Adverse inference - Document - Non production - Adverse inference - Document when in possession of a public functionary and under an obligation to produce before Court, fails and or neglects to produce the same, an adverse inference may be drawn against him. (Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114). (State Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam Vs Surya Sankaram Kurri) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 231 (S.C.)

 Alibi - Plea even if not proved, court shall not record a judgment of conviction unless prosecution is found to have established its case. (Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 405 (S.C.)

          Arms Act, 1959, Section 13 - Arms licence - Grant of licence - Minor - Arms licence required for self defence - Petitioner involved in communal activities - Looking to the unprecedented increase of anti social elements known as mafias and persons involving in communal activities and terrorism it has become more appropriate that the licence should be granted only on strict enquiry about the conduct and the activities of the person concerned - 21 years age for making a person eligible to have a licence is less - The possession of the arm licence requires more maturity and sense - On the basis of police report application for grant of licence rightly rejected. (Parvez Ahmad Vs State of U.P.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 361 (Allahabad)

 Arms Act, 1959, Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 and 307 - Murder - Murder of brother by gun shots - Deceased hit by gun shot on his chest - Some pallets caused injury to arm of his father - Father of appellant was repairing earth work in front of his house when appellant protested and altercation followed - Defence plea of right of private defence that prosecution party was armed with lathis and were aggressor - Absence of any injury on person of appellant negatived the plea - Appellant had aimed the gun shot at victim and had not used fire arm to scare them - No interference in conviction of appellant. (Sada Ram Vs State of Haryana) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 520 (S.C.)

          Arms Act, 1959, Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 307, 34 - Attempt to murder - Accused, two in number convicted by trial court u/sSection 307/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of Arms Act - Appellants fired shots from pistols at informant and his friend, resulting in grievous injuries - Case of prosecution that informant and his friends had gone to house of R for collecting money - Appellants entered the house of R mistaking informant and his friend to be associates of R fired shots at them - Conviction by trial court - Appeal - All the 3 eye witnesses turned hostile - But evidence of PW5 and PW6 shows that appellants fired shots at both of them in house of R - Evidence corroborated by medical evidence - Participation of A2 held doubtful, hence given benefit of doubt - Conviction of A1 by trial court justified. (Md.Kalim & Anr. Vs State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 633 (Jharkhand)

 Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, Section 3 - Preventive detention order - Challenged on ground that translated copies of all documents, statements and other material not furnished within statutory period of five days to detenu - Documents in English - Within 10 days translated documents made available to detenu - Sufficient material to establish that detenu in fact was conversant with English language and corresponded with authorities in that language - Service of documents upon detenu in English did not breach Article 22(5) of Constitution. (Sheetal Manoj Gore Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 058 (S.C.)

 Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, Section 3 - Preventive detention order - Delay in passing order of detention - Time taken in completing the process for issuance of order of detention not to be tested by same standard as is applied in matter of consideration of representation of detenu - Reasons sufficiently explained for time taken in issuing order of detention - Detention order not vitiated. (Sheetal Manoj Gore Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 058 (S.C.)

 Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, Section 3 - Preventive detention order - Non application of mind - Detaining authority took charge on 10.1.2006 and detention order passed on 27.1.2006 - Documents running into 2000 pages - Contention that authority signed the detention order on grounds prepared by predecessor - No basis of contention that detaining authority passed detention order without applying her mind. (Sheetal Manoj Gore Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 058 (S.C.)

          Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, Section 3(1) - Preventive detention - Smuggling - Detenu had been abetting the smuggling of goods - Detenu involved in 18 such cases relating to possession, transportation and concealing of smuggled goods - Detenu acquitted in 3 cases - 8-9 cases reported before Court as untraced or for cancellation of FIR - Proceedings pending only in two cases - This information withheld from detaining authority - Requisite subjective satisfaction, formation of which is a condition precedent to passing of a detention order, would be certainly vitiated if material and vital facts, which would influence the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other on the question whether or not to make the detention order, are not placed before or are not considered by the detaining authority - It would certainly amount to non-application of mind - Order of preventive detention set aside.

 Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, Section 3(1) - Preventive detention order - Delay in execution of order - Order passed on 12th February and served on 12th March - Detenu evaded his arrest and absconded - Held, when a person himself evaded service of detention order, it was not open to him to contend that due to long delay live link between offending activities and actual arrest was snapped. (Vinod K.Chawla Vs Union of India & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 215 (S.C.)

 Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, Section 3(1) - Preventive detention order - Formulation of opinion and subjective satisfaction of detaining authority - Detention order challenged on the ground that grounds of detention made reference to statement of son of appellant before DRI which he retracted when produced before ACMM and that such retraction not placed before detaining authority - Detention order showing that detaining authority placed reliance entirely upon statement of appellant himself and documents and material recovered from his business premises - Held, detention order not at all based upon statement of son of appellant and merely a passing reference was made to that statement - Formulation of opinion and subjective satisfaction not vitiated. (Vinod K.Chawla Vs Union of India & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 215 (S.C.)

 Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, Section 3(1) - Preventive detention order - Representation - Delay in disposal - There is no straight jacket formula - Depends upon facts of each case viz. volume and contents of the grounds of detention, the documents supplied along with the grounds, the inquiry to be made by the officers of different departments, the nature of the inquiry, the time required for examining the various pleas raised, the time required in recording the comments by the authorities of the department concerned and so on. (Vinod K.Chawla Vs Union of India & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 215 (S.C.)

 Constitution of India, Article 136 - Judgment of acquittal by High Court - Article 136 is a special jurisdiction - State did not file an appeal before Supreme Court - Private party can invoke jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 of Constitution of India - Appeal under Article 136 of Constitution is entertained by special leave granted by this Court, whether it is the State or a private party that invokes the jurisdiction of this Court - Special leave is not granted as a matter of course but only for good and sufficient reasons. (Suga Ram @ Chhuga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 797 (S.C.)

          Constitution of India, Articles 21 and 226 - Compensation - Powers of Court - Son of petitioner killed by Police Commando Unit - Victim proved to have been arrested and taken to police custody - On date of incident victim was in their physical control - Police personnel liable for loss of life of victim - A fixed sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - ordered to be paid as compensation amount taking into consideration age and earning capability of victim. (Ningthemcha Ongbi Shakhenbi Devi Vs State of Manipur & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 743 (Gauhati)

          Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2 - Civil contempt - Wilful disobedience - Order of High Court directing Director of School Education to grant approval of appointment of petitioner - Plea of respondent that appointment order was issued contrary to Recruitment Rules, rejected - Successor in office (District Primary School Council) even though not party respondent to writ petition is bound by the order of High Court - District Primary School Council directed to approve appointment of petitioner. (Pranab Sengupta Vs Alok Kumar Basu & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 707 (Calcutta)

 Corpus delicit - Need not be proved - Discovery of dead body is a rule of caution and not of law - In the event, there exists strong circumstantial evidence, a judgment of conviction can be recorded even in absence of the dead body. (Ramjee Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 758 (S.C.)

