LawforAll

▼
Friday, August 31, 2018

Section 396 IPC = The second aspect is the lack of recovery and identification of stolen articles. It is already mentioned above that the recovery of the stolen article was limited to one dhoti, a blouse and a nose stud. These articles were recovered from Maheshwar Singh which have been identified only by PW-10 (Gita Devi), PW-12 (Indu Devi) and PW-4 (Uday Nath Jha). Although, number of witnesses including the family members witnessed the aforesaid dacoity, only three persons could individually identify three different objects separately which this Court finds suspicious to believe in. This Court in the light of facts and circumstances cannot lend any credibility to the alleged allegations regarding dacoity.; he was aware of presence of PW-1 during the incident but he failed to mention his name in the FIR. Such non-mentioning of presence of PW-1, who was a material witness in this case, creates further suspicion on the hypothesis portrayed by the prosecution. ; the informant (PW-9) was aware of the names of dacoits who had killed the deceased but failed to name them in the FIR. In this context we may note that the incident is alleged to have taken place in the intervening night of 21st-22nd April, 1999, whereas the FIR came to be registered at 3.15 a.m., after a lapse of 3 hours. Despite sufficient time for the informant to gather necessary 9 information, which he did, the names of two accused respondents have conspicuously been missing, which also formed an additional factor for the High Court to acquit accused respondents Although we accept that FIR need not be an encyclopedia of the crime, but absence of certain essential facts, which were conspicuously missing in the present FIR, point towards suspicion that the crime itself may be staged.; We also do not find any justification to reverse the finding given by the High Court relating to juvenility of Mintu Kumar @ Mintu Singh. On facts, on re-appreciation of the material on record, the High Court concluded that Mintu Kumar @ Mintu Singh was less than 18 years of age. The record reveals that he was directed to be examined by a Medical Board by the High Court during the course of hearing. The report of the Medical Board discloses that he was 20-22 years of age as on 22.04.2006. This conclusion arrived at by the Medical Board was based on radiological findings. The date of occurrence was 22.04.1999, which means that Mintu Kumar @ Mintu Singh was below 18 years of age as on the date of incident.

›
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 94-97 OF 2013 AMAR NATH JHA ....A...

plea of alibi =the only material against the appellant (Accused No.2) is that her name is also found in the Dying Declaration.- Undisputedly, the incident has taken place inside the house of Accused No.1 and that too early in the morning. It is not disputed that the appellant is the wife of the brother of Accused No.1. The appellant was living with her husband (the brother of Accused No.1) separately in a different house. In other words, the appellant was not living with the deceased and Accused No.1. The same has also been observed by the High Court in its judgment. However, the Courts proceeded to convict the appellant also, based on the Dying Declaration of the deceased, by observing that there was no reason as to why the appellant was to be falsely implicated. However, having regard to the Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital, Partur, showing that the appellant was admitted to the hospital and underwent surgery on 30.1.2013, the plea of alibi taken by the appellant deserves to be accepted. - Vague and cryptic allegations are found against her with no specific allegation in respect of demand for dowry or harassment in any manner. In the absence of definite evidence against the appellant, the Sessions Court and the High Court are not justified in convicting her even for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.

›
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN TH SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 963/2018 (arising out of Special Lea...

BDA - The scheme which was framed was so much benevolent scheme that 40% of the 55% of the land reserved for the residential purpose was to be given to the landowners at their choice and they were also given the choice to obtain the compensation, if they so desire, under the provisions of the LA Act. Thus, it was such a scheme that there was no scope for any exclusion of the land in the ultimate final notification.= the matter cannot be left at the mercy of unscrupulous authority of the 24 BDA, the State Government or in the political hands. Considering the proper development and planned development of Bangalore city, let the Government issue a final notification with respect to the land which has been notified in the initial notification and there is no question of leaving out of the land in the instant case as option has been given to land owners to claim the land or to claim the compensation under the relevant LA Act which may be applicable in the case.

›
 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7661­63 OF 2018 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos...

The identification parade belongs to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code which obliges the investigating agency to hold or confers a right upon the accused to claim, a test identification parade. = As a general rule, identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. The purpose of identification test is only 13 to help the investigating agency as to whether the investigation into the offence is proceeding in a right direction or not. In our view, non­identification of the appellant by any prosecution witness would not vitiate the prosecution case. It is evident from the confessional statement of the accused that at the time of occurrence he and another accused Rampati Manjhi were guarding outside the informant’s house while other accused were committing dacoity inside. We do not think that there is any justification to the argument that as none of the prosecution witnesses could be able to identify the appellant, he cannot be termed as accused. In our view, such nonidentification would not be fatal to the prosecution case in the given facts and circumstances.

›
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1333 of 2009 RAJU MANJHI      APPELLANT...