Advocatemmmohan

Last seen theory - not established - 6 days gap not explained properly - prosecution failed to explain about the presence of deceased at police station when deceased aunt visited the police station - the last seen theory lost it’s sanctity - when some of the accused are acquitted , the same benefit doubt applies to the accused also as the case was found on last seen theory - Apex court held that n the present case as noticed above, the Sessions Judge convicted the accused Nos.1 to 3 on the basis of last seen evidence, the correctness of last seen version emanating from Valarmathi (PW-1), Amirthavalli (PW-3) and Murugan (PW-4) and as per the prosecution case is also doubtful, there being contradiction about place where the accused were last seen with the deceased Manikandan. The High Court had failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact and erred in affirming the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 31st March, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.1009 of 2005 and impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 17th November, 2005 passed by the Sessions Judge in Session Case No.61 of 2005. The appeal is allowed. = KRISHNAN @ RAMASAMY & ORS. … APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU … RESPONDENT = 2014 - July Part - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41717

Last seen theory – not established – 6 days gap not explained properly – prosecution failed to explain about the presence of deceased at police station when deceased aunt visited the police station – the last seen theory lost it’s sanctity – when some of the accused are acquitted , the same benefit doubt applies to the accused also as the case was found on last seen theory – Apex court held that n the present case as noticed above, the Sessions Judge convicted the accused Nos.1 to 3 on the basis of last seen evidence, the correctness of last seen version emanating from Valarmathi (PW-1), Amirthavalli (PW-3) and Murugan (PW-4) and as per the prosecution case is also doubtful, there being contradiction about place where the accused were last seen with the deceased Manikandan. The High Court had failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact and erred in affirming the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 31st March, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.1009 of 2005 and impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 17th November, 2005 passed by the Sessions Judge in Session Case No.61 of 2005. The appeal is allowed. = KRISHNAN @ RAMASAMY & ORS. … APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU … RESPONDENT = 2014 – July Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41717

Last seen theory – not established – 6 days gap not explained properly – prosecution failed to explain about the presence of deceased at police station when deceased aunt visited the police station – the last seen theory lost it’s sanctity – when some of the accused are acquitted , the same benefit doubt applies to the accused also as the case was found on last seen theory – Apex court held that 

View On WordPress

acknowledge the life.

Life

like a river 

runs as it goes

Who lives in life 

bridges land marks on it’s course

Who leads the life

passes like a wood piece through out it’s course

Acknowledge the life to kindle the knowledge of one’s own

                                                                          ………….advocatemmmohan

View On WordPress

burst of bubbles

Behind

the wings of clouds

Morning smiles by blooming flowers

some of them strolled like pearl dews on leaves

Cute hands anxiety to collect the same – laughed in burst of bubbles

                                                                                    ………………advocatemmmohan

 

View On WordPress

Boiling points

All bonds

like vapors

never sustains at Boiling points

Balanced temperaments only strengthen the bonds

                                                         ……………..advocatemmmohan

View On WordPress

Sec. 304 B of I.P.C.- Dowry Death - “SOON BEFORE THE DEATH ” - whether the remaining two ingredients are satisfied looking into the evidence on record. The statement of the complainant PW.1 is general and not specific. No specific incidence has been indicated suggesting the cruelty or harassment made by the accused-Manohar Lal. Her statement is not reliable and not trustworthy. Though the allegation of demand of dowry was made - none of the witnesses including PW.1 stated that the deceased was harassed “soon before her death” for or in connection with demand of dowry. The accused appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC but the Trial Court has not convicted the accused under Section 498-A. In this background, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused harassed the deceased soon before her death for or in connection with a demand of dowry.= MANOHAR LAL … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT= 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41716

Sec. 304 B of I.P.C.- Dowry Death – “SOON BEFORE THE DEATH ” – whether the remaining two ingredients are satisfied looking into the evidence on record. The statement of the complainant PW.1 is general and not specific. No specific incidence has been indicated suggesting the cruelty or harassment made by the accused-Manohar Lal. Her statement is not reliable and not trustworthy. Though the allegation of demand of dowry was made – none of the witnesses including PW.1 stated that the deceased was harassed “soon before her death” for or in connection with demand of dowry. The accused appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC but the Trial Court has not convicted the accused under Section 498-A. In this background, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused harassed the deceased soon before her death for or in connection with a demand of dowry.= MANOHAR LAL … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT= 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41716