          Criminal Law - Police should not arrest a person accused of having committed a cognizable and non cognizable offence until it is very necessary for the purpose of investigation or custodial interrogation say for recovering incriminating articles or weapons of offence or eliciting information as to his accomplices etc. or for any other purpose that may help in gathering evidence to prove his guilt ; (2) Arrest should always be avoided if the investigation can be completed even otherwise and the accused gives full co-operation in completing the investigation; (3) Arrest may be necessary, if the offence alleged is of grave nature and prescribes severe punishment and there is a likelihood of an offender either absconding or not appearing on being summoned or his fleeing away from justice or judgment. (Court on its own motion Vs Central Bureau of Investigation) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 442 (Delhi)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Chapter VIII - Police Officers vested with powers of Special Executive Magistrate/Executive Magistrate to conduct proceedings under Chapter VIII of the Code - Direction issued to State to take steps to protect fundamental rights so that life and personal liberty of a citizen is not trampled by such police officers. (Rajesh Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 031 (Bombay) (DB)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Chapter VIII - Proceedings under Chapter VIII - Party against whom proceedings are initiated is entitled to receive copy of order - Practice of passing order in printed form and not furnishing certified copy of order to the person or his advocate deprecated. (Rajesh Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 031 (Bombay) (DB)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, Section 5 - A Muslim divorced wife after commencement of Muslim Women Act cannot apply for maintenance under Chapter IX of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 except as provided under Section 5 of Muslim Women Act. (Shaikh Mohamed Vs Naseem Begum & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 319 (Bombay)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 - Maintenance - Allowed - In revision thereagainst finding as to sufficient reason for refusal to live with husband confirmed and matter remanded for decision as to question of wife unable to maintain herself - Decision on the first question being final is not open to a different finding - Since trial Court gave a finding as to wife not able to maintain herself as such a reasonable maintenance must have been allowed to wife - Considering the monthly income of husband maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month allowed to wife. (Smt.Shashi Dewangan Vs Nandlal Dewangan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 367 (Chhattisgarh)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 - Maintenance - Qualification of wife - Not sufficient by itself to conclude that wife is in a position to maintain herself - Possession of qualification by itself cannot be reckoned as synonymous with ability to maintain herself. (Muraleedharan Vs Vijayalakshmi) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 190 (Kerala)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 - Maintenance - Refusal to grant on the ground that wife is highly educated - Maintenance cannot be refused on the ground that wife is highly educated - Wife M.A. LL.B. but not possessing B.Ed. degree - She could not get employment as a teacher - Legal profession is very competitive - Order granting maintenance of Rs.2000/- p.m. upheld. (T.Muraleedharan Vs C.P.Vijayalakshmi) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 682 (Kerala)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 - Maintenance petition by wife - Husband not filing written statement - Maintenance allowed - Appeal against - Without filing written statement husband cannot find fault with decision of trial Court - Husband is estopped from challenging award of maintenance. (Dinakara Londe Vs Deeksha D.Londe & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 281 (Karnataka) (DB)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 154, 482 - FIR - Quashing - Interference at the threshold in the FIR is to be in very exceptional circumstances when it is found that FIR does not disclose the commission of the offence - Such power to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of the rare case. (Ram Kishun & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 557 (Allahabad)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Dying declaration - FIR - Statement of an injured recorded in the event of death - Can also be treated as a First Information Report. (Balbir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 582 (S.C.)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376, 506 - FIR - Delay - Rape - Sexual offences - Delay is due to variety of reasons - It concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and honour of her family - An unmarried girl will not like to give publicity to the traumatic experience she had undergone - Prosecution case cannot be doubted merely on the ground of delay in lodging FIR - Delay has the effect of putting the Court on guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay and, if offered, whether it is satisfactory. (Dildar Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 244 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154 - FIR - Complaint/Information disclosing cognizable offence - Police is under statutory duty to register FIR - Police Officer cannot undertake a preliminary inquiry before registration of the case - If complaint is found to be false Police may start proceedings under Section 182 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Laxminarayan Gupta Vs Commissioner of Police) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 377 (Delhi)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156(3) - Application under Section 156(3) - Fake and fabricated sale deed - Rejection of application on the ground that it is for the civil Court to cancel the sale deed - Held, application discloses the commission of cognizable offence - Court below directed to take up the application afresh and decide it in accordance with law. (Fireram Vs State of U.P.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 041 (Allahabad)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156(3) - Order to investigate - Application under Section 156(3) not to be simply allowed but Magistrate has to apply his mind. (Ram Kishun & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 557 (Allahabad)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 164, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376 and 300, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 24 - Rape and Murder - Extra judicial confession - Accused implicating three more persons - Extra judicial confession not corroborated by any other evidence - Non compliance with requirements of Section 164(4) - Confession inadmissible - Conviction of accused on the basis of confessional statement, improper. (Murugan Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 042 (Madras) (DB)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 164 - Confession - Certificate by Magistrate as required by Section 164(4) is mandatory - Without such certificate judicial confession is of no legal significance. (Murugan Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 042 (Madras) (DB)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 173, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 134 - Number of witnesses - Ordinarily prosecution should examine all witnesses whose names have been disclosed in the charge-sheet - Such a rule is however, not of universal application - Each case has to be considered on its own facts. (Ramjee Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 758 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 197 - Sanction for prosecution - Police officials on duty abused complainant in filthy language and gave beating with kicks and fists and clothes torn while dragging - Held, this act by no stretch of imagination is covered in the official duty of the police officials - Prosecution cannot be quashed at the very inception. (D.N.Pandey & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 176 (Allahabad)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 200, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Criminal complaint - Prosecution if ultimately found to be frivolous or otherwise mala fide, Court may direct registration of case against complainant for mala fide prosecution of accused - Accused is also entitled to file a suit for damages. (Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. Vs R.B.S.Channabasavardhya) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 259 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 200, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 & 145 - Dishonour of cheque - Initial statement under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 can be given on affidavit. (Panda Leasing & Properties Ltd. Vs Hemant Kumar Moharana) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 597 (Orissa)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 235, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 326 - Reduction of sentence - Offence committed under Section 326 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - One leg of victim, amputated - Sentence reduced from 8 years to 5 years. (Siddarama & Ors. Vs State of Karnataka) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 540 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 235, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 and 396 - Dacoity with murder - Sentence - Higher sentence - Sessions Judge imposed higher sentence of life imprisonment - No opportunity of hearing given to accused - Sentence of life imprisonment reduced to R.I. for ten years and fine. (Sanatan alias Sona Layek Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 093 (Calcutta) (DB)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 235 - Quantum of punishment - Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats - It is duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. (Siddarama & Ors. Vs State of Karnataka) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 540 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 245(1) - Discharge - Declined - Revision against dismissal of second application for discharge is not maintainable. (Abdul Wahab Vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 386 (Kerala)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 246 - Charge - Alteration - Court has power to alter the charge but it is obligatory on the part of Court to bring it to the notice of accused and explain the same to them. (Sabbi Mallesu & Ors. Vs State of A.P.