L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Mariyappan vs State Of T.Nadu

2) Brief facts

a) The case on hand relates to the death of a woman in her house over a land dispute by the appellant-accused, claiming the plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’). Parvathi @ Kili (the deceased), her husband Parasivam Chettiar (PW-6) and their grand daughters viz., Chellakili (PW-1) and Parmala (PW-2) were living together at Ammapatti village. The deceased was the paternal aunt of the appellant- accused.

d) On 05.11.2001, at 8.00 a.m., while the deceased was in the kitchen, the appellant-accused entered into the house and closed the door from inside. When PWs 1 & 2 asked about the conduct of the appellant-accused, he said that if the deceased and her husband are not paying his money, he is going to kill them and went to the kitchen. Thereafter, the appellant- accused pulled the tuft of the deceased in his left hand and gave a cut on her neck with Aruval and when she warded off with her right hand, it resulted into injuries to her fingers. At that time, PWs 1 & 2 requested the accused to leave her. Again, the accused caught hold of the tuft of her in his left hand and gave repeated Aruval blows on her head as a result of which she died instantaneously. Thereafter, the accused left the place with Aruval in his hand and after opening the door he said that he is going to kill PW-6 also. On raising hue and cry by PWs 1 & 2, the neighbors came there. PW-1 along with PW-5 went to the Uthamapalayam Police Station and after recording the statement given by PW-1 the sub-Inspector of Police (PW-

16) registered a case being Crime No. 386 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. On the same day, at 4.30 p.m., the appellant-accused was arrested and the dead body was also sent for post mortem. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No. IV) Madurai at Periakulam and numbered as Sessions Case No. 390/2002.

19) In the light of the above discussion and in view of the materials placed and the decision arrived at by the trial Court and of the fact that there is no evidence as to the unsoundness of mind of the appellant-accused at the time of the occurrence, namely, on 05.11.2001 and also taking note of the fact that the accused failed to discharge the burden as stated in Section 105 of the Evidence Act, we fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.

20) Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

APRIL 18, 2013.
Sasi vs State Of Kerala

5. All of the three other accused were convicted by the Trial Court but Accused Nos.3 and 4 were acquitted by the First Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 31.12.2005. The conviction and sentence of the third accused i.e. Accused No.1 was set aside and he was acquitted by the First Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 24.6.2006. That was on the basis of failure of the prosecution witnesses to identify the accused. Inasmuch as this was a collective offence of removing the logs of wood from the forest by four accused persons together, and in view of the fact that three of them have been acquitted, the 4th accused could not have been held guilty independently. Unfortunately, this has so happened that the Trial Court convicted him by order dated 31st January, 2011 but the fact that other three accused persons were acquitted earlier, was not brought to the notice of the Trial Court nor the same was brought to the notice of the Fist Appellate Court which has confirmed the conviction of the 4th accused i.e. the appellant herein, by judgment and order dated 30.11.2011 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2011 and the High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.542 of 2012.

6. Having considered these facts, in our view, the appellant could not have been convicted alone for the particular incident. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the judgment & order dated 31.01.2011 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pathanamthitta in CC NO.299/2006 as affirmed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge by his judgment & order dated 30.11.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.48/2011 and the High Court of Kerala's judgment in Criminal Revision Petition No.542 of 2012 are hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.

.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE) .........................J (RANJAN GOGOI) New Delhi;

April 18, 2013.
Shri Ramji Enterprises Rep. By Mng.Part vs Union Of India & Ors

2. It appears, some disputes between the consignee and the petitioner (consignor) arose much later which also included a dispute on the quantum of charcoal delivered. Thus, based only on the plea of short delivery, after around 1½ years, the petitioner filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 23.02.1995. Though the same was allowed, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set it aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the original application before the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal framed the following issues:

6. There is also no case for the petitioner that the alleged short delivery was verified by the petitioner in its presence at the premise of the consignee. In any case, there is no case for the consignee before the Railways that there was short delivery. The goods were taken delivery without any protest and there was never any representation by the consignee before the Railways that there was any short delivery. It was the petitioner (consignor) for the first time which made a claim before the Consumer Commission regarding the alleged short delivery after around 1½ years, based only on the plea of the consignee made after more than one year. Admittedly no notice was sent either by the consignee or by the consignor under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 regarding the alleged short delivery before filing a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, after 1½ years of taking delivery. It is also significant to note that the consignee did not have any protest with regard to the number of gunny bags or the alleged weight entered in the railway receipts, at the time of delivery. Certainly the claim suffers from delay and laches.