Sec. 304 B of I.P.C.- Dowry Death – “SOON BEFORE THE DEATH ” - whether the remaining two ingredients  are  satisfied  looking  into the evidence on record. The statement of the complainant PW.1 is general and not specific.  No specific incidence has been indicated suggesting the cruelty  or  harassment made by the accused-Manohar Lal. Her  statement  is  not  reliable  and  not trustworthy. Thoug…

View On WordPress

Sec.376 (f)/302/201 I.P.C.- all sentences order to run consecutively - Sec. 31 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code - Apex court held that trial and High court committed error in view of Sec. 31(2) of Cr.P.C.- Section 31 of Cr.P.C. relates to sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial. Proviso to Sub Section (2) to Section 31 lays down the embargo whether the aggregate punishment of prisoner is for a period of longer than 14 years. In view of the fact that life imprisonment means imprisonment for full and complete span of life, the question of consecutive sentences in case of conviction for several offences at one trial does not arise. Therefore, in case a person is sentenced of conviction of several offences, including one that of life imprisonment, the proviso to Section 31(2) shall come into play and no consecutive sentence can be imposed.=DURYODHAN ROUT … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA … RESPONDENT= 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41715

Sec.376 (f)/302/201 I.P.C.- all sentences order to run consecutively – Sec. 31 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code – Apex court held that trial and High court committed error in view of Sec. 31(2) of Cr.P.C.- Section 31 of Cr.P.C. relates to sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial. Proviso to Sub Section (2) to Section 31 lays down the embargo whether the aggregate punishment of prisoner is for a period of longer than 14 years. In view of the fact that life imprisonment means imprisonment for full and complete span of life, the question of consecutive sentences in case of conviction for several offences at one trial does not arise. Therefore, in case a person is sentenced of conviction of several offences, including one that of life imprisonment, the proviso to Section 31(2) shall come into play and no consecutive sentence can be imposed.=DURYODHAN ROUT … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA … RESPONDENT= 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41715

Sec.376 (f)/302/201 I.P.C.- all sentences order to run consecutively – Sec. 31 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code – Apex court held that trial and High court committed error in view of Sec. 31(2) of Cr.P.C.- Section 31 of Cr.P.C. relates to sentence in cases  of  conviction  of several offences at one trial. Proviso to Sub  Section  (2)  to  Section  31 lays down the embargo whether the aggregate…

View On WordPress

Section 27 of Evidence Act - confessions leads to discovery of incriminating articles - when abduction proved , burden lies on the accused to discloses what happen next when victim found dead - Apex court held that What happened thereafter to deceased is especially within the knowledge of the appellants-accused nos.1 to 3. It was for the appellants-accused nos. 1 to 3 to explain what happened to Mani alias Parai Mani after they took him away but they failed to explain the same. Mani alias Parai Mani was found dead immediately thereafter.= PARAMSIVAM & ORS. … APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE … RESPONDENT = 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41714

Section 27 of Evidence Act – confessions leads to discovery of incriminating articles – when abduction proved , burden lies on the accused to discloses what happen next when victim found dead – Apex court held that What happened thereafter to deceased is especially within the knowledge of the appellants-accused nos.1 to 3. It was for the appellants-accused nos. 1 to 3 to explain what happened to Mani alias Parai Mani after they took him away but they failed to explain the same. Mani alias Parai Mani was found dead immediately thereafter.= PARAMSIVAM & ORS. … APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE … RESPONDENT = 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41714

Section 27 of Evidence Act – confessions leads to discovery of incriminating articles – when abduction proved , burden lies on the accused to discloses what happen next when victim found dead – Apex court held that  What  happened  thereafter  to  deceased  is especially within the knowledge of the appellants-accused  nos.1  to  3.  It was for the appellants-accused nos. 1 to 3 to explain what…