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 357 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 256, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Absence of complainant - Dismissal of complaint - Dismissal of complaint for non appearance can only be when personal attendance of complainant is essential on that day for the progress of the case and situation does not justify the case being adjourned to another date due to any other reason - Compliant cannot be dismissed for default simply on the ground that complainant was not present on the date of hearing - Complaint restored. (R.Murali Vs D.Udhayakumar) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 205 (Madras)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 258, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Discharge of accused - Summons case - Complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act filed by private party - Accused raised defence at pre trial stage - Considering the defence Magistrate ordered stoppage of proceedings and issued show cause notice to complainant to pay compensation for filing false complaint - Illegal hence quashed. (Mehta Prafulchandra Kalidas Vs Patel Cheljibhai Kalidas & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 433 (Gujarat)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 258, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Discharge of accused - Summons case - Complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act filed by private party - It is not a case instituted otherwise than on complaint - Provisions of Section 258 not attracted. (Mehta Prafulchandra Kalidas Vs Patel Cheljibhai Kalidas & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 433 (Gujarat)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 29, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Power of Magistrate to impose sentence of fine exceeding Rs.5000/- - Accused convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act - Magistrate can only impose a sentence of fine not exceeding Rs.5000/- - In view of provisions of Section 29 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 imposition of penalty or fine of Rs.1,50,000/- by Magistrate not proper. (Asim Kumar Saha Vs Nepal Mahato & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 207 (Calcutta)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 376 - Rape and Murder - Death sentence - Approver - Death sentence awarded to appellants in a rape and murder case - No eye witness to the occurrence - One of the accused granted pardon and made approver - Approver in his statement did not inculpate himself in offence - He does not qualify to be an approver - He was wrongly extended the benefit of Section 306 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Conviction and sentence based on evidence of approver, set aside. (State of Rajasthan & Ors Vs Ram Nivas & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 500 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 376 - Rape and Murder - Death sentence - Approver - Death sentence awarded to appellants in a rape and murder case - Word accomplice means that the person who seeks pardon, or for whom pardon is sought has been an associate connected with the offence - Approver in his statement did not inculpate himself in offence - He does not qualify to be an approver - He was wrongly extended the benefit of Section 306 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Conviction and sentence based on evidence of approver, set aside. (State of Rajasthan & Ors Vs Ram Nivas & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 500 (Rajasthan) (DB)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 306 - Approver - Suppressing material facts and giving false evidence - Approver can be tried for the offence in respect of which he had been given pardon - Despite this if public prosecutor does not take steps to proceed against the approver then Court has inherent power to proceed against approver in case he is wilfully suppressing material facts or is giving false evidence. (Renuka Bai & Rinku @ Ratan & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 329 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 311 - Application under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Some more material coming to notice of petitioner as such it was necessary to cross examine PW1 on this aspect - Held, if some material beneficial to defence has come to light then it is just and necessary to permit the petitioner to cross examine PW1 - Application allowed. (Rajesh & Anr. Vs State by Station House Officer) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 236 (Karnataka)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 311 - Material witness - Power to summon - Exercise of power under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof of such facts which lead to a just and correct decision of the case. (U.T. of Dadra & Haveli & Anr. Vs Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 024 (S.C.)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 311 - Material witness - Summoning of - An application by prosecution for summoning a witness after the defence evidence has been recorded, should not be branded as "an attempt by the prosecution to fill in a lacuna". (U.T. of Dadra & Haveli & Anr. Vs Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 024 (S.C.)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 313, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 96 to 106 - Private defence - Plea not raised in statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Plea of self defence is still available as accused cannot be expected to admit that he had inflicted the blow that killed the deceased. (Krishnan Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 264 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498-A, 452 - Summoning order under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Quashing of - Distant relative - FIR lodged by wife under Section 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against entire members of family of husband - There is a tendency to involve all relatives of husband when relations of husband and wife become strained - Petitioner is a real niece of mother-in-law - She had no role to play in the crime - Magistrate fell in error, while summoning the petitioner - Proceeding qua petitioner quashed. (Smt.Harmohan Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 304 (P&H)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319 - Additional accused - Sufficient material on record to presume that non-petitioner No.2 not being an accused, has committed the offence for which he could be tried together with the co-accused already facing trial - Non petitioner No.2 ordered to be impleaded as co-accused. (Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 212 (Rajasthan)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 357, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Appeal against - Suspension of sentence - Appellate Court has power to direct payment of compensation, in whole or any part thereof, awarded by Magistrate as a condition precedent for suspending substantive sentence. (Dilip S.Dahanukar Vs Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 015 (Bombay)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 357(3) - Fine and compensation - Cannot be simultaneously imposed - If a sentence of fine is imposed, there can be no resort to the provisions of Section 357(3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Sajeev Vs Thriveni Credit Corporation) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 686 (Kerala)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 374(2), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B, 300 and 302 - Dowry death - Husband kicked wife on stomach who was in advanced stage of pregnancy - Wife died - Instead of prosecuting accused on charge of murder, he was proceeded against for less serious offence of dowry death and convicted therefor - Accused sentenced to imprisonment for seven years - As sentence imposed is liberal as such the same does not warrant any interference in appeal. (Abdul Sab Nabi Sab Kittur & Ors. Vs State By Savanoor Police Station, Bangalore) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 201 (Karnataka)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Power of High Court - Not different from its power in an appeal from conviction - High Court can review and consider entire evidence and can come to its own conclusions by either accepting the evidence rejected by trial Court or rejecting the evidence accepted by the trial Court - If High Court decides to depart from the conclusions reached by the trial court, it should pay due attention to the grounds on which acquittal was based and state the reasons as to why it finds the conclusions leading to the acquittal, unacceptable - It should also bear in mind that (i) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is fortified by the findings of the trial court; (ii) the accused is entitled to benefit of any doubt; and (iii) the trial court had the advantage of examining the demeanour of the witnesses. The crux of the matter, however, is whether the High Court is able to give clear reasons to dispel the doubt raised, and reject the reasons given by the trial court. (Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 136 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 378(3), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 13(2) - Salt - Sample found misbranded - Acquittal - Leave to Appeal - Copy of report of Public Analyst not sent to accused - It is mandatory under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to send copy of report of result of Analyst to accused - Accused acquitted - Petition dismissed. (State of Haryana Vs Munim) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 642 (P&H)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 378(3) - Appeal against acquittal - Judgment of acquittal by Trial Court - Leave to file appeal applied in High Court - High Court rejected application without speaking order - High Court has to pass a speaking order while dealing with an application for grant of leave. (Suga Ram @ Chhuga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 797 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 378(4) - Acquittal - Appeal against - Person other than complainant is not competent to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal - Even in such a case complainant can prefer an appeal to High Court only when special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal is granted. (Sannanaika Vs M.S.Prakash & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 697 (Karnataka) (DB)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 379 - Review of evidence by appellate Court in a case of acquittal - In case admissible evidence is ignored while acquitting an accused then a duty is cast upon Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. (Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 049 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 386 - Conviction on basis of inadmissible confession - Conviction set aside - Benefit of acquittal also extended to non-appealing co-accused. (Murugan Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 042 (Madras) (DB)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 389, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Appeal against conviction - Suspension of sentence - Sentence suspended subject to deposit of 25% of compensation amount - Held, imposition of such condition not improper. (Suresh Vs Satpuda Urban Credit Co-op. Society Ltd.