Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 105 - Private defence of property - Commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences and it continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass - Burden to prove is on accused and the same can be discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities. (Ram Lal & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 428 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439 - 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 Cr.P.C. have got to be read into Section 439(1) Cr.P.C. - 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1) - 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)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(2), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 378(3) and 397 - 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.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Murder - Accused assaulted the deceased with a knife which was concealed by him - Accused had inflicted injuries on left side of head, eye brow and right ear of deceased - Injury proved fatal - Accused held guilty of murder. (Settu Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 370 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Murder - Culpable homicide and murder - Distinction - In the scheme of the IPC culpable homicide is genus and murder its specie - All murder is culpable homicide but not vice-versa - Culpable homicide sans special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Settu Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 370 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Murder - Dead body of deceased found in the field - Informant (PW5) not eye-witness of the occurrence - Star witness (PW3) of prosecution kept in custody in connection with murder of deceased - Answer given by PW3 evasive - Prosecution failed to explain as to under what circumstances PW3 after his arrest in the capacity of offender was made the eye witness of the occurrence - Shawl and lungi found near the dead body belonged to the appellant, could not be established - It is inexplicable as to why the assailants would leave their belongings near the dead body - Prosecution failed to establish charge under Section 302 IPC against appellants - Conviction set aside. (Zakir Hussain Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 529 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Murder - Eye-witnesses - Prosecution case replete with contradictions and lacunae - Testimony of PW5, an eye witness full of contradictions - His testimony cannot be accepted - Recovery of lathi from the open place does not help the prosecution - Even the IO who was a material witness, not examined - Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond doubt - Conviction set aside. (Kanhaiya Lal & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 774 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Murder - Motive - Death by burning - Prosecution version that unwanted persons visited mother in law for sexual activities and deceased stopped accused from such activities and that accused poured kerosene oil and set her on fire - Accused 82 years of age and walked with stick - Motive for crime demolished - Infact it was a case of suicide. (State of Punjab Vs Harbans Kaur ) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 107 (P&H) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Murder - No eye witness to the incident - Magistrate who conducted identification parade not examined - Memo of identification parade inadmissible in evidence - Recovery of knife, letters and shirt after 20 days of occurrence from a open place - Chain of circumstances incomplete - Conviction set aside. (Irshad @ Risal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 625 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Murder of wife - Evidence of daughter - Corroboration - Appellant quarrelled with his wife and cut her throat - Evidence of daughter corroborated by evidence of son that appellant caught hold of victim and cut her neck - Injury caused by sharp edged weapon on neck sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature - Conviction, upheld. (Chandra Mohan @ Chanda Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 700 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Murder of wife - Husband of deceased consumed liquor and then demanded money from her for liquor - She refused to give money - Accused poured kerosene on her body and lit fire by match stick - Her clothes caught fire - Dying declaration recorded by Magistrate - No reason to falsely implicate her husband - Conviction upheld. (Sabir Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 475 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Murder of wife - To make it a case of rape and murder accused after throwing dead body in jungle, disfigured face and slit neck with knife and took away clothes - False explanation of deceased given by accused - Accused not discharging burden to prove facts within his special knowledge - Conclusion that accused killed his wife is inevitable - Motive is not relevant when chain of circumstances is complete - Conviction upheld. (Bhag Chand Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 598 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Murder or suicide - Kerosene oil poured and deceased set on fire - Burn injuries on back and right front portion - It is suicide and not murder - If deceased had poured kerosene then not only the right shoulder but the left shoulder, left side abdomen, neck and head would have also got burnt - Accused would not have poured oil on right shoulder only but would have emptied the jug of kerosene on head and shoulders of deceased and thereafter kerosene oil would have spread all over her body and thereafter burn injuries would have been not only on the right side of chest, right abdomen and back, but all over the body. (State of Punjab Vs Harbans Kaur ) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 107 (P&H) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Sudden fight - Injuries inflicted on vital parts of body - Injuries inflicted with an intention to cause death - Injuries inflicted sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death - Clause thirdly to Section 300 IPC is clearly attracted - Accused is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s 302 IPC - Conviction u/s 302 IPC maintained. (Ashok Vs State of Maharashtra) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 419 (Bombay) (DB)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304 Part I - Correct provision of law for conviction - Six accused wanted to extract a confession from the deceased of his having committed theft of a cycle - Deceased tied to cot and assaulted with weapons like iron pipe, wooden stick - Vital blow given by accused No.1 who was stated to be armed with iron pipe - No material to show that other accused shared common intention of causing any injury to deceased to cause his death - Appellant No.1 convicted u/s 304 Part I IPC and other accused convicted u/s 342 r/w Section 34 and Section 325 r/w Section 34 IPC. (Sham Shankar Kankaria Vs State of Maharashtra) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 075 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304 Part II - Death by burn injuries - Husband in order to frighten wife and not to kill her poured kerosene oil and set her ablaze - Situation when went out of control then husband tried to save wife and in that event he suffered two injuries - Accused is liable to be punished u/s 304 Part II and not u/s 302 IPC. (Pratap Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 425 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - 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 IPC - 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)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B - Three main ingredients of offence u/s 304-B IPC 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.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B - "Soon before" - Expression is pregnant with idea of proximity test - It cannot be said that the term "soon before" is synonymous with the term "immediately before" - Normally "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question - There must be existence of a proximate and live link. (Kailash Vs State of M.P.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 552 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B - Dowry death - Death by poisoning - Deceased neither taken to a doctor nor any doctor called to examine her - Any kind of medical treatment also not given to deceased - It is a extremely unnatural human conduct - Dead body secretly and clandestinely cremated causing disappearance of evidence of offence without even intimating the parents of deceased who were living only a few miles away - Overwhelming evidence that there was persistent demand of dowry and because of non-fulfilment of said demand there was harassment and continuous beating of deceased - Conviction calls for no interference. (Ram Badan Sharma Vs State of Bihar) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 097 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B - Dowry death - Expression "normal circumstances" apparently means natural death - In other words the expression "otherwise than under normal circumstances" means death not being in the usual course but apparently under suspicious circumstances if not caused by burns or bodily injury. (Kailash Vs State of M.P.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 552 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B - Dowry death - Poisoning - No material on record to show that deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry - Nagging by husband for not holding B.Ed. degree cannot be believed as father of deceased himself arranged for her admission in B.Ed. college - Demand of Rs. 60,000/- by father-in-law for sending his another son abroad also not proved - Plea of defence that victim was pressurized by her parents to get her pregnancy terminated and therefore she committed suicide appears to be true - Case of forcible administration of poison not made out since deceased consumed aluminium phosphide tablets - Conviction, not proper. (Jaswant Singh & Ors. Vs State of H.P. ) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 674 (H.P.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B - Dowry death - Prosecution is to prove that - (a) the death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage; (c) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband; (d) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (e) to such cruelty or harassment the deceased should have been subjected soon before her death. (Kailash Vs State of M.P.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 552 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 305 - Abetment to suicide - Accused raped victim - While on bail accused made constant threats to victim and made her life miserable - Victim committed suicide - Evidence on record that due to repeated threats victim living in fear - Charge for abetment to suicide framed - No interference. (Chandan Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 780 (Chhattisgarh)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - Charge - For framing charge u/s 306 IPC there must exist a prima facie case - Test of finding out a prima facie case, against the accused is that if the entire material produced before the Court by the prosecution is taken at its face value, it would prima-facie substantiate the guilt of the accused persons for the offence alleged. (Rikhee Ram Mahilang Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 604 (Chhattisgarh)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - In order to establish an offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. against the accused persons, the prosecution has to show that the suicide was so direct, co-related, immediate and proximate cause of the instigation offered by the accused persons. (Rikhee Ram Mahilang Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 604 (Chhattisgarh)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - Suicide by hanging inside house - Charge framed u/s 306 IPC - Evidence of prosecution witnesses showed that applicants were searching for deceased for making good loss occasioned to their tractor - No evidence on record to show that they instigated abetment of suicide - Impugned order framing charge against appellants could not be sustained. (Rikhee Ram Mahilang Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 604 (Chhattisgarh)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439 - 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)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 307 - Attempt to murder - Appellant fired a short at the neck of PW2 from country made pistol on exhortation of other three accused - PW1 claimed to be eye witness - Trial Court acquitted all but High Court convicted appellant - Trial Court acquitted accused on ground that presence of PW1 was doubtful, who was chance witness who was resident of village 35 km. away and no independent witness was examined - No gun seized and no cartridge found at place of occurrence - FIR ante timed as it could not have been sent to circle officer after four days and to Court after eight days - No explanation why statement of PW2 was taken after a long time although doctor had not found him unconscious - Judgment of acquittal could not have been interfered with by High Court. (Jagdish Murav Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 157 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 307 - Attempt to murder - Intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof is sufficient to base conviction u/s 307 IPC - It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted - Nature of injury actually caused gives considerable assistance to know the intention of accused but intention can also be deduced from other circumstances and in some cases can be ascertained even without any reference to all to actual wounds - The provision makes a distinction between act of accused and its result - Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge - An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act - It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. (Bipin Bihari Vs State of M.P.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 384 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 324, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 360, 361, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 4 - 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 Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature - Court has to record special reasons for not dealing case of accused u/s 360 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 325, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 4(1) - Probation - Benefit of - Conviction of accused under Section 325 IPC - Occurrence took place 14 years back - No dispute between parties thereafter - Parties living peacefully - Not proper at this stage to send the appellant to jail - Benefit of probation given. (Balbir Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 715 (P&H)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 325 - Cut of ear by teeth biting - Teeth of a human being not a deadly weapon - Offence is u/s 325 and not u/s 326 IPC. (Kailash Singh Vs State & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 376 (Rajasthan)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 326, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 235 - Reduction of sentence - Offence committed under Section 326 IPC - 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.