Author: Chhavishree SomaniVejayalakshmi Puli.


M.P. HIGH COURT

Dependra Singh and Others vs. State of M.P-

Case No. MCRC No.22927/2018

Bench: Virendra Singh, J.

Date:  22 November, 2018

In the case in hand, the petitioner was having full opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and he has already availed that earlier. Therefore, no ground for recalling of witness only on the ground of change of counsel, is made out.

Cases Referred:

  • Natasha Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation[1]
  • Ved Prakash Sharma v. The State[2]

Rahul Dubey v. State of M.P.

Case No. MCRC-43784-2018.

Bench: G.S. Ahluwalia, J.

Date:  22 November, 2018

the order cannot be modified by deleting the condition, which was imposed on the basis of the concessional statement made by the counsel for the applicant.


Pramod Kumar Batham Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.-

Case No.  WP No.19710/2018

Bench: Prakash Srivasatava, J.

Date:  22 November, 2018

The respondents are not justified in charging interest on the original amount of excess payment. Hence, the interest part

is set aside.

Case Referred:

  • Kailash Kushwah Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.[3]

HIGH COURT OF ADJUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case No.  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 737 of 2014.

Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, JJ.

Date:  22 November, 2018

The learned trial court has held the accused-appellant guilty solely on the ground that prior to the P.W.1 turning hostile, he gave support to the prosecution version and coupled with that, the recovery of the weapon of offence was made at the pointing out of the accused-appellant and the bullet which was recovered from the body of deceased was found to have been used in making fire by the pistol which is alleged to have been recovered from the body of the deceased. There was no other inculpatory evidence on record but we find that the said approach of the trial court in analyzing this evidence was not appropriate in-fact the learned trial court ought to have taken into consideration the above noted facts that there was no clinching evidence that bullet which was recovered from the body of the deceased was not found to have been fired by the weapon which was recovered at the pointing out of the deceased because of the dearth of evidence that the bore of the said pistol was not proved to be of .315 bore beyond reasonable doubt.

Cases Referred:

  • Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat[4] (2011) 11 SCC 111.
  • Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra[5].
  • Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor.

Shashi Pravesh Rai And Another vs State Of U.P

Case No. Crl Appeal 2028/2015

Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, JJ.

Date: 22 November, 2018

Circumstantial Evidence

“…whatever evidence has been adduced by the prosecution side in the form of circumstantial evidence is sufficient to complete the chain of evidence from which the only hypothesis which can be drawn is that it could be only the accused-appellants who had abducted the said child, son of first informant for demand of ransom of Rs. 3 lacs and for non-fulfillment of the same, had issued the threat that in case, the said demand was not made, the son of first informant would be done to death. Therefore, all the ingredients which are mentioned above of the offence u/s 364-A IPC are made out and we find the case proved against the accused-appellants to the guilt.”


THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

ARUN JANA V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CASE NO: C.R.A 455 of 2008

BENCH: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha

DATE: November 22, 2018.

In the present case, the appellant was charged under section 323/324 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts in brief were that the said appellant, Arun jana had assaulted one, Arup Barman on several parts of the body using an iron rod including crushing his testicles with his bare hands. A case was filed thereafter invoking Section 323/325/341/307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of  CrPc. The High Court under J. Rajasekhar Mantha had passed its verdict in favour of the state stating that the punishment provided under the section termed imprisonment for 6 months should be upheld and the appellant, who is under bail shall have it stood cancelled along with imposing of fine hereby dismissing this case.

This case lays down that voluntary causing of hurt is a requisite to prove the charges present in Section 324, IPC as there had been past issues with the victim Arup, member of CPDR (a Human Rights Organisation) and the appellant, member of CPI(M) (a political party) showcasing an intention to hurt.


HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

NEERAJ YADAV V. STATE OF PUNJAB

CASE NO: CRM-M-47287-2018 (O&M)

BENCH: Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan

DATE: November 6, 2018.

The present petition deals with the grant of Anticipatory bail in FIR No.139 dated 09.09.2018, under Section 306/34 IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Patiala. The facts in brief were the petitioner, Neeraj Yadav along with his family had subjected the complainant, his wife to dowry harassment and beatings following which an F.I.R was filed against the petitioner and his family. A complaint   under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 had been filed at the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala for non maintenance as his wife. The father of the complainant had fallen into depression on account of disturbance and mental pressure from the differences between his daughter and son-in-law and therefore ended up committing suicide after lodging a complaint at SHO, Women Cell, Patiala, where the petitioner was summoned on a complaint filed by the complainant. The counsel on behalf of the complainant therefore opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner. The High Court under the verdict of J. Sangwan held that the relief under anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioner and the case has thereof been dismissed.

This case lays down that when a person abets the commission of suicide by another, he shall be punished with imprisonment and a criminal act committed by several persons in furtherance of a common object is also a punishable offence.


[1] (2013) 5 SCC 741.

[2] LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-346.

[3] W.A. No.303/2017.

[4] (2011) 11 SCC 111

[5] Review Petition (Crl.) Nos.637-638 of 2015


About the Authors: Chhavishree and Vejayalakshmi are 2017-22 batch students at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar.


Disclaimer: Although we try to ensure that the information provided, whether in relation to the products, services, or offering or otherwise provided (hereinafter mentioned as “INFORMATION”) on the website is correct at the time of publishing, we or any third parties do not provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials found or offered on this website for any particular purpose. It shall be your own responsibility to ensure that any products, services or information available through this website meet your specific requirements. Neither the website nor any person/organization acting on its behalf may accept any legal liability/responsibility.


Terms-and-conditions/ (Click Here)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s