L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Thanu Ram vs State Of M.P

1. The Petitioner herein, Thanu Ram, was married to Hirabai (deceased) in 1984. On 24th March, 1988, Hirabai committed suicide in her matrimonial home by sprinkling kerosene upon herself and setting 2 herself on fire. She died in the hospital on 25th March, 1988, having suffered 90-95% burn injuries.

Prior to her death, she made a dying declaration to the Naib Tahsildar, J.R. Lahre, who was examined by the prosecution as P.W.9. Dr. K. Vinay Kumar, in whose presence the declaration was made, was examined by the prosecution as P.W.11 to testify that Hirabai was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration before P.W.9.

2. The Petitioner, his father, Dhanaram, and mother, Lachhavantin, were tried and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and 5 years, respectively. In appeal before the High Court, accused Dhanaram was acquitted, while the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner and his mother were confirmed.

This Special Leave Petition has been preferred by the husband of the deceased, Thanu Ram, against the said judgment and order of the High Court. For the sake of record, it may be mentioned that the Petitioner's mother, Lachhavantin, died in prison while serving her sentence.

4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its case which was denied by the accused in their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal 4 Procedure (Cr.P.C.). According to the prosecution, since Hirabai committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage with the Petitioner, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was available against the accused and having regard to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, a case had clearly been made out for conviction of all the accused persons under Sections 306 and 498- A IPC.

22. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court or the Trial Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
S.Chandramohan Nair vs George Joseph & Ors

4. The final minutes containing the recommendation which were signed by the Chairman and both the members read as under:

7. As a sequel to the above, the State Government issued notification dated 11.5.2006 appointing Smt. Valsala Sarangadharan and Shri K.V. Thomas as members of the State Commission.

13. In the counter affidavit filed by him, the appellant questioned the locus standi and bona fides of respondent No.1 by alleging that the writ petition has been filed at the instance of Shri K.V. Thomas. The appellant also defended his appointment by stating that although his name had been recommended by the Selection Committee, the State Government chose to ignore the same and appointed Shri K.V. Thomas, whose name was initially recommended by two members, but after disposal of Writ Petition No.13058 of 2006, the State Government realised its mistake and appointed him in place of Shri K.V. Thomas. Along with the counter affidavit, the appellant enclosed a copy of the written statement filed by the Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs in Writ Petition (C) No.13058 of 2006 wherein it was admitted that a panel of three names including that of the appellant was recommended to the State Government.

20. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Ahtesham Ali vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2. The prosecution story is as under:

the first informant and the prosecutrix, P.W.4 - Mahmoon Khatoon, the mother of the victim, P.W. 7 - the lady doctor who had examined her on the allegations of rape and P.W. 8 - Dr. M.N. Sinha. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant made a bare denial and claimed that he was innocent of the offence alleged against him.

6. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal deserves to succeed. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the Courts below. The appeal is allowed.

7. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand discharged.
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Kashmir Singh & Ors

4. The respondents herein were serving in various districts in the State of Haryana as Constables, Head Constables, Exemptee Head Constables, Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors (hereinafter in short as ASI and SI, respectively). They were ordered to be transferred to other districts and ranges by the Inspector General of Police. The respondents challenged the transfer orders contending that in view of the Punjab Police rules so far as Constables, Head Constables and Exemptee Constables are concerned, they could not be transferred outside the district, and so far as ASI and SIs are concerned, they could not be transferred outside the range.

16. In our opinion, the High Court has taken a totally impractical view of the matter. If the view of the High Court is to prevail, great difficulties will be created for the State administration since it will not be able to transfer/deploy its police force from one place where there may be relative peace to another district or region/range in the State where there may be disturbed law and order situation and hence requirement of more police. Courts should not, in our opinion, interfere with purely administrative matters except where absolutely necessary on account of violation of any fundamental or other legal right of the citizen. After all, the State administration cannot function with its hands tied by judiciary behind its back. As Justice Holmes of the US Supreme Court pointed out, there must be some free-play of the joints provided to the executive authorities.

18. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of the High court is set aside and the writ petitions before the High Court stand dismissed.

No costs.