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 732 (Bombay)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 397, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Conviction under Section 138 NI Act - Death during pendency of revision - Held, even after the death of the accused who is the revision petitioner the revision petition survives and Court can pass appropriate orders with regard to the sentence of fine. (Viswanathan Vs State of Kerala) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 255 (Kerala)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Bail - Murder - Deceased a handicapped person - Deceased hit the accused first with a crutch - Accused snatched that crutch and hit the deceased twice, once on his hand and once on his head - Deceased collapsed and died - Limitations of Section 437 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have got to be read into Section 439(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Seriousness of the offence and the severity of the punishment, are foremost considerations, which a Court is required to take into consideration at the time of considering an application for bail - It does not appear that the accused committed an offence which is very serious and which would invite punishment of death or imprisonment for life - Bail allowed. (Shri Sham Ramnath Kamulkar Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 464 (Bombay)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 307 - Attempt to murder - Accused in custody since long and trial of case likely to take a considerable time to conclude - Bail granted without going into merits of case. (Jagpal Singh @ Bhola Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 048 (P&H)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B and 498-A - Bail - Bail in an offence under Section 304-B and 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Order indicated that bail was granted in peculiar circumstances - Orders of bail are not necessarily orders of any precedent value - Not indicated as to what were those circumstances - Total non application of mind - Order set aside - High Court directed to reconsider bail application. (Gajanand Agarwal Vs State of Orissa & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 688 (S.C.)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B and 498-A - Bail - Grant of - Offence under Section 304-B and 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Bail granted under peculiar circumstances - Not indicated as to what were those circumstances - Total non application of mind - Order set aside - High Court directed to reconsider bail application. (Gajanand Agarwal Vs State of Orissa & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 688 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B/498-A/406/34 - Bail - Offence under Section 304-B/498-A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Accused behind bars for the last two years and eleven months - Prosecution failed to conclude its evidence for almost three years - Reports not revealed any poison - Bail allowed. (Harwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 230 (P&H)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439, Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, Section 3(2) - Bail - Accused, a retired Police Officer arrested in an offence under S. 3(2) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - Offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to life - Trial likely to take a lot of time - Accused already in jail for two years and nine months - More than 800 witnesses to be examined - Bail allowed. (Mohammad Chand Mulani Vs Union of India & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 621 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 37 - Bail - Recovery of contraband 1.5 Kgs. of diacetylmorphine - On analysis the total contents of contraband allegedly recovered came to be 74.5 grams - It is not a commercial quantity - Accused in jail for 3 years - Bail granted. (Nepal Chand @ Doctor Vs The State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 194 (Delhi)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439, Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 15 - Bail - Offence under Section 15/61/85 of NDPS Act - Two co-accused already acquitted by trial Court - Bail granted to appellant. (Buta Singh alias Sheera Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 427 (P&H)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439 - Bail - Guidelines - (a) Bail should not be refused unless the crime charged is of the highest magnitude and the punishment of it prescribed by law is of extreme severity; (b) Bail may be refused when the Court may reasonably presume, some evidence warranting that no amount of bail would secure the presence of the convict at the stage of judgment; (c) Bail may be refused if the course of justice would be thwarted by the person who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being; (d) Bail may be refused if there is likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice; and (e) Bail may be refused if the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail show a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail; (f) Similarly, the Court shall not while releasing a person on bail put any condition, say in the form of deposit of extra amount of FDR etc. of any amount which is beyond the conditions permissible under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Court on its own motion Vs Central Bureau of Investigation) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 442 (Delhi)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439 - Bail - Opium recovered from room in dhaba - Room having no lock - Opium recovered on information of co-accused that applicant indulges in illicit traffic of opium but no information of fact that opium is lying in premises - In view of facts and circumstances of case and without expressing any opinion on merits of case, bail granted. (Madan Lal Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 351 (Rajasthan)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439 - Bail - Order as to - Not necessarily orders of any precedent value. (Gajanand Agarwal Vs State of Orissa & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 688 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439 - Bail - Prosecution evidence silent as to Ethyl alcohol found in viscera - Bail granted without commenting on merits of the case. (Smt.Kanu Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 052 (Rajasthan)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439 - Bail - While granting bail reasons to be stated for prima facie concluding why bail was granted - Court to consider following factors also before granting bail : (1) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (2) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (3) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. (Gajanand Agarwal Vs State of Orissa & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 688 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439(2) - Bail - Cancellation - Bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) Interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation. (Kailash Singh Vs State & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 376 (Rajasthan)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 451, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420, 467 and 471 - Hire purchase agreement - Non payment of instalments - Car seized - Release of case on superdari - Held, pending adjudication of the rival claims with regard to title of vehicle in question, superdari be given to one who is mentioned in the certificate of registration as the owner. (Narinder Kumar Singla Vs State of Punjab and Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 343 (P&H)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-A - Criminal negligence - Boy aged about 12 years electrocuted and died on the spot due to burning of submersible motor of borewell and grounding of G.I. Pipe in the land belonging to the Trust - Alleged incident occurred as an accidental one and it was not in anticipation of the petitioners nor they were required to anticipate or take due care in anticipation of such a remote possibility of grounding - Allegation against petitioners do not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Proceeding against them on the basis of charge sheet filed would amount to abuse of process of law - Proceedings quashed. (Krishnamurthy & Anr. Vs The State of Karnataka) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 477 (Karnataka)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 406 - Quashing of FIR - Dispute of civil nature - Paddy given for de-husking and the same not returned after de-husking - Arbitration clause in agreement that in case there is a dispute between parties the matter would be referred to Arbitrator - Dispute is of civil nature - FIR quashed. (Tarsem Lal Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 206 (P&H)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 504, 506, 323 and 307 - Quashing of charge-sheet - Informant sustained guns shot injury and blunt object injuries - Charge-sheet under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 laid before the court prior to taking cognizance of offence - Incident alleged to have taken place on 28.5.2004 at 1 P.M. - Application dismissed - Directions given that if the applicants surrender or appear before the Courts below and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered. (Suresh & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 352 (Allahabad)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34 - Cognizance taken under Section 341, 323, 392, 506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Quashing of proceedings - Accused came on a motor cycle, rebuked complainant, dealt fist blows and took away cash of Rs.20,000/- from pocket of complainant - Constant rift between parties arising out of partnership - Entire prosecution case rested on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations - Continuance of proceedings would be sheer misuse of process of Court - Very nature of material on which structure of prosecution rested sufficient to quash proceedings in interest of justice - Fit case to quash proceedings under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Krushna Chandra Sahu & Anr. Vs State of Orissa & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 127 (Orissa)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 419, 420 and 468 - Quashing of proceedings - Cognizance of offence taken by Magistrate on the basis of protest application after rejecting the final report - Magistrate took the cognizance without following the proper procedure because, in case a final report is submitted in the Court, the Magistrate is under obligation to consider, first the final report and record the finding in respect of the investigation done by the I.O. - Impugned order set aside. (Mohd.Ahmad @ Lallu Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 317 (Allahabad)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 138 & 141 - Dishonour of cheque - Offence by company - Quashing of complaint - Quashing of complaint sought on the ground that petitioner ceased to be Director of company with effect from 18.5.2003 - Cheque bounced on 25.6.2003 - Complainant seriously disputed the genuineness of resolution passed by Board of Directors - Disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in summary proceedings under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Atul Kohli & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 452 (P&H)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 138 and 141 - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Company and its Directors approached complainant for grant of loan - As per loan agreement Company