4. The petitioner pursued its further remedy in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the High Court of Madras leading to the impugned judgment dated 15.06.2012. After elaborately considering the factual and legal aspects, the appeal was dismissed and, thus, aggrieved, the present special leave petition has been filed.

7. In such circumstances, we do not find any merit in this petition. Both, the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court have correctly appreciated the factual and legal position. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

8. There is no order as to costs.

April 25, 2014.
Anant R Kulkarni vs Y.P.Education Society & Ors

D. The Management Committee, vide resolution dated 4.3.2001 took a decision to hold disciplinary proceedings against the appellant as per the provisions of Rule 36 of the Rules 1981, and in pursuance thereof, a chargesheet dated 17.5.2001 containing 12 charges of misconduct, was served upon the appellant. The appellant vide letter dated 1.7.2001, submitted his clarifications with respect to the said charges that had been levelled against him.

E. An Enquiry Committee consisting of two members instead of three, as per the Rules 1981, conducted the enquiry and submitted its enquiry report on 20.5.2002, making a recommendation that the appellant be dismissed from service. The said enquiry report was accepted by the Management Committee, and the services of the appellant were terminated vide order dated 24.5.2002 w.e.f. 31.5.2002. F. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said termination order by filing Appeal No.65 of 2002, before the Tribunal. The respondents contested the appeal. However, upon reaching the age of superannuation, the appellant stood retired on 30.9.2002. G. The Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 19.10.2002 held, that none of the charges levelled against the appellant stood proved, and that the enquiry had not been conducted according to the Rules 1981. Thus, the termination order against the appellant was quashed.

H. Aggrieved, the respondents-management filed Writ Petition No.1849 of 2003 before the High Court, and the learned Single Judge decided the said writ petition vide judgment and order dated 20.4.2011, upholding the judgment of the Tribunal, and found the enquiry to be entirely defective and thus, illegal. I. The respondents-management filed Letters Patent Appeal No.171 of 2011, and the Division Bench too, upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as well as that of the Tribunal, but simultaneously also held, that the respondents were at liberty to proceed with the enquiry afresh, as regards the said charges.

In the conclusion, I hold that the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the charges. The net result of the scrutiny of the proceedings is that the inquiry seems to have been initiated on very technical flaws which lead to only conclusion that it was pre-determined and pre-judicial inquiry. As explained above, there is no sufficient proof on record to hold that the charges are proved.”

30. In view of the above, appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is modified to the extent referred to hereinabove. The appellant shall be entitled to recover all his salary and retirement dues, if not paid already. No costs.

(FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA) NEW DELHI APRIL 26, 2013
Bharat Bhushan vs State Of H.P

4. The appellant was charged with commission of an offence of rape upon a girl hardly 11 years old while she was working in the fields along with another girl aged around 10 years in Village Kanda, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. At the trial, the prosecution examined not only the prosecutrix who supported the charge but also other witnesses including PW- 2-her companion whose name is withheld to protect her identity and who had escaped an attempted assault by the co-accused, Dinesh Kumar. An alarm raised by PW-2 appears to have attracted the attention of PW-3-Piar Devi, mother of PW-2, who had rushed to the spot to rescue the girls, whereupon both the accused appears to have fled away. PW-5-Misru-the father of the prosecutrix and PWs-7, 8 and 9 namely Dr. Ajay Negi, Dr. Suresh Bansal and Dr. D.C. Negi were also examined at the trial all of whom have supported the prosecution case in their respective depositions. The trial Court, however, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant, the deposition of the witnesses mentioned above notwithstanding and, accordingly, acquitted both the accused persons of the charges framed against them.

xx xx xx

20. Coming then to the question of reference to the Juvenile Justice Board, we are of the view that such a reference is unnecessary at this distant point of time. The appellant is nearly 36 years old by now and a father of three children. He has already undergone nearly three years of imprisonment awarded to him by the High Court. In the circumstances, reference to the Juvenile Justice Board at this stage of his life would, in our opinion, serve no purpose. The only option available is to direct his release from custody.