View On WordPress

Death commuted to Life Imprisonment - Murder of wife and children - Trial court imposed death penalty - High court confirmed the same - Apex court held that In the present case taking into the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and reasons stated above, we hold that the imposition of death sentence to the accused Amar Singh Yadav was not warranted. Accordingly we commute the sentence to life imprisonment. Further, we hold that the accused Amar Singh Yadav must serve a minimum of 30 years in jail without remissions before consideration of his case for premature release.= AMAR SINGH YADAV … APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF U.P. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41713

Death commuted to Life Imprisonment – Murder of wife and children – Trial court imposed death penalty – High court confirmed the same – Apex court held that In the present case taking into the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and reasons stated above, we hold that the imposition of death sentence to the accused Amar Singh Yadav was not warranted. Accordingly we commute the sentence to life imprisonment. Further, we hold that the accused Amar Singh Yadav must serve a minimum of 30 years in jail without remissions before consideration of his case for premature release.= AMAR SINGH YADAV … APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF U.P. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41713

Death commuted to Life Imprisonment - Murder of wife and children – Trial court imposed death penalty – High court confirmed the same – Apex court held that In the present case taking into the facts  and  circumstances  of  the

case in hand and reasons stated above, we hold that the imposition of  death

sentence to the accused Amar Singh Yadav was not warranted.  Accordingly  we

commute the…

View On WordPress

Arbitration and conciliation Act - Request for appointment of Arbitrator under sec.11 was rejected by High court - Apex court held that as both parties mutually agreed for arbitration by retired Hon’ble Judge of the Kerala High Court, without going into the question of merit, we set aside the impugned order dated 19th July, 2010 and refer the matter to Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. John Mathew (retired). The parties will negotiate and settle the terms and conditions of arbitration. It is expected that the arbitration proceeding will be concluded at an early date. The appeals stand disposed of with aforesaid observations. = M/s Kaikara Construction Company … Appellant VERSUS State of Kerala and Ors. … Respondents = 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41711

Arbitration and conciliation Act – Request for appointment of Arbitrator under sec.11 was rejected by High court – Apex court held that as both parties mutually agreed for arbitration by retired Hon’ble Judge of the Kerala High Court, without going into the question of merit, we set aside the impugned order dated 19th July, 2010 and refer the matter to Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. John Mathew (retired). The parties will negotiate and settle the terms and conditions of arbitration. It is expected that the arbitration proceeding will be concluded at an early date. The appeals stand disposed of with aforesaid observations. = M/s Kaikara Construction Company … Appellant VERSUS State of Kerala and Ors. … Respondents = 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41711

Arbitration and conciliation Act – Request for appointment of Arbitrator under sec.11 was rejected by High court – Apex court held that  as both parties mutually agreed  for arbitration by retired Hon’ble Judge  of  the  Kerala  High  Court,  without going into the question of merit, we set  aside  the  impugned  order  dated 19th July, 2010 and refer the matter to Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.  John…

View On WordPress

Sec. 307 - reduced to Sec. 326 - further sec. 324 I.P.C. = Whether the culpability of the accused would fall under Section 324 or Sec. 326 of the IPC would depend on as to whether the injuries suffered by the victim amount to ‘simple hurt’ or ‘grievous hurt’ as defined by the relevant provision of the Penal Code - Apex court dismissed the appeal = PRITAM CHAUHAN … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) … RESPONDENT (S) =2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41710

Sec. 307 – reduced to Sec. 326 – further sec. 324 I.P.C. = Whether the culpability of the accused would fall under Section 324 or Sec. 326 of the IPC would depend on as to whether the injuries suffered by the victim amount to ‘simple hurt’ or ‘grievous hurt’ as defined by the relevant provision of the Penal Code – Apex court dismissed the appeal = PRITAM CHAUHAN … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) … RESPONDENT (S) =2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41710

  Sec. 307 – reduced to Sec. 326 – further sec. 324 I.P.C. = Whether the culpability of the accused would fall  under  Section  324 or Sec. 326 of the IPC would depend on as to whether  the  injuries  suffered  by the victim amount to ‘simple hurt’ or ‘grievous  hurt’  as  defined  by  the

relevant provision of the Penal Code – Apex court dismissed the appeal = 


307 I.P.C =  In appeal, the High…

View On WordPress