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 326, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1) - 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)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34 - Common intention - If two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them had done it individually - Provision is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself - For applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of accused - Liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises u/s 34 of the Act if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime - Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and the same can be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts - To prove the guilt u/s 34 prosecution has to prove by direct or circumstantial evidence that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. (Surinder Singh @ Chhinda & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 354 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34 - Common intention - To invoke Section 34 IPC prosecution must establish common intention and prove that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to a pre-arranged plan. (Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 514 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 - 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376 - Rape - Girl aged 16 years - Occurrence took place while girl was grazing cattle - Accused seen running away from the spot - Vaginal penetration and injuries on body of victim established by medical report - Appellant committed sexual intercourse against her will - Offence proved beyond doubt - Conviction, upheld. (Raman Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 573 (Rajasthan)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376 - Rape - Injuries - Absence of - Absence of injuries on private parts of a victim specially a married lady cannot, ipso facto, lead to an inference that no rape has been committed. (Santosh Kumar Vs State of M.P.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 153 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376 - Rape - Minor girl - Possibility of sexual intercourse with consent not ruled out - FIR lodged after 7 days and no explanation for delay - Age as per ossification test 15 years - Margin of error 2 years on either side - In School Admission Register date of birth of prosecutrix mentioned as 6.8.1988 but no evidence on what basis it had been recorded - Age 17 years on date of incident could not be ruled out - Conviction set aside. (Kanhaiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 124 (Chhattisgarh)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376 - Rape - Victim had gone to mow the grass in the field - Accused came from behind and committed rape on her - Age of the victim below 16 years - Human blood and semen found present on Salwar of Victim, which in conjunction with oral evidence conclusively established rape being committed - Opinion of doctor and pathologist report fully supported evidence of victim - Analysis of evidence and reasons of the acquittal recorded by the trial court are wholly perverse and against the evidence on record and consequently the judgment and order of acquittal, cannot be sustained. (State of U.P. Vs Amar Singh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 337 (Allahabad) (DB)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376 - Rape with consent on promise to marry - Process continued for some time - Prosecutrix became pregnant - Accused did not fulfil his promise to marry and absconded from village - Promise to marry was a false promise - Had this promise not been given prosecutrix would not have permitted accused to have sexual intercourse - Consent obtained not a valid consent - Consent given under misconception of fact that accused would marry her is not a consent in law - No interference in order of conviction and sentence. (Yedla Srinivasa Rao Vs State of A.P.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 733 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376(2)(g) - Gang rape - Common intention - Accused five in number - Actual act of rape committed by two accused persons - Appellant reached the place after offence was committed - No evidence that he shared common intention with others - Cannot be held guilty of gang rape - Conviction of appellant, set aside. (Pardeep Kumar Vs Union Administration, Chandigarh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 722 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376(2)(g) - Gang rape - Common intention - Can be proved either by direct evidence or by inference drawn from the acts or attending circumstances of the case and conduct of the parties - Direct proof of common intention is seldom available - Such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. (Pardeep Kumar Vs Union Administration, Chandigarh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 722 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376(2)(g) - Gang rape - Common intention - Can be proved either by direct evidence or by inference from the acts or attending circumstances and conduct of parties - Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. (Pradeep Kumar Vs Union Administration, Chandigarh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 171 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376(2)(g) - Gang rape - Common intention - Rape by one - On proof of common intention of the group to commit rape, actual act of rape by even one individual forming group, would fasten the guilt on other members of the group, although he or they have not committed rape on the victim or victims. (Pradeep Kumar Vs Union Administration, Chandigarh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 171 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376(2)(g) - Gang rape - Common intention - Rape by two - Appellant reached place after offence was committed - Appellant did not commit rape - No evidence that he shared common intention with others - Cannot be held guilt of gang rape - Conviction of appellant set aside. (Pradeep Kumar Vs Union Administration, Chandigarh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 171 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376(2)(g) - Gang rape - Common intention of more than one to commit rape - Rape by one - Fastens guilt on other members of group also though they may not have committed rape on the victim. (Pardeep Kumar Vs Union Administration, Chandigarh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 722 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376(2)(g) - Gang rape - It is necessary for the prosecution to prove : (i) that more than one person had acted in concert with the common intention to commit rape on the victim; (ii) that more that one accused had acted in concert in commission of crime of rape with pre-arranged plan, prior meeting of mind and with element of participation in action - Common intention would be action in consort in pre-arranged plan or a plan formed suddenly at the time of commission of offence which is reflected by element of participation in action or by the proof of the fact of inaction when the action would be necessary. The prosecution would be required to prove pre-meeting of mind of accused persons prior to commission of offence of rape by substantial evidence or by circumstantial evidence; and (iii) that in furtherance of such common intention one or more persons of the group actually committed offence of rape on victim or victims - Prosecution is not required to prove actual commission of rape by each and every accused forming group. (Pradeep Kumar Vs Union Administration, Chandigarh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 171 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 392 - Hire purchase agreement - Breach of terms - Forcible possession - If agreement permits the financier to take possession of the financed vehicle, then there is no legal impediment on such possession being taken - No offence made out. (Kanwal Aggarwal Vs State of Haryana & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 241 (P&H)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 395 - Dacoity - Reduction in sentence - Occurrence 11 years old - Value of articles of dacoity, negligible - Conviction of accused under Section 395 IPC - Accused on bail for 5 years - Sentence reduced to already undergone i.e. 14 months. (Ram Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 518 (P&H)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 406, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 406 - Criminal breach of trust - Retention of stridhana - Husband cannot claim exclusive right over the stridhana property entrusted to him at the time of marriage - Wife is the absolute owner of the stridhana property and husband cannot even become the joint owner of the said property - Retention of stridhana property entrusted to husband - Refusal to return such property when demanded amounts to criminal breach of trust. (Selvakumar Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 314 (Madras)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 406 - Criminal breach of trust - Stridhana property - Stranger - Prosecution cannot claim that there was entrustment of stridhana property to a stranger of the family. (Selvakumar Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 314 (Madras)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 499 - Defamation - Company - Where Company commits an offence of defamation then all the Directors or the Board of Directions are equally liable for the commission of offence. (Mammootti Vs Rajaji Mathew Thomas) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 115 (Kerala)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 499 - Defamation - Company can be prosecuted for an offence of defamation. (Mammootti Vs Rajaji Mathew Thomas) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 115 (Kerala)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 499 - Defamation - Intention to harm reputation and to give publicity to imputation are essential ingredients of the offence of defamation. (Mammootti Vs Rajaji Mathew Thomas) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 115 (Kerala)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467 and 498-A - Territorial jurisdiction - Alleged acts of cruelty, criminal breach of trust committed at Delhi - None of the acts alleged to have been committed at Ajmer - Court at Ajmer has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. (Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 364 (Rajasthan)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 342 and 365 - Attempt to murder - Grievous injuries - Abduction on gun point - All injuries on non vital parts of body - Though accused possessed fire arms but no fire arms used - Ingredients of Section 307 IPC missing - Charge u/s 307 IPC set aside - However, charge under other sections, sustained. (Machhendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 453 (Rajasthan)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 504, 506, 323 and 307, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - Quashing of charge-sheet - Informant sustained guns shot injury and blunt object injuries - Charge-sheet under Section 307 IPC 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326, 447 - Accused in possession of land - Accused H exceeding right of private defence - Conviction of H sustained u/s 304 Part I - Charges against others not established since all of them inflicted injuries on members of complainant party in exercise of their right of private defence and all of them acquitted. (Ram Lal & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 428 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 149, 302, 304 Part I, 323 and 325 - Murder - Blow with 'aruval' - Origin and genesis of occurrence withheld by prosecution - Doubt as to institution of FIR - Informant did not say that he had ever gone to police station - Accused arrested from hospital - Prosecution could not explain as to why accused had gone to hospital - Evidence established participation of only R and K - Blow with 'aruval' given on head of deceased but that injury alone could not though was likely to cause death - R and K liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC - Rest of accused acquitted. (Ramphal & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 197 (Rajasthan) (DB)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 299 Clause (b) and 300 - Murder - Culpable homicide and murder - Difference between Sections 299(b) and 300 - The difference between Clause (b) of Section 299 and Clause (3) of Section 300 is degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury - Prosecution must prove the following acts before it can bring a case under Section 300, "thirdly" - It must establish that a bodily injury is present; secondly the nature of injury - It must be proved that there was a intention to inflict that particular injury - Lastly it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up the thee elements set out above was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (Settu Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 370 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 299 Clause (b) and 300 - Murder - Culpable homicide and murder - Under clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is murder, if both the following conditions are satisfied : i.e. (a) that the act which causes death is done with the intention of causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury; (b) that the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death - Even if the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder; Clause 4 of Section 300 would be applicable where knowledge of the offender as to the probability of death of a person or persons in general as distinguished from a particular person or persons - being caused from his imminently dangerous act approximates to a practical certainty - Such knowledge on the part of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability, the act having been committed by the offender without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. (Settu Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 370 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 300, 105 - Right of private defence - Excess of - If excess is intentional then offence is murder and if unintentional then it is culpable homicide - Exception 2 of Section 300 applies when (1) accused caused the death of a person without premeditation, and (2) while causing death he had no intention of doing more harm than was necessary - Right of private defence in no case extends to inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence - A man exceeds the right of private defence, if he causes death of a person who commits