21. In the result, we dismiss criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5059 of 2012 directed against the order of the High Court dated 8th April, 2010 and uphold the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC. Criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5060 of 2012 is, however, allowed and the order dated 30th April, 2010 passed by the High Court is set aside with a direction that the appellant shall be released from custody unless he is required in connection with any other case.
Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat ... vs Ved Prakash & Ors

3. It is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the appellant filed an FIR (P.S. Case No. 8 of 2003) at Dharampura Police Station against respondent nos. 1 to 4 for commission of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B, IPC alleging that they had executed a false, forged and fabricated will on 02.07.1997 in the name of late Devkinandan Sahay with the intention to grab his property. It was further alleged that based on the fabricated will, these respondents had obtained a mutation order dated 24.11.1999 from the Tehsildar, Ajaygarh. On completion of investigation in the above F.I.R., the challan has been filed against the above respondents and trial against them is going on in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ajaygarh, Panna (M.P.).

21. For the above reasons, appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.11.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is set aside. The proceedings in the civil suit shall now proceed further in accordance with law. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Addl. Distt. Sub-Registrar Siliguri vs Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors

4. Subsequently, some clerical corrections were carried out in the order, on 12.02.2007. When the decree was presented for registration, the same was objected to by the petitioner observing that there is no proper valuation for the purpose of registration. Aggrieved, the plaintiff took up the matter before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Siliguri leading to Annexure P6- Order. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) took the view that once the value has been fixed by the court, Registrar cannot make an attempt to reassess the same. Aggrieved, the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Siliguri, approached the High Court. Placing reliance on its earlier decision on Nitya Hari Kundu and others vs. State of W.B. and others[1], the High Court dismissed the petition and, hence, the Special Leave Petition.

16. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 02.09.2010 of the High Court of Calcutta and order dated 30.03.2001 of the learned Civil Judge, Siliguri and order dated 27.08.2007 of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri. The court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri shall consider afresh the matter after affording an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with regard to the stamp duty for the purpose of registration of the partition deed. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Appeal is allowed.

17. There is no order as to costs.

May 1, 2013.
Prabhat @ Bhai Narayan Wagh & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra

5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt, had examined as many as 20 witnesses, out of which PWs 4, 8, 15 and 16 are the eye witnesses. The trial court noticed various discrepancies, contradictions and improvements in the evidence rendered by the eye witnesses and held that the prosecution had failed to prove that, at the relevant time, there was an unlawful assembly of five or more persons and that the accused persons had committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC. The trial Court had also commented upon the faulty investigation conducted by the police and ultimately, gave the benefit of doubt to all the nine accused persons and they were acquitted.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of all charges and the conviction and sentence awarded to them by the High Court are set aside. They are ordered to be let free, unless wanted in any other case.
Shivasharanappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka

2. Sans unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that the deceased, Karemma, was the wife of Mallinath, son of Ningawwa. After the unfortunate demise of Mallinath, dispute arose between Ningawwa, the mother-in-law of the deceased, and deceased Karemma, relating to certain landed property, which initially stood in the name of Mallinath, and subsequently, the entries were made in name of deceased Karemma as she was in possession. The dispute relating to property which is dear to the human race as it stands in contradistinction to poverty, which is sometimes perceived as a cause of great calamity, eventually led, as alleged by the prosecution, to morbid bitterness. In the intervening night of 12th and 13th June, 1994, accused- Ningawwa, along with her relatives formed an unlawful assembly in front of the house of Shankarappa, father of the deceased, with the common object to commit the murder and in execution of the said common object, they trespassed into the house of Shankarappa during his absence where deceased Karemma was sleeping with her daughter, Jagadevi. After entering into the house, the accused persons assaulted the deceased, threatened the eleven year old girl, Jagadevi, and forcefully took the deceased away. After the mother was forcibly removed from the house, Jagadevi proceeded to inform her grandmother, Chandamma, who, at that juncture, was residing in the house of another daughter. Being informed by the granddaughter, Chandamma came to the house of the deceased, searched for her daughter, but, eventually, it turned to be an exercise in futility.

3. As the prosecution story would further uncurtain, the accused persons committed murder of the deceased Karemma and threw her dead body in a well situate at Benur village. The dead body was found on 15.6.1994 and thereafter, one Dasharath, PW-10, informed the fact at the concerned police station. On 16.6.1994, the Investigating Officer went near the well, removed the dead body of the deceased from inside the well, held the inquest of the dead body as per Ext. P-7, conducted the spot panchnama vide Ext Nos. 8 and 10, seized certain articles, recorded statements of certain other witnesses and, ultimately, about 8.00 P.M., registered suo motu case forming the subject matter of Crime No. 29/94 at Nelogi Police Station. After completing the investigation, the prosecution submitted the charge-sheet before the competent Court which, in turn, transmitted the same to the Court of Session for trial.

