available for the eye- witnesses to clearly see the accused — Held, In such a situation, it was of much more importance that the Test Identification Parades were to be conducted without any delay. (Para 17) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Evidence Act — S 3 —relevant fact — Test Identification Parade — Conducting of — Delay in — Conducted after more than one year — Broad daylight incident — But the time for which the eye-witnesses could see the accused was not sufficient for them to observe the distinguishing features of the accused — especially because there was a commotion created after the firing and everyone was running to shelter themselves from the firing — is highly doubtful whether the eye-witnesses could have remembered the faces of the accused after such a long period — fatal to prosecution. (Para 17) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Evidence Act — S 3 —relevant fact — Defective investigation — Eyewitness — evidence of — Unexplained delay in recording —Held, casts a serious doubt about their being eye-witnesses to the occurrence — It may suggest that the investigating officer was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye-witnesses to be introduced —fatal to prosecution. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Evidence Act — S 3 —relevant fact — Eyewitness — conduct of — slipped from the spot & did not inform the police due to fear — Previous history of witness —a history-sheeter — cases pending against him —Aspect of fear — without any foundation—fatal to prosecution. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Evidence Act — S 3 —relevant fact — Defective investigation — Eyewitness — knowledge to the police regarding — not known as to how the police came to know that these witnesses saw the occurrence—fatal to prosecution. (Para 11) |
PDF |