criminal trespass over his land. (Ram Lal & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 428 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 300, 302, 304-B, 498-A, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 4, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B - Dowry death - Conviction u/ss 498-A, 304-B r/w Section 34 IPC 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 300, 498-A, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 3, 4, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 - 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 201 - Murder - Brother of deceased informed by accused that deceased is missing - Brother lodged police report - Accused arrested - Pursuant to his disclosure, skelton taken out by digging the spot - Spot known to accused only - Medical report that bones are of a human being and that there was fracture of left side of 10th rib - Metal ring found and same identified by mother of deceased which was similar to one which she was wearing as both rings were purchased on an occasion - Recovery of skelton at instance of accused which he only knew that deceased had been burried - Motive also proved as accused had taken insurance policy wherein he nominated another lady as his wife with whom he had illicit relations - Conviction calls for no interference. (Dharmendra Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 792 (Rajasthan) (DB)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 304 Part I, Part II - Nature of offence - Death on account of single blow - By itself not sufficient to hold that offence is one u/s 304 and not u/s 302 - Whole thing depends upon the intention to cause death - Intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances : (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any pre-meditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. (Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 136 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 304 Part I - Solitary knife blow inflicted in a fit of anger after hot exchanges - Act sudden and unpremeditated - No undue advantage taken of situation - Conviction altered from Section 302 to one u/s 304 Part I IPC. (Hanuman Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 714 (Rajasthan) (DB)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A, 34 - Alternative charge - Charge framed u/s 302 r/w Section 34 or in the alternative under Section 304-B r/w Section 34 - Illegality in framing of charge - No such point taken before trial Court or High Court and no prejudice shown in statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. - Appellants not allowed to raise this point at this stage. (Balbir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 582 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 323, 96 to 106 - Deceased and his son attacked appellant with sticks and to protect his head raised the hands and got injuries on elbow - Appellant apprehending grievous hurt, picked up thorny stick lying on spot and hit the deceased to protect himself and not with intention of killing him - Deceased died two days later - Preponderance of probabilities show that act of appellant was in all probability, in exercise of his right of private defence - Accused acquitted. (Krishnan Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 264 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - Murder - Four accused caused death by beating with farsas and lathi - Conviction on the basis of evidence of PWs 9 & 11 and oral dying declaration - Both witnesses had prior enmity with appellant - Different story stated by PW 11 before Court and in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. - Presence of witnesses on spot doubtful - Deceased carried on shoulder by PW 11 but his shoes and blood stained clothes not seized which is fatal to prosecution - PW9 cooked up witness for oral dying declaration and PW 11 cooked up witness for oral dying declaration and eye witness - No explanation as to why deceased did not made oral dying declaration to his son who was present - Independent witnesses not supporting prosecution case - Not safe to convict appellant on evidence of witnesses having inimical relations with appellants - Conviction set aside. (Toran Singh & Ors. Vs State of M.P. through P.S.Tyonda) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 276 (M.P.) (DB)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 and 149, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 134 - 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.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 and 149 - Murder - Common intention - 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 - Autopsy surgeon opined that death took place 10 days before post mortem - Doctor may not pin point the exact time of death. (Ramjee Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 758 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 and 149 - Murder - Common intention - 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 - In the circumstances highly impossible for the informant to pin point the exact overt acts committed by each accused individually - Section 34 IPC attracted. (Ramjee Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 758 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 376 and 201 - Rape and murder - Death sentence - Rape on girl aged 7 years - Victim was murdered after subjecting her to sexual assault - Dead body found in the room of accused - Door of room opened when foul smell started coming out of the room - Complete chain formed - On date of offence accused was 35 years of age - It is not one of the rarest of rare cases - Death sentence converted into life imprisonment - Accused sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment with no remission. (State of Rajasthan Vs Rajendra Singh @ Hem Singh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 636 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 84 - Murder of husband - Plea of insanity - Rejected - Appeal against conviction - To extend benefit of Section 84 IPC, Court must be satisfied that at time of commission of offence, appellant was suffering from mental illness or was in such a state of insanity that she was not capable of understanding consequences of wrongful act - No attempt made by appellant to flee away or to remove incriminating weapons from scene of occurrence - Evidence to show that relations between appellant and his husband were cordial and there was no motive for crime - Prosecution failed to discharge its initial onus about presence of mens rea - Appellant was insane and incapable of appreciating consequence of her act, at time of commission of offence - Appellant held entitled to benefit of Section 84 IPC - Conviction set aside. (Kamala Bhuniya Vs State of West Bengal) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 566 (Calcutta) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 & 109 - Murder - Motive - Quarrel between deceased and accused - Accused took out a button knife from his pocket and stabbed the deceased on the let side of his chest, as a result of which the deceased fell on the ground - Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence - Brother of deceased took him to the hospital where he died - Contraction between testimony of eye-witnesses and testimony of brother of deceased and examining doctor - Brother of deceased stated that he was never informed as to details of assailants - I.O. not able to collect any material with regard to motive aspect - Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. (Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 163 (Madras) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 & 304-I - Murder - Grave and sudden provocation - Deceased chided accused of his low caste - Tempers flared up and at the spur of moment accused pulled out a knife and struck deceased and ran away - It is only because of a grave and sudden provocation, given by deceased that appellant reacted - Case of appellant falls within the first exception of Section 300 IPC - Conviction altered from Section 302 to that u/s 304 Part I and accused sentenced to 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/-. (Panchu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 562 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 & 34, 304-II, 323, 324 - Murder - Incident occurred all of a sudden on spur of moment - There was a meeting of family members regarding dispute of 'Chabutra' - After the meeting dispersed, accused came over there armed with lathis and caught hold of deceased and inflicted blows with lathis and iron rods - Deceased died on the way - Only one injury caused on spur of moment - No enmity between the parties - No undue advantage taken of situation - No common object or common intention to kill deceased - Conviction of R1 altered from Section 302 to that under Section 304 Part II - Rest of the accused convicted u/ss 323 and 324 IPC. (Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 223 (Rajasthan) (DB)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 307, Arms Act, 1959, Section 27 - 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.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 307 & 34 - Murder - Attempt to murder - Common intention - Injuries sustained by accused - Explanation - Evidence of injured witness cogent and trustworthy - Pre-arranged plan of accused, proved - Evidence not shattered in cross examination - Delay in FIR well explained - Obligation of prosecutions to explain injury sustained by appellants does not arise - Conviction upheld. (Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 514 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 306 - 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 Cr.P.C. - 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 306 - 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 Cr.P.C. - 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 396 - Dacoity with murder - Gang of dacoits assaulted the victim and robbed them of their belongings - Evidence on record proves that dacoity had taken place and few of the stolen articles were recovered from different persons - Also proved that in course of such dacoity the miscreants killed one person - Proved beyond reasonable doubt that dacoity with murder was committed by a group of miscreants - No reason to disbelieve evidence of witness on point of identification of appellant-accused - Conviction under Section 396 upheld. (Sanatan alias Sona Layek Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 093 (Calcutta) (DB)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 r/w Section 120-B, 364 r/w 120-B - Death penalty - Kidnapping of 13 children on different occasions to use them in theft activities and killed children when they were found to be of no use - Nature of crime and systematic way in which child where kidnapped and killed amply demonstrates the depravity of the mind of appellants - Appellants menance to society - Death penalty confirmed. (Renuka Bai & Rinku @ Ratan & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 329 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302/149, 364/149, 201 and 148 r/w 149 - Murder - FIR - Appellants abducted the deceased from their house and assaulted him in open field - PW lodged FIR - She later changed her version given in Court from what she gave in FIR and exonerated two accused and named the six unknown accused - Where in FIR names of accused were not mentioned by eye-witness but during trial witness claimed to have known and seen the accused, evidence of such witness would not be trustworthy - Evidence of all three witnesses does not inspire confidence - Recovery of three pieces of lathis is also not creditworthy, as the same were recovered from open place - Conviction unsustainable. (Raj Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 667 (Rajasthan) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302/34 - Murder of husband - Appellants alleged to have caused death by strangulating with a rope - A1 was having illicit relationship with A2 (co-accused), her own nephew - Rope by which deceased was strangulated found lying near the dead body - Deceased died at his own house at dead of night and appellants were with him at relevant time - No acceptable explanation was offered by appellants as to how deceased died while sleeping in his own house - A1 gave a false explanation and tried to mislead police by filing a false and fabricated FIR that three unknown miscreants entered their house and killed deceased - False explanation given by appellants soon after the incident as regards cause of death supplies missing link in chain of circumstances - Circumstances formed a complete chain and established guilt of accused persons - Conviction upheld. (Rumi Bora Dutta & Anr. Vs State of Assam) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 436 (Gauhati) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-A & 279 - Negligence - Accident - Accident took place between mini bus and motorcycle - Death of motorcycle rider - It was alleged that the accident occurred when the driver was busy to change the tape recorder cassette - It is a merely hearsay evidence - Actually steering of minibus was locked - Evidence of mechanic also showed that accident took place due to locking of steering - Accused entitled to acquittal. (Gajanan Majik Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 089 (Bombay)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B, 300 and 302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 374(2) - 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B, 498-A, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 4, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B - 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B, 498-A - Cruelty - Dowry death - Bride burning - Dying declaration - Death of deceased within 3 years of marriage by burns - Dying declaration of deceased reliable and recorded in a fit state of mind - Non mention of fit state of mind of declarant insignificant when doctor stated that he was satisfied as to fit state of deceased - Clear ridges and curves of thumb impression but doctor not cross examined as to whether her thumbs had ridges and curves and even Judicial Magistrate not cross examined on this aspect - Pregnant deceased not allowed to attend marriage - It amounts to cruelty - Conviction upheld u/ss 304-B and 498-A - Since deceased left a child age 1-1/2 years, life sentence u/s 304-B reduced to 7 years. (Prabhati Lal & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 300 (Rajasthan) (DB)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B and 498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439 - Bail - Bail in an offence under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC - 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.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B and 498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439 - Bail - Grant of - Offence u/ss 304-B and 498-A IPC - 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.