issued three cheques, which were dishonoured - A2 M.D. of company and A3 to A6 its Directors - Plea to quash complaint on the ground that there was no proper averment and notice of offence was framed mechanically - If there are requisite averments in complaint under Section 138 and 141 of N.I. Act then matter has to proceed for expeditious disposal and defence is to be raised before concerned Magistrate and is not to be considered in a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - No interference called for. (G.S.Saluja Vs IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 619 (Delhi)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 482, Section 156(3), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498-A, 304-B - Order under Section 156(3) with a direction to police for investigation for an offence under Section 498-A, 304-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Petition for quashing order - Deceased married and died at the age of 24 years - Though post mortem revealed no injury on any part of body of deceased but viscera preserved for chemical analysis - At this stage not possible to say that ingredients of offence not made out - Arrest of accused during investigation to be made when it is justified and not to be made merely because offence is cognizable - Applicant No.4 did not belong to family of husband of deceased through was a relative but no specific demand of dowry against him - Arrest of applicant No.4 stayed till filing of charge sheet - Petition dismissed. (Ram Kishun & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 557 (Allahabad)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - Statutory remedy when available - In normal course the remedy provided in statute should be sought - If extraordinary remedy of High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is sought for, there should be reason as why the statutory remedy was not sought. (Ram Kishun & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 557 (Allahabad)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 107, 116(3) - Proceedings under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - No surety/security or personal bond is required to be furnished under an interim order under Section 116(3) of the Code. (Rajesh Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 031 (Bombay) (DB)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 107 & 111 - Breach of peace - Security - Order directing to furnish bond - If the Executive Magistrate is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may in the manner provided in the Code require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond (with or without sureties) for keeping peace for such period - Order passed in printed form, showing complete non-application of mind - Procedure followed by Magistrate contrary to law - Order set aside. (Vasantkumar Jivrambhai Majithia Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 391 (Bombay)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 133, 397(3) and 482 - Second revision - Power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has to be exercised sparingly and such power not to be utilized as a substitute for second revision - Ordinarily, when a revision has been barred under Section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to revision before the High Court under Section 397(1) of the Code, as it is prohibited under Section 397(3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - However, the High Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Code, when there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of Court or when mandatory provisions of law are not complied with and when High Court feels that inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional Court. (Manoj & Ors. Vs Prem Lal) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 187 (P&H)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 133, 482 - Nuisance - Removal of unlawful nuisance of workshop in a residential area - On account of running of said workshop, complainant, his children and other inhabitants of the area were exposed to health hazard, air pollution and noise pollution - Same disturbing the study of children of complainant and other neighbours - Order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing the petitioner to remove the nuisance, proper. (Manoj & Ors. Vs Prem Lal) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 187 (P&H)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 161 & 162, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 145 - Hostile witness - Cross examination of own witness - Permission can be granted only when examination-in-chief is closed and party calling witness becomes adverse party - If prosecution wants to cross-examine his own witness under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 regarding his previous statements recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as provided under Section 162 then it has to close the examination-in-chief. (Central Bureau of Investigation, Lucknow Vs Arun Kumar Kaushik & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 251 (Allahabad)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 170, 173, 156, 41 - Cognizable offence - Charge sheet - Can be submitted without arrest of accused - Court cannot return charge sheet on the ground that accused is not produced in custody. (Court on its own motion Vs Central Bureau of Investigation) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 442 (Delhi)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 205 and 251, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Exemption from personnel appearance - Petitioner, a household lady, having two school going children - Petitioner has to also look after her old mother-in-law besides two school going children - Occurrence 5 years old - Exemption from personal appearance granted. (Anita Nanda Vs State of Punjab & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 789 (P&H)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 267 & 73 - Production warrant - Accused already under remand - If another case is registered against him in another Magistrate's Court then that Magistrate is justified in issuing production warrant for the purpose of investigation in that case. (Bineesh Vs State of Kerala) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 227 (Kerala) (DB)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 311 and 391, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7 and 13 - Bribe - Additional evidence - Recording of - Accused alleged to have accepted bribe - Defence witnesses did not turn up as they were not served - Evidence closed by defence - Plea of alibi raised by accused - Plea not inquired by IO - Fit case for appellate court to issue directions for recording of additional evidence. (Ajay Gupta Vs State through CBI) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 450 (Delhi)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 311 and 482 - Summoning of Investigating Officer (IO) - Rejection of application for summoning of IO as Court witnesses - IO is a material witness in a criminal trial - Non-examination of a IO can lead to an adverse inference against prosecution - Reasoning that non-examination of IO is not fatal, erroneous - Directions given to summon IO as Court witness and to examine him before proceeding any further with the trial. (Narendra Sharma & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 783 (Rajasthan)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 360, 361, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 4, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 324 - Injury inflicted with knife in abdomen - Conviction - Benefit of Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act denied on ground that injury was in abdomen - Provision of Section 361 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is mandatory in nature - Court has to record special reasons for not dealing case of accused under Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or under provisions of Probation of Offenders Act if a case is to be dealt under said provisions - Special reasons not recorded for not extending benefit of Section 4 of Act - Conviction upheld - In view of provision of Section 361 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and there being no material in respect of his character, age, antecedents etc. benefit of Section 4 of Act extended to appellant. (Ghasi Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 693 (Rajasthan)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 361, 360, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 4 - Provision of Section 361 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is mandatory in nature - Special reasons are to be recorded when case of accused is not dealt with under Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or under Probation of Offenders Act when case of accused is such which could have been dealt with under the said provisions - Special reasons not only relate to circumstances in which offence was committed but also relate to the character, antecedents and age of the accused. (Ghasi Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 693 (Rajasthan)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 378(3) and 397, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(2) - Appeal against acquittal - Murder case - State filed application before High Court for grant of leave to file appeal - Private party filed revision against judgment of acquittal - High Court rejected the application summarily - High Court dismissed revision on ground that application of State was dismissed - Order of High Court, set aside - Direction to High Court to consider both applications together. (Suga Ram @ Chhuga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 797 (S.C.)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 386, 401, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 7/16 - Conviction - Appeal - Remand by lower appellate Court on ground that word 'insect infestation' not put in statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Held, lower Appellate Court can remand case for hearing when either whole trial is illegal or non curable defect has occurred which has caused prejudice to accused and/or prosecution - Remand on mere technicalities cannot be ordered - When accused is fully aware of nature of adulteration and offence for which he was prosecuted and accused was never prejudiced in his defence and was well aware of nature of adulteration alleged then mere technicality of not putting the word 'insect infestation' under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is of no consequence - No illegal trial or miscarriage of justice - No ground to remand - Impugned order set aside. (Shashi Kant Gupta Vs State of U.P.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 479 (Allahabad)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 91, 173(6) and 207 - Case diary - In the course of trial accused can seek production of case diary under Section 91 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - But case diary can be used by accused only for the purpose of drawing the attention of witness to the part which is to be used for contradicting him - Court has power to allow production of case diary on request of accused if production was necessary for just decision of a case. (Dhananjay Kumar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 606 (Rajasthan)