21. In view of the aforesaid premises, the appeals are allowed and the judgment of conviction passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 1999 is set aside and the accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges. As the appellants are already on bail, they be discharged of their bail bonds.

May 07, 2013.
Natasha Singh vs Cbi (State)

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under:

The power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection.

Furthermore, the same is not a case where if the application filed by the appellant had been allowed, the process would have taken much time. In fact, disallowing the said application, has caused delay. No prejudice would have been caused to the prosecution, if the defence had been permitted to examine said three witnesses.

20. In view of above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the Trial Court, as well as of the High Court impugned before us, are set aside. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant is allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on the 17th of May, 2013, and the learned Trial Court is requested to fix a date on which the appellant shall produce the three witnesses, and the same may thereafter be examined expeditiously in accordance with law, and without causing any further delay. Needless to say that the prosecution will be entitled to cross examine them.

May 8, 2013
Satya Jain(D) & Ors vs Anis Ahmed Rushdie(D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors

10. In addition to the above, I.A. D.No.37212 of 2013 has been filed by one Chopra Marketing Private Limited seeking impleadment in C.A. No. 8653 of 2012 on the basis that an agreement to sell the suit property was executed by and between the applicant and persons claiming to be the Attorneys of the defendant-respondents pursuant whereto the applicant had parted with a sum of Rs. 2 crores as advance payment. According to the applicant it had subsequently come to its knowledge that rights in the suit property had already been created in favour of the Fine Properties Private Limited as well as the applicants in I.A. 3-5 for which reason a FIR dated 8.12.2012 has been filed by the applicant before the Jurisdictional Police Station, i.e., Economic Offences Wing, Delhi.

13. Insofar as I.A. Nos.3-5 are concerned, suffice it will be to note that the facts stated therein, on the basis of which the prayer for modification/clarification has been made, were not before the Court at the time when the judgment dated 3.12.2012 was rendered. In I.A. Nos.14-15 and I.A. D.No. 37212 of 2013 the reliefs sought are based on facts and events which have occurred subsequent to the order of this Court. Not only on the basis of the principles of law laid down by this Court in Gurdip Singh Uban and Abdul Kareem (supra), even otherwise, the said I.As. would not be maintainable and the prayers made therein cannot be granted. The applicants seek to reopen concluded issues and alteration of the consequential directions which have attained finality. Such a course of action is not permissible and at best the parties may be left with the option of seeking such remedies as may be open in law to vindicate any perceived right or claim. We, therefore, dispose of the I.A. Nos.3-5, 14-15 and D.No. 37212 of 2013 in the above terms.

20. The exercise by the learned Trial Judge in terms of our judgment dated 3.12.2012 is yet to be made. The aforesaid determination, naturally, will be made by the learned single Judge only after affording an opportunity to all the affected parties and after taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances. Furthermore, any party aggrieved by such determination will be entitled to avail of such remedies that may be open in law to such a party. In view of the above, we do not deem it to be necessary to cause any variation or modification in the aforesaid direction contained in our judgment dated 3.12.2012.

21. Accordingly, I.A. Nos. 12-13 of 2013 shall stand disposed of in the above terms.
Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy vs C.B.I

Brief facts:

(g) Being aggrieved, the appellant moved the High Court for enlarging him on bail in Criminal Petition No. 5211 of 2012. The High Court, taking note of serious nature of the offence and having regard to personal and financial clout of the appellant (A-1) and finding that it cannot be ruled out that witnesses cannot be influenced by him in case he is released on bail at this stage, by impugned order dated 04.07.2012, dismissed his bail application.

(l) The appellant preferred Criminal Petition No. 8576 of 2012 before the High Court for grant of bail which came to be dismissed on 24.12.2012. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Criminal Petition No. 8750 of 2012 before the High Court. The High Court, by order dated 24.01.2013, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein.

(c) The CBI has further alleged that M/s Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. have returned the alleged sale proceeds to Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) in cash through hawala channels which clearly establish that the initial payment of Rs. 95 crores was only illegal gratification for the undue benefits received by them from the Government of Andhra Pradesh and was not genuine investments. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed with regard to the same on 08.04.2013 against A-1 and 12 others under various sections of the IPC and the PC Act. M/s Sandur Power Company Ltd.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

In case, such a prayer is made, the Court shall consider the prayer for bail independently, on its own merits, without being influenced by the dismissal of the special leave petition.

Grant of Mining Lease to Bharti Cements/Raghuram Cements:

18) With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed.

MAY 9, 2013.