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B/498-A/406/34, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439 - Bail - Offence u/ss 304-B/498-A/406/34 IPC - 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 306 & 107 - Suicide - Abetment - Money lent by accused to deceased - Deceased committed suicide as trapped in debt - Mere asking for repayment of loan does not amount to instigating or aiding the commission of suicide - Charge quashed. (Damodar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 122 (Rajasthan)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 306 & 498-A - Suicide - Cruelty - Wife of appellant committed suicide within 5 months of marriage - Physical assault proved by evidence of PW1 and drunkenness on part of appellant established by evidence of PW2 - Quarrels used to take place between them and perceived by neighbours - Even if facts of cruelty against appellant husband were proved under Section 498-A IPC, in total absence of satisfactory evidence to show that appellant had intended commission of suicide by wife - Conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained. (Devassia Vs State of Kerala) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 717 (Kerala)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 306 & 498-A - Suicide - Cruelty - Wife of appellant committed suicide within 5 months of marriage - Physical assault proved by evidence of PW1 and drunkenness on part of appellant established by evidence of PW2 - Quarrels used to take place between them and perceived by neighbours - Fact that accused husband had no intention to drive his wife to commit suicide cannot be held to be a valid defence in a prosecution under Section 498-A IPC. (Devassia Vs State of Kerala) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 717 (Kerala)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 306 and 498-A - Suicide - Wife committed suicide by poisoning - Appellant had asked deceased to come to land for doing agricultural work - On refusal by deceased accused taunted her that she had not brought any riches from her parents house - He also assaulted the deceased - Deceased committed suicide in absence of appellant - Where immediate circumstance which provoked deceased wife to commit suicide was a very innocuous circumstance and theory that accused husband harassed deceased and demanded to get money and gold from parents appeared to be concocted then conviction of appellant husband under Section 498-A could not be sustained. (Rajkumar & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 513 (Karnataka)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 307, 149, 148, 326 - Alteration of conviction - Conviction u/ss 307, 149, 148 - Gun shot at leg - No evidence that injury is sufficient to cause death - Gunfire not repeated inspite of ample opportunity - Conviction u/ss 307/149 not sustainable - Conviction altered to one u/s 326 for causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon. (Ghasita & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 149 (Rajasthan)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 307, 326 - Right provision - Assault with deadly weapons - Three fracture injuries - Guilt of accused duly proved - Accused are liable for conviction u/s 326 IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. (Venkataraju & Ors. Vs State by Police of Rampura Police Station, Kollegal Taluk) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 185 (Karnataka)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 307, 34, Arms Act, 1959, Section 27 - Attempt to murder - Accused, two in number convicted by trial court u/ss.307/34 IPC 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 324, 325 and 447, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 4 - Probation - Benefit of - Case pending for 23 years - Accused having no criminal background - Looking at nature of offence and character of offenders accused given benefit of probation. (Narain & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 755 (Rajasthan)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 325, 323, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 4 - Probation - Benefit of - Conviction of three accused under Section 325, 323 IPC - All accused except one released on probation - Probation refused to third accused on the ground that injury inflicted by him on victim was grievous - Accused faced trial for eight years - Third accused also released on probation - Sentence of fine increased. (Jagmal Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 564 (P&H)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - Cognizance taken u/ss 341, 323, 392, 506/34 IPC - 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 u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Krushna Chandra Sahu & Anr. Vs State of Orissa & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 127 (Orissa)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 342/34 and 376(2)(g) r/w Section 34 - Rape - Minor girl aged 14 years - Rape committed at a stone quarry - Prosecutrix stated that she suffered abrasion on her back and suffered swelling on her private part - Medical evidence belied that story - PW6 arrived on hearing shouts and he was made to sit under threat - PW6 turned hostile - FSL belied statement of victim as no signs of semen or spermatozoa detected on vaginal swab or pubic hair of victim and no blood or semen detected on her clothes - Unsafe to rely on such uncorroborated evidence of prosecutrix - Conviction set aside. (Rajkumar & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 248 (Bombay)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376, 366, 363 & 342 - Abduction and rape - Prosecutrix IX class student - Ossification test not performed to ascertain age - In FIR age stated to be 17 years - Doctor opined age 16-17 years - In such circumstances it could not be ruled out that age of prosecutrix on date of incident was 18 years or more - Contradictions by prosecutrix as to assertions in FIR - Prosecutrix taken away from busy public road and she did not raise hue and cry - FIR lodged after a week of her arrival in house - No external injury found - Wearing clothes not seized by police - It could not be ruled out that prosecutrix went of her own with accused and consented for sexual intercourse - Conviction set aside. (Kishore Bahadur Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 010 (Chhattisgarh)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376, 506 - Rape - Teacher committing rape of minor girl aged 16 years - Incident of 6th March and matter reported to police on 25th June - Prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to any one - Prosecutrix when experienced some pain in her abdomen then she was attended to by her mother who found that she was pregnant - Delay in lodging FIR sufficiently explained - Since medical examination was after three months of occurrence, it would hardly furnish any corroboration - Conviction and sentence calls for no interference. (Dildar Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 244 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376 and 300, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 24, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 164 - 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 396, 324/34 - Dacoity with murder - Dark night - When offence is committing by a stranger in a dark night the whole case depends upon the identification of accused - Identifying features of the culprits must be mentioned in the first information report and in the statement given before the police - Identity mentioned in FIR that two culprits were about 5' in height and third was 4-1/2" height and no other feature of identity given - Witness made improvements in evidence by adding 4th accused also - Shaky evidence of PW22 that he identified accused in a dark night in torch light not inspiring confidence - Conviction cannot be sustained. (Randhir & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 589 (Chhattisgarh) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 397, 342 and 149 - Dacoity - Unlawful assembly - Accused were chased by Police Inspector when they were travelling in a van - Four accused arrested and property seized - No explanation by accused as to how they came in possession of gold ornaments - Proximity of time of alleged incident of dacoity, arrest of four accused persons with loot of dacoity with specific marks and design sufficient to draw presumption that accused committed the alleged offences - Conviction upheld. (Shri Zulfikar Ali & Ors. Vs State of Goa) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 577 (Bombay)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 397, 342 and 149 - Dacoity - Unlawful assembly - Identification of accused - TIP - Accused were chased by Police Inspector when they were travelling in a van - Four accused arrested and property seized - No explanation by accused as to how they came in possession of gold ornaments - Accused were in full view of witnesses for almost 45 minutes - Procedure followed - Courts justified in accepting identification of accused. (Shri Zulfikar Ali & Ors. Vs State of Goa) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 577 (Bombay)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 406, 420, 120-B, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Loan money - Cheque issued for return of loan - Petitioner alleged to have persuaded complainant to give loan in question to accused No.1 and loan so given misappropriated by accused No.1 - Nothing stated against petitioner - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (Sachida Nand Prasad Vs State of Bihar & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 047 (Patna)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 406, 498-A - Charges framed u/ss 498-A and 406 IPC - Unsustainability - Petitioners not living with complainant since 1994 and no occasion for petitioners to visit complainant's residence - Complainant and her husband living separately - Petitioners, parents-in-law and devar had no occasion to harass complainant or to subject her to any cruelty - Articles of dowry recovered from husband/co-accused - Charges against petitioners not sustainable and quashed. (Kalwant Rai & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 263 (Rajasthan)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 419, 420 and 468, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420, 467 and 471, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 451 - 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)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420, 471, 120-B r/w Section 466 - Admission in Medical College on basis of forged mark sheet - Conviction - Notice restricted to quantum of sentence - Both appellants had been in jail for 70 days and appellant No.2 was 81 years of age, a retired Engineer having suffered cardiac arrest once - Appellant No.1 had undergone two open heart surgeries - Sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Beena Philipose & Anr. Vs State of Kerala) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 056 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420 and 506, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(x) - Quashing of FIR - Complainant alleging abusing in caste name - No allegation that place where complainant met petitioner was a public place or the complainant was insulted by petitioner publicly - Whether public is watching and whether an incident is viewed by members of public, it is a public view whether it is a public place or a private place - Distinction between terms "Public place" and "Within the public view" is unambiguous - Since the complaint disclosed that incident uttered in a street and viewed by two person as such whether words uttered in a public view or not was a question of fact is to be decided during trial - Appeal dismissed. (E.Tirupem Reddy Vs The Deputy Suptd. of Police, Nandyal & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 650 (A.P)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498-A, 300, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 & 32 - 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)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498-A, 302, 34 - Dowry death - Death by burning - 90% burn injuries - When death takes place within the four walls of a room, prosecution ordinarily would not be able to examine any eye witness - Case can be judged having regard to the entirety of the circumstances which are brought on record by prosecution. (Balbir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 582 (S.C.)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498-A, 302/201, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 3 and 4 - Murder - Murder of wife by strangulation - Accused hanged her dead body with a saree to a rafter to screen offence committed by him - Case of prosecution that husband and in-laws subjected deceased to cruelty on ground of dowry - Appellant actually caused death of his wife under grave and sudden provocation - Conduct of accused subsequent to occurrence is very relevant - No evidence on record that parents instigated the husband to harass deceased on ground of additional dowry - Medical evidence clearly established that death of deceased was homicidal - Fact of A1 consuming sleeping pills soon after incident and making statement before Magistrate explaining his conduct in that behalf probabilised defence of A1 that he committed offence under grave and sudden provocation - Conviction of A2 to A4 set aside - Conviction of A1 altered from one under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part I, IPC. (Peddi Kumara Swamy @ Muthyala Kumara Swamy & Ors. Vs State of A.P.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 491 (A.P.) (DB)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498-A, 304-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482, Section 156(3) - Order u/s 156(3) with a direction to police for investigation for an offence u/s 498-A, 304-B IPC - 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498-A, 304-B, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 3, 4 & 6 - 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 IPC and Section 3,4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act upheld - Conviction of mother-in-laws u/s 498-A IPC 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498-A, 406, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - Cruelty - Misappropriation of dowry articles - Petitioners, parents of husband living separately - Petitioners not expected to be interested in dowry articles after a lapse of four years - Anticipatory bail allowed. (Lalita & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 635 (P&H)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498-A, 452, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319 - Summoning order u/s 319 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of - Distant relative - FIR lodged by wife under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC 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)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498-A & 406 - Jurisdiction - Cruelty - Demand of dowry - All acts of cruelty committed at Gwalior - Not a single act of cruelty committed at Jaipur - Dowry articles given by the family of complainant lying at Gwalior - Refusal to deliver the Stridhan made at Gwalior - Court at Jaipur has no jurisdiction - Order of cognizance, set aside. (Dinesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 488 (Rajasthan)

          Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498A, 323, 294, 506, 34 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 4, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 and 156(3) - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioner charge-sheeted under Section 498A, 323, 294, 506/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on a complaint filed by complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - No evidence on record that petitioners ever abused, assaulted or harassed her - No prima facie case for any of alleged offences established against petitioner but, statements of complainants gave sufficient indication that petitioner No.1 ill treated complainant and inflicted physical and mental torture - Clear deposition of complainant in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were living separately from her and never demanded any dowry nor inflicted any kind of torture for dowry - Proceedings against petitioner No.1 liable to be continued - Continuance of proceedings against other petitioners, unjust, hence liable to be quashed. (Sura Naik & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 550 (Orissa)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 96 to 102 - Private defence - Plea of - Need not be specifically raised - Court is to see whether plea of private defence is probable in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Surendra & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 282 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 96 to 106, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 313 - Private defence - Plea not raised in statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. - 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.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 96 to 106, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 105 - 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.)

 Injuries - On person of accused - Need not be explained - A different standard is applicable in a case where a specific plea of right of private defence is raised - In the event prosecution discharges its primary burden of proof then onus shifts on the accused - However, it does not mean that accused can discharge such burden only by examining defence witnesses. (Surendra & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 282 (S.C.)

 Interested or partisan witness - Evidence of such a witness not to be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or closely related to the deceased, if it is otherwise trustworthy and credible - It only requires scrutiny with more care and caution - If on such careful scrutiny, the evidence is found to be reliable and probable, it can be acted upon - If it is found to be improbable or suspicious, it ought to be rejected - Where the witness has a motive to falsely implicate the accused, his testimony should have corroboration in regard to material particulars before it is accepted. (Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 136 (S.C.)