          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 91, 173(6) and 207 - Challan - Challan put up by the police - Police investigated the case and put up challan - Police withholding statements and evidence which was in favour of accused - It is for the Magistrate to decide whether to accept the reasons given by the police for withholding of the statement or not - If Magistrate does not find reasons to be proper he can direct the police to provide the accused with copy of statement - Prosecution cannot withhold the statements and evidence which was in favour of accused. (Dhananjay Kumar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 606 (Rajasthan)

          Criminal trial - Two offences - Acquittal for one offence does not automatically lead to acquittal of another offence if evidence qua two offences is severable - Court while appreciating evidence, is at liberty to acquit an accused for some offences and convict and sentence him qua other offences. (Shiv Lal Vs State of Haryana) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 547 (P&H)

          Custodial death - Under trial prisoner had a critical state of heart problem which needed immediate medical attention - Jail authorities neglected to attend to the medical problem and certified him to be physically fit - He was denied treatment when he needed immediate medical attention - State directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- - Right to life includes right to medical care. (Constitution of India, Article 21). (Smt.Sonabai S.Waghade Vs State of Maharastra & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 482 (Bombay) (DB)

          Customs Act, 1962, Section 108, Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 18 and 55 - Recovery of contraband - Case property - Recovery of heroin from a carton presented by accused for custom clearance - Recovery of contraband by Custom Officers - Case property destroyed pending trial and therefore not produced in Court - No notice given to accused - No benefit could be given to accused in view of his voluntary confessional statement. (Noor Aga Vs State of Punjab & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 653 (P&H)

          Customs Act, 1962, Section 108, Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 18 and 55 - Recovery of contraband - Case property - Recovery of heroin from a carton presented by accused for custom clearance - Recovery of contraband by Custom Officers - No Malkhana at Airport - Case property remained in custody of Assistant Commissioner for 4 days - This virtually amount to compliance of Section 55. (Noor Aga Vs State of Punjab & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 653 (P&H)

          Customs Act, 1962, Section 108 - Summons - A person can appear without summons before the Customs Officer and can give a statement - Issuance of summons before examination of a person is not mandatory. (Abdul Wahab Vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 386 (Kerala)

          Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 4, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 300, 302, 304-B, 498-A - Dowry death - Conviction under Section 498-A, 304-B r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act - When accused is convicted for more serious offence of dowry death, his conviction for less serious offence of subjecting his wife to cruelty is unwarranted. (Abdul Sab Nabi Sab Kittur & Ors. Vs State By Savanoor Police Station, Bangalore) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 201 (Karnataka)

          Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 4, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B, 498-A - Dowry death - Presumption - Husband kicked wife on stomach who was in advanced stage of pregnancy and causing thereby her death - No evidence that parents of husband abetted his criminal act - No evidence of cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death - Presumption of culpability against parents cannot be raised - Conviction of parents for dowry death set aside. (Abdul Sab Nabi Sab Kittur & Ors. Vs State By Savanoor Police Station, Bangalore) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 201 (Karnataka)

          Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 3, 4, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 300, 498-A - Dowry death - Unnatural death within two years of marriage - Burn injuries - Statement of deceased made at time of admission in hospital and recorded in accident register of hospital by duty doctor that deceased sustained burn injuries as a result of accidental stove burst in which saree she was wearing caught fire - Prosecution case that deceased was set on fire - Failure of prosecution to collect broken pieces of stove that is stated to have accidentally burnt in order to disprove statement recorded in hospital register - Trial Court acquitted accused on basis of statement recorded in hospital register - No interference warranted. (State by Kadugondanahalli Police Station Vs B.Ramesh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 146 (Karnataka) (DB)

          Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 3, 4 & 6, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498-A, 304-B - Dowry death - Death within 7 years of marriage - Demand and harassment and cruelty towards deceased - Conviction of husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law - Letters written by deceased revealed torture and harassment undergone by deceased - Genuineness of letters not challenged - Letters corroborate oral evidence - Guilt of husband and father-in-law for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3,4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act upheld - Conviction of mother-in-laws under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 only also upheld - Punishment to father-in-law and mother-in-law reduced in view of their age. (B.N.Vijayakumar & Anr. Vs State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Dowry Cell, C.O.D., Bangalore) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 080 (Karnataka) (DB)

          Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 3 & 4 - No evidence as to demand of dowry - Conviction for offence under Section 3 & 4 of the Act set aside. (Abdul Sab Nabi Sab Kittur & Ors. Vs State By Savanoor Police Station, Bangalore) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 201 (Karnataka)

          Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, Form No Sections 20-A, 20-B, 21-A, 21-B, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 27 - Debarring from participating in future tender - Petitioners firm black listed - Reasons stated that petitioner not disclosed death of competent person and that drugs supplied by petitioner were sub standard - Held, non reporting of death of qualified person whose name appeared in Form 21-C does not amount to any offence - As regards supply of sub standard drugs, no prosecution lodged against petitioner's firm - Report of analyst not supplied to petitioner - Impugned order cannot be sustained. (Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs Director, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Orissa, Cuttack) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 537 (Orissa) (DB)

          Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 27, Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, Form NoSections 20-A, 20-B, 21-A, 21-B - Debarring from participating in future tender - Petitioners firm black listed - Reasons stated that petitioner not disclosed death of competent person and that drugs supplied by petitioner were sub standard - Held, non reporting of death of qualified person whose name appeared in Form 21-C does not amount to any offence - As regards supply of sub standard drugs, no prosecution lodged against petitioner's firm - Report of analyst not supplied to petitioner - Impugned order cannot be sustained. (Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs Director, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Orissa, Cuttack) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 537 (Orissa) (DB)

          Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 7, Haryana Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1976, Clause 11 - Recovery of 4 drums of kerosene oil - Each drum contained 200 litres of oil - It was not shown that accused actually sold the kerosene oil in black market - Mere possession would not make an offence. (State of Haryana Vs Leelu Ram & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 768 (P&H)

          Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 7, Haryana Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1976, Clause 11 - Recovery of 4 drums of kerosene oil - Each drum contained 200 litres of oil - Public witness - Recovery effected from a busy locality - No efforts made to join public witness - Police should make an attempt to join public witness - Recovery also not proved - Accused acquitted. (State of Haryana Vs Leelu Ram & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 768 (P&H)

          Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 8(1)(a), Evidence Act, 1872, Section 24 - Confession - Offence under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Confession before concerned officer - No evidence that confession was extracted under threat as referred to under S. 24 of Evidence Act - Confession not invalid. (Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 776 (P&H)

          Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 8(1)(a), Evidence Act, 1872, Section 24 - Offences under Section 2 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 submitted to Court after expiry of one year of FIR - Report not illegal - Trial Court did not commit any error in taking cognizance of report filed under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 beyond a period of one year. (Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 776 (P&H)

 Evidence Act, 1872, Section 105, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 96 to 106 - Private defence - Onus to prove is on accused - Plea can be established either by defence evidence or from the prosecution evidence - It cannot be based on speculation or mere surmises - Plea need not to be taken explicitly - There must be circumstances which caused reasonable apprehension in the mind that he would suffer death or grievous hurt if he does not exercise his right of private defence - Burden to prove private defence is not as onerous as that which lies on the prosecution - While prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused can discharge his onus by establishing a preponderance of probability. (Krishnan Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 264 (S.C.)

 Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B - Three main ingredients of offence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 are : (a) that, there is a demand of dowry and harassment by the accused on that count; (b) that, the deceased died; and (c) that, the death is under unnatural circumstances within seven years of the marriage - When these factors are proved by reliable and cogent evidence, then the presumption of dowry death under section 113-B of the Evidence Act clearly arises. (Ram Badan Sharma Vs State of Bihar) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 097 (S.C.)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 300, 302, 304-B, 498-A, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 4 - Dowry death - Conviction under Section 498-A, 304-B r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act - When accused is convicted for more serious offence of dowry death, his conviction for less serious offence of subjecting his wife to cruelty is unwarranted. (Abdul Sab Nabi Sab Kittur & Ors. Vs State By Savanoor Police Station, Bangalore) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 201 (Karnataka)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B, 498-A, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 4 - Dowry death - Presumption - Husband kicked wife on stomach who was in advanced stage of pregnancy and causing thereby her death - No evidence that parents of husband abetted his criminal act - No evidence of cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death - Presumption of culpability against parents cannot be raised - Conviction of parents for dowry death set aside. (Abdul Sab Nabi Sab Kittur & Ors. Vs State By Savanoor Police Station, Bangalore) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 201 (Karnataka)

 Evidence Act, 1872, Section 134, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 173 - Number of witnesses - Ordinarily prosecution should examine all witnesses whose names have been disclosed in the charge-sheet - Such a rule is however, not of universal application - Each case has to be considered on its own facts. (Ramjee Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 758 (S.C.)

 Evidence Act, 1872, Section 134, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 and 149 - Murder - Common intention - Independent witness - Accused, 14 in number duly armed came to the house of deceased in a group and started assaulting him - Accused were carrying pistols, gandasas, lathies and spears - Offence committed in a village owing to land dispute - When an offence is committed in a village owning to land dispute, independent witnesses may not come forward - Some of the witnesses examined, independent and consistent in their evidence. (Ramjee Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 758 (S.C.)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 161 & 162 - Hostile witness - Cross examination of own witness - Permission can be granted only when examination-in-chief is closed and party calling witness becomes adverse party - If prosecution wants to cross-examine his own witness under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 regarding his previous statements recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as provided under Section 162 then it has to close the examination-in-chief. (Central Bureau of Investigation, Lucknow Vs Arun Kumar Kaushik & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 251 (Allahabad)

 Evidence Act, 1872, Section 154 - Hostile witness - Evidence of a hostile witness not to be treated as effaced from record - In can be relied upon in part. (Santosh Kumar Vs State of M.P.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 153 (S.C.)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 24, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 164, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376 and 300 - Rape and Murder - Extra judicial confession - Accused implicating three more persons - Extra judicial confession not corroborated by any other evidence - Non compliance with requirements of Section 164(4) - Confession inadmissible - Conviction of accused on the basis of confessional statement, improper. (Murugan Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 042 (Madras) (DB)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 24, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 8(1)(a) - Confession - Offence under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Confession before concerned officer - No evidence that confession was extracted under threat as referred to under S. 24 of Evidence Act - Confession not invalid. (Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 776 (P&H)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 24, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 8(1)(a) - Offences under Section 2 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 submitted to Court after expiry of one year of FIR - Report not illegal - Trial Court did not commit any error in taking cognizance of report filed under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 beyond a period of one year. (Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 776 (P&H)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 - Murder - Recovery of weapons - Handles of rope used to strangulate deceased found at instance of accused - Contention that since seized articles were not produced during course of trial, it could not be construed as recovery under Section 27 - Held, that discovery of fact referred to under Section 27 of Evidence Act is not the object recovered but the fact emphasized the place from where the object is recovered and the knowledge of accused to it. (Rumi Bora Dutta & Anr. Vs State of Assam) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 436 (Gauhati) (DB)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376 - Rape - Medical evidence - Prosecutrix stated that she was forcibly dragged and raped - No evidence to suggest marks of assault or that she cried for help - No injuries on her private parts - Opinion of doctor that no sexual intercourse committed - Conviction set aside. (Bhagwan Charan Mate Vs State of Maharashtra) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 595 (Bombay)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 300, 498-A, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 3, 4 - Dowry death - Unnatural death within two years of marriage - Burn injuries - Statement of deceased made at time of admission in hospital and recorded in accident register of hospital by duty doctor that deceased sustained burn injuries as a result of accidental stove burst in which saree she was wearing caught fire - Prosecution case that deceased was set on fire - Failure of prosecution to collect broken pieces of stove that is stated to have accidentally burnt in order to disprove statement recorded in hospital register - Trial Court acquitted accused on basis of statement recorded in hospital register - No interference warranted. (State by Kadugondanahalli Police Station Vs B.Ramesh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 146 (Karnataka) (DB)

 Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154 - Dying declaration - FIR - Statement of an injured recorded in the event of death - Can also be treated as a First Information Report. (Balbir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 582 (S.C.)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Bride burning - Dying declaration - Three dying declarations containing contrary contents - Dying declaration recorded by SDM - It did not bear medical certificate of fitness of deceased, but record of medical treatment showed that deceased was in a position to make a statement before the SDM - Dying declaration made before I.O. and parents-in-law not believed - SDM being independent Public Officer had no enmity with accused - Dying declaration recorded by SDM, believed. (Smt.Gyano Devi Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 064 (Delhi) (DB)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Dying declaration - Recorded by SDM - Dying declaration is preferably to be in question and answer form - However, non adherence to the same is not fatal and by itself does not provide ground for disregarding it. (Smt.Gyano Devi Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 064 (Delhi) (DB)

 Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Dying declaration - Conviction without further corroboration - Court has to be on guard that the statement of deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination - Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant - If Court finds dying declaration true and voluntary then conviction can be based on it without any further corroboration - Rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. (Sham Shankar Kankaria Vs State of Maharashtra) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 075 (S.C.)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Dying declaration - Mother-in-law aged 82 years who walked with a stick alleged to have poured kerosene oil on deceased aged 22 years on which she started running and thereafter accused set her on fire - Held, it is not possible for accused to set deceased on fire when she started running - Dying declaration does not inspire confidence. (State of Punjab Vs Harbans Kaur ) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 107 (P&H) (DB)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Dying declaration - Principles laid down by Supreme Court : (i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration; (ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration; (iii) Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination - The deceased had opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration; (iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence; (v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected; (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction; (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected; (viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth; (ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion - But where the eye witness has said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make this dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail; (x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. (State of Punjab Vs Harbans Kaur ) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 107 (P&H) (DB)

 Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Dying declaration - Recorded by a senior clerk appointed by Tehsildar to act as an Executive Magistrate for that purpose - Such a dying declaration does not gets same sanctity as a dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate - There is no law which mandates that a dying declaration should be recorded only by a Magistrate. (Rajendra & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 195 (S.C.)

 Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Dying declaration - There is no law which mandates that a dying declaration should be recorded only by a Magistrate. (Rajendra & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 195 (S.C.)

 Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Dying declaration - To record dying declaration there is no prescribed manner or that it should in the form of questions and answers - Merely because a dying declaration is not recorded by a Magistrate, the same by itself, is not a ground to disbelieve the entire prosecution case - Effect of statement not recorded before Magistrate depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case - In case there are wholly inconsistent or contradictory statements made or if it appears from the record that dying declaration is not reliable then a question may arise as to why the Magistrate was not called for, but ordinarily the same may not be insisted upon. (Balbir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 582 (S.C.)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Two dying declarations - It is the earliest version that has to be given due importance, unless there is evidence to show that the earliest version was not found to be a trustworthy one. (State by Mahila Police, Mysore Vs Gnanendra & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 289 (Karnataka) (DB)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Murder - Dying declaration - Death of deceased by burn injuries - Accused alleged to have poured kerosene oil on her daughter-in-law and set her ablaze - Behaviour of accused with deceased was not good - While the victim was sleeping appellant set her ablaze - Conviction by trial court - Deceased in dying declaration narrated that appellant herself told deceased that she had set her on fire - Dying declaration corroborated by statement of PW1 - Dying declaration made in a fit state of mind, hence, natural - Conviction of appellant, upheld. (Smt.Bhanumati Vs The State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 702 (Uttaranchal) (DB)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 326 - Grievous hurt - Dying declaration - Veracity of - At the relevant time, deceased was lying on his cot on platform of his house and was talking to prosecution witnesses - Accused arrived there and inflicted two knife blows on the abdomen - Deceased himself gave contradictory statement regarding number of assailants and number of blows - He ruled out the presence of P.W.1 - No consistency in the evidence of eye witnesses - Dying declaration of deceased having material contradictions - Deceased was an educated man - No explanation as to why his thumb impressions were fixed on dying declaration - Conviction cannot be based on such dying declaration - Accused entitled to be acquitted. (Kamlesh Singh Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 133 (Allahabad)

          Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 3 & 32, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498-A, 300 - Death by burn injuries - Married woman - Victim succumbed to burn injuries - Two dying declarations contradicting each other - Earlier one recorded by police immediately after deceased was brought to hospital and in presence of doctor on duty to the effect that burn injuries on her body were accidental - Another oral dying declaration alleged to have been made by deceased to her father when he came to see her at hospital and recorded by police from father twenty days after her death, to the effect that accused persons, viz. her husband and in-laws poured kerosene on her and set her on fire - In case of two dying declarations the earlier version should be accepted unless the same is shown to be not trustworthy - Acquittal on basis of dying declaration recorded earlier, held, proper. (State by Mahila Police, Mysore Vs Gnanendra & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 289 (Karnataka) (DB)

          Eye witness - Name of accused not mentioned in FIR by eye witness - Eye witness during trial claimed to have known and seen accused - Held, evidence of such witness not trustworthy. (Raj Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 667 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Haryana Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1976, Clause 11, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 7 - Recovery of 4 drums of kerosene oil - Each drum contained 200 litres of oil - It was not shown that accused actually sold the kerosene oil in black market - Mere possession would not make an offence. (State of Haryana Vs Leelu Ram & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 768 (P&H)

          Haryana Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1976, Clause 11, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 7 - Recovery of 4 drums of kerosene oil - Each drum contained 200 litres of oil - Public witness - Recovery effected from a busy locality - No efforts made to join public witness - Police should make an attempt to join public witness - Recovery also not proved - Accused acquitted. (State of Haryana Vs Leelu Ram & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 768 (P&H)

          Independent witness - Recovery - Joining of independent witnesses - Recovery when effected from a busy area then police should made some efforts to join independent witnesses - When no effort is even shown to have been made to join witnesses from the public, then a doubt is cast as to the veracity of the prosecution case. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 100). (State of Haryana Vs Leelu Ram & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 768 (P&H)

NEXT