L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Mohammad Ahmad & Anr vs Atma Ram Chauhan & Ors

In that case landlord would also be satisfied that he is getting adequate, just and proper return on the property. But the trend in the C.A. No.__@ SLP(C)No. 6319 of 2007 2 litigation between landlord and tenant shows otherwise. Tenant is happy in paying the meagre amount of rent fixed years ago and landlord continues to find out various grounds under the Rent Acts, to evict him some how or the other.

3. Thumb nail sketch of the facts of the case are mentioned hereinbelow:-

5. Respondent No. 1 who was working as the Medical Officer at Zila Parishad, Saharanpur retired on 31.07.1992. For his personal C.A. No.__@ SLP(C)No. 6319 of 2007 4 bonafide need he needed these two small shops, i.e. an east-facing room (for consultation and setting up medical equipment) and an adjoining west-facing room (to serve as a waiting room for patients). The sketch map shows that one of the shops facing western side is already in his occupation. He had requested both Appellant No.1 and Respondent No.4, Shri Md.

It was also contended that looking to various factors such as the nature of construction, its prime location in the city, being situated on the main highway, and thus having easy accessibility to it and the availability of all other amenities and facilities etc. even the rent fixed by learned Single Judge at the rate of Rs. 2100/- per month for both the shops is on the lower side and too meagre. According to her, the total area under occupation of the Appellants would be 240 sq. ft. and with the rent fixed at Rs.2100/-, the rent would come to Rs.87.50 per sq. ft. This according to her is too low, keeping in mind the present trend and the prevalent market rate of rent. She thus submitted that no case for interference is made C.A. No.__@ SLP(C)No. 6319 of 2007 13 out and the appeal being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be dismissed.

20. Thus in our considered opinion, the appeal from such an interim order of the learned Single Judge, being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be dismissed. We accordingly do so.

Thus for a period of 5 years the tenant shall enjoy immunity from being evicted from the premises.

(vi) The parties shall be at liberty to get the rental fixed by the official valuer or by any other agency, having expertise in the matter.

(vii) The rent so fixed should be just, proper and adequate, keeping in mind, location, type of construction, accessibility with the main road, parking space facilities available therein etc. Care ought to be taken that it does not end up being a bonanza for the landlord.

23. As mentioned hereinabove, the aforesaid appeal is dismissed with costs throughout.

24. Counsels' fee Rs. 10,000/-.

..J. [DEEPAK VERMA] New Delhi May 13, 2011
Cantonment Borad & Anr vs Church Of North India

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

3. The case of the appellants is that the premises were not being utilized fully and that the respondent had taken some other premises also. The appellants needed the premises. After the expiry of the lease on 31.3.1984, the Estate Officer of the Cantonment Board stopped accepting the rent.

4. The appellants served a notice of seven days as required under Section 4 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `Public Premises Act') on 14.3.1984 and again on 27.3.1984. The respondent filed a Civil Suit No.10/1985 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge No.1 at Ajmer to challenge the notice. The respondent filed an application to deposit the rent in Civil Court but that was not entertained. The Civil Suit came to be dismissed on 31.7.1987 and the respondent applied for six months time to vacate which was accepted by the appellant. The order passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer in that matter on 31.7.1987 reads as follows:-

It is this order of eviction which was challenged in appeal to the District Court and thereafter in writ petition.

19. In the circumstances, this Civil Appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dated 17.5.2002 in Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.753/1993 as well as the order dated 13.8.1991 passed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5281/1991 are set aside. Appeal No.753/1993 filed before the Division Bench will stand allowed and Writ Petition No.5281/1991 filed by the respondent before the Single Judge will stand dismissed. The order passed by the Estate Officer dated 26.6.1991 as upheld by the District Judge, Ajmer is hereby confirmed.