 Investigation - Illegal investigation - Proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground of illegal investigation unless there is miscarriage of justice. (State Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam Vs Surya Sankaram Kurri) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 231 (S.C.)

 Investigation - Sketch map not drawn - Investigating Officer did not make any investigation from the point of view of the defence - Investigation is thus not fair. (Surendra & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 282 (S.C.)

          Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Section 10 and 11 - Juvenile delinquent - Arrest stayed for 3 weeks in writ petition by Division Bench - Court directed that application be moved before Juvenile Justice Board - Board after hearing applicant directed him to surrender in judicial custody and only then compliance of order of Court could be made - Challenge as to - Order of High Court was with intention that he may not come in close proximity with other criminals - Magistrate directed to release applicant - Board to proceed to hold inquiry to ascertain age of applicant. (Mohd. Bilal Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 457 (Allahabad)

          Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 395 - Theft and dacoity - Petitioner charge sheeted for theft and dacoity of 49 sewing machines - Petitioner more than 16 years of age on the date of offence - Trial Court did not consider the accused as juvenile - Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was enforced at that time - Revision on the ground that on date of alleged offence juvenile was aged 16 years and was a juvenile in conflict with Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Charge sheet could not have been placed against him - As per definition of Juvenile a person who has not completed 18 years of age is a juvenile - Held, since the revision petitioner had not completed 18 years of age on date of offence and charge sheet filed only after advent of new Act of 2000, was a juvenile and could be tried only before a Juvenile Justice Board. (S.D.Pawan Vs State by Hebbagodi Police) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 765 (Karnataka)

          Limitation Act, 1963, Section 4, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation expiring on a holiday - Complaint can be filed on the next working day. (M/s Mediworld Infotech, Hyderabad Vs M/s C.E.I. Consultancy & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 695 (A.P.)

 Material witnesses - Non examination - Adverse inference can be drawn. (Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 405 (S.C.)

 Medical jurisprudence - Exact time of death - Not possible for a doctor to pinpoint the exact time of death. (Ramjee Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 758 (S.C.)

          Motive - Lack of - Does not weaken prosecution case when chain of circumstances is complete. (Bhag Chand Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 598 (Rajasthan) (DB)

 Motive - Not necessary to prove motive - While appreciating evidence motive is only one of the circumstances to be kept in mind - If evidence of witnesses is truthful and convincing, failure to prove motive is not fatal to prosecution case. (Bhimappa Chandappa Hosamani & Ors. Vs State of Karnataka) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

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

          Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 15 - Recovery of smack - Contraband recovered by A.S.I. of Police - Case property not produced before SHO and same was not produced before Magistrate on the following day - It certainly causes prejudice to the case of appellant - Conviction set aside. (Mann Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 310 (P&H)

 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 18 - Contraband - Recovery - Independent witnesses - Recovery made at bus stand - No effort made to join independent witnesses who were present at the spot - In the instant case no such attempt made - Nobody else who had witnessed the occurrence was made a witness - Even their names and addresses not taken - Conviction set aside. (Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 405 (S.C.)

 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 18 - Contraband - Recovery of - Recovery of contraband in presence of independent witnesses assumes importance - Seizure witnesses cannot be said to be independent in that way - In the instant case seizure witnesses stated that their signatures were obtained on blank papers - All the departmental witnesses not examined - Conviction set aside. (Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 405 (S.C.)

          Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 55 - Ganja - Recovery of 5 kg. from house - Independent witness examined but did not support prosecution - Malkhana register entries did not show that sample and remaining ganja deposited was duly sealed - Articles seized and remaining sample packets not produced in Court - No evidence that SHO had affixed his seal on sample packets and remaining ganja - Conscious possession not established - Conviction cannot be sustained. (Shiv Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 177 (Chhattisgarh)

          Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 37, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439 - 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)

          Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 50(4) - Personal search - Recovery of contraband on secret information on search of a house - Personal search of a lady conducted by a male Police Officer - Violation of Section 50(4) of NDPS Act. (Gurnam Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 272 (P&H) (DB)

          Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 15 and 18 - Search - Recovery of smack - Partial offer of search - Accused was given an offer with regard to search being conducted before a Gazetted officer and not before the Magistrate - Partial offer would amount to non compliance of Section 50 of the Act - Conviction set aside. (Mann Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 310 (P&H)

 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 18. 42 - Contraband - Recovery of - Secret information - Secret information received that a person who had a bag containing opium would come to Bus Stand - Full description of accused not given in secret information - Raiding party reached the spot - A number of persons passed from that busy bus stand - Accused arrested - No explanation how accused was identified and singled out - Accused acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. (Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 405 (S.C.)

          Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 42 & 50(4) - Contraband - Recovery on secret information on search of a house - Information not reduced in writing - Nor conveyed to Senior Officers - Sending of the information is mandatory - Violation of Section 42 of NDPS Act. (Gurnam Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 272 (P&H) (DB)

          Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 8, 22 and 50 - Recovery of contraband - Accused apprehended from railway station on getting suspicious about his activities, the police party chased and intercepted him - Police party found that the appellant was in possession of 10 tablets of Oxazepam, a packet of tablets of USP Serepax 30, a powder of rose colour rapped in a white paper and two packets of Biscuits - PW being station officer was himself incharge of police station - There was no breach of seizure - Where police officer had to conduct search without having earlier information about contraband item, non compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act, does not vitiate trial. (Om Prakash Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 739 (Uttranchal) (DB)

          Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 8 & 22 - Recovery of contraband - Accused apprehended from railway station on getting suspicious about his activities, the police party chased and intercepted him - Police party found that the appellant was in possession of 10 tablets of Oxazepam, a packet of tablets of USP Serepax 30, a powder of rose colour rapped in a white paper and two packets of Biscuits - On being interrogated about the articles, appellant told the police party that he used the tablets and the powder by mixing the same with tea and biscuits and administers to the passengers, and on their getting unconscious, robbed them - Report of Chemical Examiner revealed that the tablets and the biscuits contained Oxazepam - Conviction upheld. (Om Prakash Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 739 (Uttranchal) (DB)

          Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 8 and 18 - Opium - Sample taken of 50 gram but it weighed 43 grams when it reached FSL - Cannot be said same sample was sent for chemical analysis - This discrepancy has prejudiced the case of the accused - Accused entitled to benefit of doubt and hence acquitted. (Pappu Vs State of Rajasthan ) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 07 (Rajasthan)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 15, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439 - Bail - Offence u/ss 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)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 15 - Conscious possession - Recovery of 100 bags of Poppy Husk - Accused sitting on bags - Sitting on bags is not proof of conscious possession - Failure to give any explanation by the accused for being present on that place would not prove that he was in possession of the articles - Police should have conducted further investigation to prove that accused was really in possession of those bags - Cannot be said that accused was in conscious possession. (Tarlok Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 523 (P&H)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 15 - Recovery of Contraband - 20 bags of poppy husk recovered from accused on secret information - Recovery effected from a well on basis of disclosure statement - No independent witness joined - Not established as to whether accused was owner of well or in exclusive possession - Conviction set aside. (Bachittar Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 532 (P&H)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 18, Customs Act, 1962, Section 108 - Recovery of contraband - Confessional statement - Retracted confession - Recovery of heroin from a carton presented by accused for custom clearance - Accused retracted confession - Accused can be convicted on basis of retracted confession if confession was voluntary. (Noor Aga Vs State of Punjab & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 653 (P&H)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 18 - Recovery of contraband - Confessional statement - Retracted confession - Recovery of heroin from a carton presented by accused for custom clearance - Conscious possession of contraband by accused proved. (Noor Aga Vs State of Punjab & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 653 (P&H)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 50 - Recovery of contraband - Recovery of opium by I.O. from search of baggage - Not required that search should be conducted in presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. (Ram Saran Vs State of Haryana) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 570 (P&H)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 55 - Compliance of provision of Section 55 - Recovery of 100 bags of Poppy Husk - Case property and accused not produced before Magistrate on the next day - Non compliance of Section 55 will not cause any prejudice to the accused but if it causes prejudice to accused, then it can be taken against the prosecution - In the instant case it caused prejudice to accused as there were other infirmities. (Tarlok Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 523 (P&H)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 55 - Conscious possession - Recovery of 125 bags of Poppy Husk - Each bag weighing 40 Kgs. - Recovery effected from a truck - Case property produced before Court not bearing any identification mark to prove that case property was the same which was recovered from accused - Bags were in torn condition - Conviction, set aside. (Sukhdev Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 459 (P&H) (DB)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 18 and 55 - Recovery of contraband - Recovery of opium by I.O. - Case property produced before SHO - SHO put his seal on the sample of contraband - He did not state that he physically verified the articles and put his seal - Conviction set aside. (Ram Saran Vs State of Haryana) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 570 (P&H)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 15, 8 - Conscious possession - Recovery of 125 bags of Poppy Husk - Each bag weighing 40 Kgs. - Recovery effected from a truck - One accused was driving truck and other two were sitting in the truck - During trial no question put to accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were in conscious possession of contraband - Alternative charge u/s 8 of the Act not framed that accused were transporting the offending goods - Conviction, set aside. (Sukhdev Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 459 (P&H) (DB)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 15 and 42 - Recovery of 50 bags of poppy husk - Recovery on secret information - Secret information not reduced into writing and not sent to higher authorities - Non compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act - Independent witnesses not examined - Conviction, set aside. (Phuman Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 630 (P&H) (DB)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 15 and 57 - Recovery of Contraband - 20 bags of poppy husk recovered from accused on secret information - Non compliance of Section 57 - Investigation Officer did not send any report of seizure to higher officer - Provisions of Section 57 are directory - Case based on official witnesses - Independent witness not examined - Therefore, non compliance of Section 57 of NDPS Act caused prejudice to the accused - Conviction set aside. (Bachittar Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 532 (P&H)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 18 and 50 - Recovery of contraband - Public witness - Non joining of public witness - If no public witness was available or unwilling to join then the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer could have been associated - Conviction set aside. (Ram Saran Vs State of Haryana) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 570 (P&H)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 18 and 55, Customs Act, 1962, Section 108 - 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)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 18 and 55, Customs Act, 1962, Section 108 - 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)

          Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 8, 21, 29 and 50 - Search - Recovery - Conviction - Compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act - Requirements of Section 50 whether met is a question which is to be decided on the facts of each case and there cannot be any sweeping generalization and/or straitjacket formula - Search conducted by Gazetted Officer - Requirement of sending copy to a Superior Officer, not necessary - Names of two independent witnesses of search, not given - Conviction set aside. (Abid Khan Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 727 (Rajasthan)

          National Security Act, 1980, Section 12 - Preventive detention - Order of confirmation - Sufficient grounds for detention - State Govt. has to consider independently, uninfluenced by opinion of Advisory Board - Order of confirmation passed by State Govt. that since the Advisory Board was of view that there was sufficient cause for detention of detenu - Order liable to be quashed. (Bijoy Kumar Panda Vs State of Orissa & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases (Orrisa) (DB)

