L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Bangaru Venkata Rao vs State Of A.P

2. Background facts as projected by the prosecution to fasten guilt on the appellant are as follows:

In order to establish the accusations, prosecution examined 7 witnesses. PW-1 who is a neighbour stated that at the time of occurrence she was in her home and on hearing cries of the deceased, she rushed to the house of the accused and found doors of the house closed. At that time Santhi (PW-

3) daughter of the accused, Palakonda Appamma (PW-2) and one Akula Shankari also came there. All of them knocked the door. Then accused opened the door. They found the accused with a knife in his hand which was stained with blood. They found the deceased on the cot lying and holding her hand on a bleeding injury on the abdomen. When they asked her about the incident, the deceased told that the accused was suspecting her character for some days and had stabbed her after exchanging of hot words between them. They took her to the hospital in a cycle rickshaw and she was admitted. The accused was found guilty and convicted as noted above.

11. Considering the factual background, in our considered view the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part I, IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. We record our appreciation for the able manner in which Mr. Karpaga Vinayagam, learned amicus curiae assisted the Court.

12. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. 10 ........................

J. (G.S. SINGHVI) New Delhi, August 5, 2008 11
State Of M.P vs Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

(2) The Investigating Officer so appointed under Sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the State Government.

7. In the present case there is no denial of the fact that the accusations related to offences under both the Act and the I.P.C. The High Court was therefore not justified in quashing the entire proceedings. The order shall be 6 restricted to the offence under Section 3 of the Act and not in respect of offences punishable under the IPC.

8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Sunil Kumar vs Ram Singh Gaud & Ors

2. Factual background of the case is that on 10th July, 2003, appellant was driving his mini truck No.MP 20 G-7705 towards Bargi along with one Ramesh Prajapati. When the mini truck reached Chulha Gulhai, a truck dumper bearing No.MP 18-6392 came from the opposite side, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner and hit the mini truck of the appellant with the result that the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his leg. He suffered three fractures including one at tibia. He was examined by the Medical Board. After examining the injuries, Board came to the conclusion that the appellant had suffered 45% permanent disability. Appellant was 29 years of age at the time of accident and was working as a driver and earning Rs.4,000/- per month.

3. FIR was lodged. A claim was also filed against the owner of truck dumper as well as the insurance company before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 (for short the Act), inter alia, stating that in the accident, appellant suffered fracture in his tibia and two other places. Appellant claimed Rs.8,20,000/- by way of compensation.

4. Tribunal by its order dated 25th June, 2004 awarded a compensation of Rs.45,000/- for the 45% permanent disability suffered by the appellant; Rs.21,000/- towards the amount spent on the treatment and Rs.6,000/- for physical pain and mental agony suffered by the appellant. Thus, a total sum of Rs.72,000/- was awarded as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment.

5. Being aggrieved, appellant filed an appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

10. For the reasons stated above, the loss of income is assessed at Rs.2,59,200/-. The appellant would be entitled to the aforesaid amount in addition to the sum already awarded by the Tribunal, which has been upheld by the High Court. The appellant would be entitled to interest at the same rate, i.e., 6% per annum on the enhanced amount as well from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order passed by the Courts below stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Bhagubhai Vitthalbhai Patel vs Union Of India & Ors

4. The appellant is facing eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The original authority has passed eviction order against the appellant and the appeal preferred by the appellant is pending before the District Judge, Surat. During the course of that proceeding, the appellant made an application bearing Exhibit No.46 to produce certain additional documents, which application has been rejected by the learned Judge leading to the above order of the High Court.

7. In view of what is stated above, we allow this appeal to this limited extent. The order of the High Court as well as the Appellate Authority are set aside to this limited extent, viz. that the documents which were filed before the original authority and which were dated prior to 14.7.2009, will be permitted to be produced before the Appellate Authority. As far as the documents other than these are concerned, it will be for the appellant to apply to the Appellate Authority i.e. the District Judge, and it will be for him to decide whether to entertain it. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE) .........................J (MADAN B. LOKUR) New Delhi;

July 22, 2013.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Badri Yadav & Anr

Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-

In the affidavit of Zakir Ali PW-9 dated 17.8.1994 it is also stated that his statement was recorded on 18.12.1990 before the Sessions Judge. The affidavit further stated that the statement recorded on 18.12.1990 was made due to threat and under the pressure of police. It is further stated that the applicant was going for Haj and according to the religious rites, he wanted to bid good-bye to all the sins he had committed. It is further stated that the statements he made before the court of Magistrate and before the Sessions Judge were false. It is unfortunate that the said application was allowed by the Sessions Judge on 9.2.1995 and they were allowed to be examined as defence witnesses juxtaposed as DW-1 and DW-2. The Sessions Judge, however, on examining the credibility of PW-8 and PW-9 juxtaposed as DW-1 and DW- 2 rejected it as not trustworthy, in our view rightly. The Sessions Judge came to a finding that the statements of DW-1 and DW-2 were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate on 21.9.1989 as PW-8 and PW-9. Thereafter, their statements were recorded before the Sessions Judge on 18.12.1990 and after four years on 17.7.1995 they gave a different version resiling from their previous statements on grounds of threat, coercion and being tutored by the police. It will be noticed that in between 18.12.1990 the day on which their statements were recorded before the Sessions Judge as PWs and their statements as defence witnesses which were recorded on 17.7.1995 as DWs, no complaint whatsoever was made by DW-1 and DW-2 to any Court or to any authority that they gave statements on 18.12.1990 due to coercion, threat or being tutored by the police. This itself could have been a sufficient circumstance to disbelieve the subsequent statements as DW-1 and DW-2 as held by the Sessions Judge, in our view, rightly. The High Court, while reversing the order of conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge gave the following reasons in support of the reversal in paragraph 16 as under: -

In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, the High Court was not justified in reversing the conviction recorded by the Trial Court. The order of the High Court dated 12.5.2000 is accordingly set aside and the order of the Trial Court convicting the respondent under Section 302/34 IPC is restored. The appeal is allowed. The respondent is on bail. His bail bond and surety stands cancelled. He is directed to be taken back into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. Compliance report within one month.
Naresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Ors

2. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant was married to the deceased Rekha Rani on 7 th July, 2000. After the marriage, she was harassed for having brought Page 1 Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013 insufficient dowry and the appellant raised a demand for motor cycle apart from the demands by his mother and younger brother. After about three months of marriage, the deceased gave a telephonic call to her father about the demand for dowry. Her father, Kashmiri Lal (PW-3), along with his younger brother Raghubir Lal (PW-12), met the husband of the deceased and his other relatives and pleaded that she may not be harassed as he was not in a position to give more dowry. The accused, however, continued to harass her. On 29th April, 2001, the deceased again telephoned her father about the harassment on which Raghubir Lal (PW-12) went to the house of the accused and brought back the deceased to her parental home. However, on the next day, the appellant came to the place of his in- laws and insisted that the deceased be sent with him, threatening that otherwise he will divorce her. On this, the deceased was sent with the appellant. Next day, on 1 st May, 2001, at about 12 O’clock, information was received by the family of the deceased that she had received burn injuries and was taken to the hospital. Father of the deceased Kashmiri Lal (PW-3) along with his younger brother Raghubir Lal (PW-12) and brother in-law Guddar Mal 2 Page 2 Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013 (PW-10) reached the hospital at 2.00 P.M. where the deceased told them that she was given beatings and set on fire by the appellant and his family members. Thereafter, the deceased died on account of extensive burn injuries.

3. Kashmiri Lal (PW-3) lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit PA/1). SI Rakham Singh (PW-13) conducted the investigation and sent up the accused for trial. The prosecution led evidence in support of its case comprising of relatives to prove demand of dowry, apart from medical evidence and evidence of investigation. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that the deceased committed suicide on account of harassment by her uncle Raghubir Lal (PW-12) who wanted her to relinquish her rights in the parental property. The accused examined Vinod Kumar (DW-1) who had taken the deceased to the hospital and stated that her relations with the accused were cordial. Raj Kumar (DW-2) employer of the appellant was also examined who stated that at the time of alleged incident, the appellant was on duty.

5. On further appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant but acquitted the co-accused Champa Devi (mother of the appellant) and Lalit Kumar (brother of the appellant).

14. Thus, we have no hesitation in upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant as we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent orders of the courts below in convicting and sentencing the appellant.

15. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is directed to surrender to undergo the remaining sentence failing which he may be arrested and committed to custody to complete the sentence awarded to him. 9
Anita Devi & Ors vs Satyendra Narain Singh & Ors

(hereinafter referred to as the `insurer') was held liable for the compensation amount to the claimants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application. It was found that there is no concrete material regarding the income of the deceased. However, it was held that notional income of Rs.15,000/- p.a. can be taken after deducting certain amounts for personal use. The contribution was fixed at Rs.10,216/- p.a. The multiplier of 13 was applied and Rs.5,000/- was also granted for loss of expectation of life and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses. An appeal was preferred by the claimants questioning correctness of the award, taking the stand that the quantum fixed was very low. High Court dismissed the appeal holding that there was no evidence of earning income.