20. The appeal is allowed accordingly, though, without any order as to costs.
Birender Poddar vs State Of Bihar

This appeal which is now surviving only at the instance of Birender Poddar, the husband of the deceased woman, is directed against the concurrent judgment and order of his conviction. In the Sessions Trial No. 380 of 1994, the appellant stood convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The appellant was also convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment, sentence to run concurrently. The High Court on appeal, affirmed the conviction and the sentences.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 373 OF 2006 .7.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 373 OF 2006 .8.

We, therefore, do not discern any error in the appreciation of their evidence either by the trial court or by the High Court. That being the position, we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding referred to above.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

[DEEPAK VERMA] NEW DELHI;

MAY 16, 2011.
M.P. State vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta

7. Our attention is also drawn to the fact that in the course of his employment, the respondent suffered a penalty of withholding of two increments and the same was also imposed by the Government. The said order of punishment was filed in the trial court by the respondent himself. These are admitted facts of the case.

17. This appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the trial of the case of the respondent may proceed in accordance with law.

......................,J (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) ......................, J (DEEPAK VERMA) NEW DELHI MAY 18, 2011 6 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 992 OF 2007 M.P. STATE Appellant (s) VERSUS PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA Respondent(s) (With office report) Date: 18/05/2011 This Appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA (VACATION BENCH) For Appellant(s) Mr. S.K. Dubey, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv.

Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Gopal vs State Of M.P

2. Five accused were charged and prosecuted for commission of offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149 IPC in the court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 227 of 1992. The Trial Court 2 pronounced the judgment on 31.3.1995, holding the accused Gopal guilty for commission of offences under Sections 148, 302,323/149 IPC, accused Shanker Lal and Nand Lal under Sections 148,302/149, 323 IPC, accused Chhotelal and Dinesh under Sections 148/302/149,323/149 IPC and awarded punishment together with fine as described in its judgment.

4. The High Court, in the appeal of Gopal, has found him guilty for commission of offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, whereas in the other Criminal Appeal, accused Shankarlal, Nandlal and Chhotelal were found guilty for commission of offence under Section 324 IPC and awarded sentence to the period already undergone by them with fine of Rs. 200/- each. The accused Dinesh was not found guilty for any of the offences and was, accordingly, acquitted.

5. State has preferred appeal only against that part of the judgment and order, whereby accused Shankarlal, Nandlal and Chhotelal have been found guilty under Section 324 IPC and accused Dinesh has been acquitted. Accused Gopal has preferred appeal on the ground that in view of the free fight between accused and the complainant party and the nature of injuries sustained by some of the accused persons, he deserves to be acquitted. 3

6. It is pertinent to mention here that State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of the High Court wherein and whereunder conviction and sentence awarded to accused Gopal under Section 302 IPC was altered to one under Section 304 Part-I IPC. In this view of the matter, the State cannot challenge that accused Gopal should have been convicted under Section 302 IPC.

17. As mentioned hereinabove, since there is no appeal preferred by the State against that part of the judgment whereby the accused Gopal has been found guilty for commission of offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC and acquitted under Section 302 IPC, we are afraid, there cannot be any scope for considering the conviction of accused Gopal from Section 304 Part-I to 302 IPC.

19. In the light of aforesaid contentions, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal of accused Gopal can only be allowed in part to the extent that his conviction has to be upheld under Section 304 Part-I IPC but sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone by him, which is more than six years. This, according to us, would meet the end of justice. However, in Criminal Appeal No. 1711 of 2007, we find absolutely no merit or substance and the same deserves to be dismissed.

20. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 1710 of 2007 filed by accused Gopal is partly allowed inasmuch as his conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC is upheld but sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. He be released from the jail immediately if not required in any other case. Criminal Appeal No. 1711 of 2007 filed by the State is hereby dismissed.
State Of Rajasthan vs Islam

The appeal of the accused Asru, Guncheri, Mohammada, Kalto, Roshan and Titta was allowed and they were acquitted from the charges under Sections 148 and 336/149 IPC. -2-

So far as Islam is concerned, the High Court set aside his conviction under Section 302 and converted it under Section 304 Part II IPC considering that Islam had already undergone detention for more than six years. The High Court also imposed a fine of Rs. 30,000(Rupees Thirty Thousand) on Islam and held that the same would meet the ends of justice.