          National Security Act, 1980, Section 3 - Detention order - Validity - Omission on part of detaining authority to inform detenu of his right to make representation before authority against detention order - Vitiates detention order - Detention order set aside. (Rajesh Kumar Borah Vs Union of India & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 498 (Gauhati) (DB)

          National Security Act, 1980, Section 3 - Preventive detention - "Subjective satisfaction" - Case was registered against detenu for the offences under Sections 341/294/323/506/34 IPC - The S.D.J.M. and Asst. Sessions Judge had already rejected the bail petitions of the petitioner by the time the detention order was passed against him - There was cogent material in the grounds of arrest for the detaining authority to be satisfied that there was likelihood of release of the detenu on bail. (Bijoy Kumar Panda Vs State of Orissa & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases (Orrisa) (DB)

          National Security Act, 1980, Section 3 - Preventive detention - Delay in disposal of representations - Delay of about one month in disposing the representation of detenu petitioner has not been explained - Impugned order deserves to be quashed. (Bijoy Kumar Panda Vs State of Orissa & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases (Orrisa) (DB)

          National Security Act, 1980, Section 3 - Preventive detention - Maintenance of Public Order - Petitioner assaulted the B.D.O. and the doctor to extract work - Admittedly the petitioner was the sitting Sarpanch by the time the alleged incidents took place - As a representative of the people it was his duty to see that the public functionaries discharge their duty properly - Of course it does not mean that he would assault the Govt. officials to extract work - But even if he did so it cannot be said that it would affect the peace of the community or public order. (Bijoy Kumar Panda Vs State of Orissa & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases (Orrisa) (DB)

 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 200 - 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.)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 256 - 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)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 258 - 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)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 258 - 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)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 29 - 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 Cr.P.C. 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)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 357 - 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)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 389 - 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)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 397 - Conviction u/s 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)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 205 and 251 - 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)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 406, 420, 120-B - Loan money - Cheque issued for return of loan - Petitioner alleged to have persuaded complainant to give loan in question to accused No.1 and loan so given misappropriated by accused No.1 - Nothing stated against petitioner - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (Sachida Nand Prasad Vs State of Bihar & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 047 (Patna)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Limitation Act, 1963, Section 4 - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation expiring on a holiday - Complaint can be filed on the next working day. (M/s Mediworld Infotech, Hyderabad Vs M/s C.E.I. Consultancy & Ors.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 695 (A.P.)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Cheque issued alongwith order for supply of goods - Goods not supplied - Cheque dishonoured - Held, no offence is committed u/s 138 of the Act. (Supply House Vs Ullas) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 555 (Kerala)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Different cheque number - Cheque number different than that reflected in the settlement deed entered into between the partners - Factum of agreement of liability admitted - Number of cheque presented, number of cheque reflected in notice and number of cheque mentioned in complaint same - Drawer of cheque cannot take any benefit of different number being mentioned in settlement deed - Question of liability is a matter of defence that can be raised at the appropriate stage - Court not to consider this issue in the context of the settlement at the stage of charge or discharge of the accused. (Balraj Kumar Vs Smt.Kuldeep Kaur) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 181 (P&H)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - A person who issues the cheque which ultimately turns out to be bad is the person on whom the liability can be fastened under the Act - If a cheque has been issued by some other person from his account then in that eventuality nobody except the person who draws this cheque can be held liable. (Gulshan Kumar Vs Dr.Alka Arora and Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 257 (P&H)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Advocates fee - Arrears of fees due to an Advocate is a legally enforceable debt. (Tamil Nadu Retrenched Census Employees Association Vs Thennan) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 512 (Madras)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Accrual - Cheque presented twice - On dishonour of cheque for the first time an intimation given that cheque is dishonoured for want of sufficient fund - Mere giving an intimation without demand of cheque amount is not a notice within the meaning of Section 138 of the Act - Held, cause of action arose when notice of demand was issued on dishonour of cheque for the second time and complaint filed thereafter - Held, complaint is within time. (Bank of Baroda Vs Philip Thomas) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 053 (Kerala)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Cheques issued in advance towards future rental liability - Premises taken on rent - Premises vacated before the expiry of lease period in breach of agreement - Held, there is no legal obligation on the part of accused to effect clearance of cheque issued towards the rental liabilities for the period he is not in occupation - Remedy available is to sue for damages for breach of contract. (Uppinangady Grama Panchayat, Puttur Vs P.Narayana Prabhu) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 316 (Karnataka)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Civil suit - Pendency of - Not a bar for launching proceedings u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. (Raju Vs Jaiprakash) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 166 (Karnataka)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Complainant gave Rs. 2,00,000/- to 'A' - 'A' gave said amount to 'B' who issued cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of complainant which was dishonoured - 'A' is not liable for prosecution. (Gulshan Kumar Vs Dr.Alka Arora and Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 257 (P&H)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint can be filed through power of attorney holder - Power of Attorney holder is competent to speak of facts within his exclusive personal knowledge. (Anirudhan Vs Philip Jacob) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 130 (Kerala)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Defence of accused cannot be considered at the stage of taking cognizance and the same can be considered appropriately at the stage of trial. (M/s Prasanna Gases Vs State) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 170 (Rajasthan)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Firm - Partners - No averment in complaint that partners were incharge of and were responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm - In absence of such an averment it cannot be said that partners are guilty of the offence - Prosecution does not lie against a partner on the simple accusation in the complaint that such person was the partner of he firm - Proceedings against partners quashed. (D.P.Jain & Ors. Vs Green Earth Asphalt & Power Pvt.Ltd.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 643 (Bombay)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Material alteration - Alteration in the year '96' - Amounts to material alteration - Accused acquitted. (Starline Agencies Vs R.B.Agencies) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 073 (Kerala)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Received back 'unclaimed' - Due service of notice is available only when an intimation as to arrival of registered letter in post office is given to addressee and addressee fails to collect it from post office. (Chacko Vs Kurian) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 246 (Kerala)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Premature complaint - If cognizance is taken after expiry of 15 days contemplated under Section 138 then premature presentation will not affect the case of the complainant. (Raju Vs Jaiprakash) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 166 (Karnataka)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Required ingredients fully proved - Single line in cross examination that first talk of business deal took place in Jan-Feb. 2000 not sufficient to disbelieve complainant's case - Evidence has to be read as a whole - Evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 clearly established fact of transaction between parties prior to 2000 - Presumption u/s 139 in favour of complainant - No evidence led to rebut presumption - Non production of papers of income tax by complainant in trial not a ground to disbelieve complainant's case - Conviction not liable to be interfered with. (Asim Kumar Saha Vs Nepal Mahato & Anr.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 207 (Calcutta)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Supply of goods on credit - Blank cheque issued in respect of uncertain future liability - Cheque dishonoured - Offence u/s 138 cannot be inferred - Cheque issued in respect of future liabilities not in existence as on date of cheque does not attract prosecution u/s 138 of the Act. (M/s.Shreyas Agro Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs Chandrakumar S.B.) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 014 (Karnataka)

          Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonour of cheques - Cheques issued in advance towards future rental liability - No existing or past liability at the time of issuance of cheque - For prosecution u/s 138 of the Act it is necessary that cheque should have been issued in respect of either past or current existing debt or other legal liability. (Uppinangady Grama Panchayat, Puttur Vs P.Narayana Prabhu) 2006(4) Criminal Court Ca