7. Above being the position, we set aside the award of the MACT as affirmed by the High Court and remit the matter to MACT to consider the matter relating to income of the 4 deceased and determine the compensation afresh taking into account the documents already on record.

8. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
M/S. Madras Credit & Investment Ltd vs State Of Kerala

JUDGMENT 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.8335-8336 OF 2002 M/S. MADRAS CREDIT & INVESTMENT LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA Respondent(s) ORDER The assessee has filed the present Appeals by special leave. The assessee is a financier, providing finance to the customers who wish to purchase of goods, such as equipments, machinery, vehicles, etc., both from within Kerla and from outside the State of Kerala, and delivery of the goods in the State of Kerala, under hire purchase agreement executed between the assessee and the customers/parties.

We entirely agree with the view taken by the High Court. Consequently, we find no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed with no orders as to costs.

April 30, 2008.
P.G.Inst.Of Medical Education & ... vs Jaspal Singh & Ors

2. The brief facts of the case are thus:

4. Insofar as PGI is concerned, no reply to the complaint was filed separately but they adopted the reply filed by Dr. Varun Kulshrestha. The parties filed their respective affidavits and also produced before the State Commission the summary report and the documents concerning treatment of Smt. Harjit Kaur.

5. The State Commission after hearing the parties and upon consideration of the materials made available to it, came to the conclusion that there was serious deficiency and negligence on the part of PGI and its attending doctor(s)/staff in transfusion of 4 wrong blood group to the patient which resulted in death of Smt. Harjit Kaur. The State Commission in its order dated February 1, 2000 held that PGI was liable to pay sum of rupees two lac to the complainants out of which 3/4th was to be put in the fixed deposit in favour of the minor son Amandeep Singh (complainant no. 2) and 1/4th amount to be paid to the complainant No. 1. The State Commission also awarded the cost of Rs. 5000/-.

8. (1957) 2 All ER 118(QBD) 9 (1968) 118 New LJ 469 9

1955 SLT 213 10

25. We concur with the view of the National Commission as it does not suffer from any error of law.

26. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 20,000/-.

13 ..........................J (D.K. Jain) ..........................J (R.M. Lodha) New Delhi, May 29, 2009.
Poonaiyah Ramajayam Institute Of ... vs Medical Council Of India And Anr

7. The matter was firstly heard on 15th July, 2015 by this Bench and after taking note of the facts of the case and sequence of events, disposed of the application with a direction to the respondent-Medical Council of India to consider the petitioner’s application and make its recommendation within a period of three weeks from that day. The matter was directed to be listed after four weeks to enable the respondent-Medical Council of India to submit the recommendation in a sealed cover.

8. We, therefore, dispose of this application with a direction to the respondent Medical Council of India to consider the application and make its recommendation within a period of three weeks from today.

15. The executive committee, therefore, decided to apply clause 8(3)(1)(d) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulation (Amendment), 2010 and further decided to return the application for establishment of a new Medical College of the petitioner to the Central Government recommending disapproval of the scheme under Section 10A of IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017.

Xxxxxx

23. Considering the statutory time schedule and that the same is already over and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to direct inspection to be made and thereafter a decision to be taken for the current academic session 2015-16 as that would be in breach of the law laid down in various decisions of this Court which is binding. Thus, we direct that the application which has been submitted by the college for the academic session 2015-16 be considered for the next academic session, subject to fulfilment of other requisite formalities, as may be necessary, and thereafter the MCI shall conduct an inspection well- in-time as per the time schedule fixed under the Regulations of 1999. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid modification. Ordered accordingly”

20. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this special leave petition stands disposed of.
Madan Mohan Mishra vs Chandrika Pandey

4. Bhagwanta Kunwar filed a suit for partition in the year 1949 in terms of the provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act claiming half share in the properties of the said Ram Baran Tiwari. The said suit was decreed by a judgment and order dated 17.7.1954.

5. Questioning the legality or validity of the said decree, Madan Mohan Mishra, appellant herein, filed a suit for cancellation of the said decree. During the pendency of the said suit, Bhagwanta Kunwar executed a deed of gift in favour of the respondent herein whereafter the plaint was amended, inter alia, claiming for a decree for setting aside the said deed of gift.