Therefore, the purpose of our examination is confined to the question whether in passing the order of conversion of sentence from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC in respect of respondent no. 1, the High Court exercised its judicial discretion properly. It may be mentioned in this -3- connection that the Trial Court, namely, Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deeg convicted respondent no. 1 under section 302 IPC and convicted him to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to further undergo imprisonment of six months.

Appreciating the evidence of these witnesses, the Trial Court reached the finding that respondent no. 1 can be held guilty under Section 302 IPC and accordingly found him guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment. The High Court has noted the injuries on the deceased. The injuries on the deceased are as follows:

The golden thread which runs through the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to the innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from a conviction of an innocent.

The principle to be followed by appellate court considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons to do so.

The appeal of the State is thus allowed.
Jaladhar Mondal vs State Of West Bengal

3. Initially, there were three accused persons, namely, the appellant Jaladhar Mondal, Meghnath Mondal and Smt. Rasibala Mondal. Jaladhar Mondal is the husband of the deceased Rina Mondal and Meghnath Mondal and Smt. Rasibala Mondal respectively are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Rina, who was married in the family of Mondals with the appellant-accused Jaladhar. The death of Rina Mondal took place within one year of 2 her marriage.

5. The trial court after a full-fledged trial, convicted the accused persons under Section 302/201 I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302 and further ordered rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 201 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo further imprisonment for three months and the sentences were to run concurrently. All the accused persons were acquitted of the charges u/s. 498A and 304-B IPC.

7. The incident which had taken place and led to the death of the deceased, Rina Mondal, have been very graphically noted with all the details in the judgment of the learned Trial Judge. So, these facts are not repeated here.

8. In this case, the information was lodged by PW-4 on receiving information on 25.3.88 about the death of the deceased, Rina Mondal, allegedly by catching fire at the matrimonial house. On receiving the said information, PW-4 came to the village of the appellant and after getting the information from the local people, lodged the complaint at the local police station alleging foul play. On receipt of such complaint, the local police started a specific case and thereafter getting the post mortem report from Doctor, which confirmed homicidal death of Rina Mondal, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant.

14. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

......................,J (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) ......................,J (DEEPAK VERMA) NEW DELHI MAY 25, 2011
Sk. Yusuf vs State Of West Bengal

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that:

Thus, investigation ensued. The appellant was arrested on 7.9.1991 by the villagers in the paddy fields near Batrish Bigha and handed over to the police. It was on his disclosure that an old spade, one ghuni and one enamel thala (plate) were recovered. After completing the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant. He denied his involvement in the crime pleading not guilty. Thus, he was put to trial. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses to prove its case.

(C) After conclusion of the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan, vide judgment and order dated 26.5.2000 found the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-

under Section 302 IPC and further sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 201 IPC.

(D) Being aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2000 in the High Court of Calcutta which has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 28.6.2006. Hence, this appeal.

16. While the appellant-accused was examined by the trial Court under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.), he was asked the question that during that time Abdul Rashid (PW.5) and Swapan Murmu (not examined) had seen 11 him talking with the deceased. The appellant replied that he was innocent.

ABSCONDANCE:

26. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:

The nature of the admissibility of the facts discovered pursuant to the statement of the accused under Section 27 of Indian Evidence 19 Act, 1872 is very limited. If an accused deposes to the police officer the fact as a result of which the weapon with which the crime is committed is discovered, and as a result of such disclosure, recovery of the weapon is made, no inference can be drawn against the accused, if there is no evidence connecting the weapon with the crime alleged to have been committed by the accused.

29. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the courts below convicted the appellant on a mere superfluous approach without in depth analysis of the relevant facts.

30. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The appellant is given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

Appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case.
Bhagloo Lodh & Anr vs State Of U.P

B) On the basis of the said FIR, Case Crime No.155/1999 was registered under Sections 302/34 IPC and investigation ensued. The dead body of Vinod Kumar was recovered and sent for post mortem examination. Buddhi Narain Lal (PW.5), Investigating Officer completed the investigation and submitted chargesheet under Sections 302/34 IPC. All the four accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

C) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined five witnesses, namely, Rajesh Singh (PW.1), Devi Gulam Singh (PW.2) as eye-witnesses, Dr. R.K. Porwal (PW.4), Constable Shailendra Singh (PW.3), and Buddhi Narain Lal, I.O. (PW.5). The accused also examined Jag Dev (DW.1) and Salim (DW.2) to prove alibi that the appellants could not be present on the place of occurrence as they had been in their agricultural field.

After conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the appellants along with Bhagaloo Singh 3 under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life vide judgment and order dated 12.7.2002.

D) Being aggrieved, the appellants and co-accused Bhagaloo Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No. 956 of 2002 before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.4.2004. Hence, the appellants filed this appeal.

Rajesh Singh (PW.1) and Devi Gulam Singh (PW.2), the alleged eye-

accused and spare the real assailants.

15. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances of present case do not warrant any review of the judgments and orders of the courts below. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Vishram Singh Raghubanshi vs State Of U.P

D) The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court considered the matter on judicial side, giving full opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. The High Court ultimately held the appellant guilty of committing the contempt and sentenced him to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Hence this appeal.

3. This Court vide order dated 26.6.2006 suspended the operation of sentence and directed the appellant to deposit the fine of Rs. 2,000/-

The appellant intimidated the presiding officer of the court hurling filthiest abuses and lowered the authority of the Court, which is tantamount to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings.

29. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case.

Thus, we are of the view that the apology tendered by the appellant had neither been sincere nor bona fide and thus, not worth acceptance.

30. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. A copy of the judgment and order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, for taking the appellant into custody and send him to the jail to serve out the sentence.
Waman & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra

2) Brief facts:

Suresh Bohare and Atmaram Bohare after putting paddy at the threshing machine were coming back to their home. When they reached near the D.P. of electricity situated in the land of Kamalabai, Gowardhan (A-1) passed a comment on them and a quarrel between the parties took place. Immediately after starting of quarrel, A-2 to A-13 rushed there with weapons and started assaulting Suresh Bohare and Atmaram Bohare.

Abhiman (A-3), who was having an axe in his hand gave a blow on the back of Suresh Bohare. Kalpanabai (A-11), gave a blow of spade on the head of Suresh Bohare. Pramilabai (A-

10) who was having stick also beat Suresh with it. At the same time, Manoj (A-5) and Waman (A-4) who were having axe in their hands, gave blows on the head of Atmaram. During this, Jaipal (A-6) and Kantabai (A-8) gave an axe blow and stick blow respectively to Atmaram. Shantabai (A-7) and Parvatabai (A-9) gave scissors blow on the mouth of Atmaram.

Due to this sudden attack by the accused persons, Suresh Bohare and Atmaram Bohare sustained serious injuries and they fell down on the ground. On hearing the commotion, PWs 1-3 and one Sakhubai Rakhade (PW-4) rushed towards the place of incident. The accused persons fled away. Suresh and Atmaram were brought to home and were taken to Amagaon Hospital from where they were immediately shifted to KTS Hospital at Gondiya. The doctor on duty declared Suresh brought dead and after sometime Atmaram also died in the hospital. On the oral complaint of Kamlabai (PW-1), a case with FIR No. 183/2000 was registered on 29.10.2000 against 13 accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149 and 447 r/w 149 of IPC.

c) During the course of investigation, the accused persons were arrested and various weapons were recovered at their instance. After completion of investigation, they were charge sheeted.

We accept the prosecution case and agree with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court.

All those materials were correctly analysed and accepted by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. On perusal of all the above said materials, we agree with the said conclusion.

In those circumstances, interference by this Court under Article 136 is not warranted. We do not find any error or infirmity or valid legal ground for interference in the order passed by the courts below, consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

JUNE 29, 2011.