Indisputably, in the year 1972-73, consolidation proceedings started in the village in terms of Section 5 of the 1953 Act. The suit was, in view thereof, held to have abated. It is stated that the said order has attained finality. It is furthermore stated that no objection was filed by the appellant herein in the said consolidation proceedings. Akhilesh Mishra is stated to have filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer which was rejected on 31.7.1979. An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed on 5.8.1983. A Revision Petition was filed thereagainst which was dismissed on 11.4.2002. It is stated that the writ petition has been filed thereagainst before the Allahabad High Court which is said to have been pending.

The jurisdiction of the Civil Court, therefore, is clearly barred as it is evident that subject matter of both the suits is agricultural lands only. It is not, therefore, necessary for us to go into the question with regard to the effect of a prayer made in a suit for setting aside the deed of gift in terms of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 or otherwise.

20. In view of the aforementioned findings, it is not necessary for us to enter into other contentions raised by Mr. S.N. Singh.

21. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).

February 17, 2009
Nepal Singh vs State Of Haryana

On 16.5.1991, deceased had come to Bapora (village of her father) to attend the marriage of the daughter of Shyam Pal Singh (brother of her father). Deceased told her father (PW5) and mother (PW6) that accused had completed his course and wanted her to bring Rs. One lakh from them and 2 that if she failed to do so, accused would turn her out of the house. Yudhishter Singh (PW5) told her that he would arrange for the money.

On 23.5.1991 deceased left for Kanti (village of her in-laws) accompanied by Sunil Kumar (PW7), her brother. While going, deceased told her father to arrange for the money otherwise her in laws would not allow her to live.

After investigation was completed, charge sheet was filed. Since the accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. The prosecution primarily relied upon the evidence of Yudhishter Singh (PW5) father of the deceased and Lajwant (PW6) mother of the deceased and Sunil Kumar (PW7) brother of the deceased. The trial court found that this was a case of suicide and little physical contact between the accused and the deceased was the primary 3 reason. It was noted that the accused was pursuing studies till 13th May, 1991, and thereafter he returned home. Finding the prosecution version to be suspect, the trial court directed acquittal. As noted above State preferred an appeal. It was the primary stand that some thing must have happened otherwise the victim would not have committed suicide and the fact that the accused and the deceased could not have any sexual relationship was an additional ground for suicide. The High Court found that the evidence of Sunil Kumar (PW7) the brother of the deceased conclusively established the accusations and accordingly set aside the order of acquittal and recorded conviction.

8. It may be stated that more or less similar provisions were found in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as "the old Code") which came up for consideration before various High Courts, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as also before this Court. Since in the present appeal, we have been called upon to decide the ambit and scope of the power of an appellate court in an appeal against an order of acquittal, we have confined ourselves to one aspect only i.e. an appeal against an order of acquittal.

(emphasis supplied)

Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

42. As was rightly noted by the trial court there was no evidence towards the claim regarding any demand of dowry. That being so the High Court ought not to have interfered with the well reasoned judgment of the trial court directing acquittal. The reasoning of the High Court that something must have happened and otherwise deceased would not have committed suicide is clearly indefensible. That certainly could not have been a reason to set aside the trial Court's judgment of acquittal.

43. The appeal is allowed. The bail bonds executed with effect to the order of bail dated 18th May, 2002 and subsequent date shall stand discharged.

April 24, 2009 30
Jawahar Singh @ Bhagat Ji vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi

On or about 26.09.1999, one Attar Singh, Sub-Inspector received a secret information that the appellant herein would come to a place known as Yamuna Pusta to deliver a consignment of smack. On the basis of the said information, he sent an intimation to the Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Narcotics Branch, whereupon he was directed by the Station House Officer to conduct a raid.

At about 12.15 p.m. on the said date, allegedly, the appellant was apprehended at the given place. He is said to have been provided with an option for getting himself searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer wherefor a notice under Section 50 of the Act was served. However, as he had not opted to be searched before a Magistrate/ Gazetted Officer, the appellant was searched by Sub Inspector Atar Singh.

4. Appellant preferred an appeal thereagainst, which by reason of the impugned judgment dated 23.03.2007 has been dismissed. 3

8. The offence indisputably took place on 26.09.1999. Appellant was convicted by a judgment dated 5.11.2000. As indicated hereinbefore, the Amending Act came into force on 2.10.2001. By reason of the said amendment, "commercial quantity" and "small quantity" were defined as under:

2(xxiiia) "small quantity", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity lesser than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette."

17. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the Amending Act cannot be said to have any retrospective effect. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

May 05, 2009