OCTOBER 06, 2010
State Of U.P vs Suman

2. The Sessions Judge had convicted the respondent herein, the wife of the deceased, Manni, for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and had awarded a sentence of life imprisonment. This judgment has been reversed by the High Court. While doing so, the High Court has given several findings which to our mind call for no interference. The prosecution story is that (P.W. 1) Chunna and Smt. Kallo (P.W. 2), the parents of the deceased, had not seen the accused firing the shots Crl.A. No. 409 of 2005 2 but on hearing the sound of firing they along with Rameshwar, brother of PW 2, had entered the room belonging to the accused and the deceased and had found the injured lying there and on enquiry he had told Rameshwar that the accused had fired the shots injuring him. We find it improbable, and it is so found by the High Court, that the respondent, a young woman, had, at that stage, run away along with three young children despite the presence of two men in the room and after bolting the door from the outside. The improbability of the story has been further highlighted by the High Court by observing that as per the prosecution, the injury had been caused to the deceased from a short distance i.e. the firing was within the room but there were no signs of blackening, tattooing or charring around the wounds and as a shot gun had been used allegedly from a distance of 8 to 10 feet the dimension of injury no. 1 which was 1.00cm X 1.00cm which could not have been possible as there would be substantial dispersal of the pellets. The High Court has also found that one metal bullet had been recovered from the dead body which could not be a pellet from a shot gun cartridge. The High Court has also observed that the recovery of a gun from one Kamlesh about one month after the incident (which was the licensed weapon of the deceased) could not be connected with murder as the two Crl.A. No. 409 of 2005 3 empty cartridges recovered from the murder site, did not match the murder weapon, more particularly, as the initial prosecution story was that the shot gun had been left behind in the room by the accused when she had run away.

3. No interference is thus called for.

4. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
M/S.Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P)Ltd vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

7. On 30th September 1992, the consignee informed the Agartala branch office of respondent No. 1 about the damage to the goods. The road carrier, M/s Paul Brothers also reported the matter to the respondent No. 2, herein. Subsequently, on 3rd October 1992, the road carrier issued a shortage/damage certificate stating that 153 tins were handed over in 3 fully empty condition and in the remaining 1041 tins, there was shortage of oil.

8. It appears from the report of the surveyor, one Mr. Tapan Kumar Saha, that the Agartala branch of respondent No.1 had issued instructions for survey on 28th November 1992. On 10th November 1992, he submitted his report whereby he assessed the total loss at `4,39,178/- payable by the respondents. The said report was also communicated to respondent No. 2.

9. On 6th August 1993, another surveyor, Mr. S.K. Bakliwal, was appointed by respondent No. 2, who reported that during the period from 1st April 1992 to 14th August 1992, the appellant had only declared dispatches worth `91,22,778/- whereas the total dispatches by the appellant during that period were to the tune of `1,43,59,303/-.

10. Respondent No. 2 thereafter requested Mr. Tapan Kumar Saha to segregate the damage caused to the goods at the place of accident, and the subsequent damage that occurred during the transportation of the damaged consignment to Agartala. In his report dated 22nd March 1994, the surveyor observed that loss of oil due to the railway accident was 2,048 kgs. and from Dharamnagar to Agartala, it was 10,676 kgs.

11. On 23rd August 1993, the appellant requested the respondents to honour their claim, followed by a reminder on 12th May 1994. On 1st August 1994, the respondents, vide letter No. UIIC:DOII:JPR:1994-95, repudiated the claim of the appellant on the following grounds:

13. The State Commission, vide its order dated 24th June 1996, allowed the complaint of the appellant and directed the respondents to pay `4,39,178/-

15.Being dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant is before us in this appeal.

28. Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
D.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa

3. The respondent did not make any response to the said legal notice, thus, the appellant filed Original Suit No. 122 of 1992 before the court of Munsiff and JMFC Court, Mulbagal, seeking the relief of specific performance. The said Suit was contested by the respondent contending that there was an absolute sale deed in his favour and it was not a conditional sale deed, the term of reconveyance had been fraudulently inserted by the appellant after the execution of the document.

Manipulation had been done at several places in the said sale deed after the execution and the appellant had put in the word "Avadhi", which means tenure, just to make the same a conditional sale deed. The trial court considered the case of both the parties and dismissed the Suit vide judgment and decree dated 15th November, 1995.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the First Appellate Court by filing RFA No.133/1995, and the appeal was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 10th March, 1999. The First Appellate Court held that it was a conditional sale deed, thus, the Court directed the respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant. The respondent approached the High Court by filing the Regular Second 3 Appeal i.e. R.S.A. No. 446 of 1999 under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `C.P.C.') and the said appeal has been allowed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2002. Hence, this appeal.

9. The appellant has examined himself and two other witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3. The other persons had been the scribe and attesting witnesses to the document. Copies of the said sale deed were produced and marked as Ex. P-1 to P-4. The respondent examined himself as DW-1. Two other witnesses including one attesting witness were also examined by him in defence. The trial court framed four issues :

appreciated the entire evidence and thus, there was no occasion for the First Appellate Court to reverse the findings of fact recorded by the trial court. The judgment and order of the High Court does not require any interference, the appeal lacks merit and, accordingly, is liable to be dismissed.

(Supra).

16. The case is required to be examined from another angle also.

17. The aforesaid circumstances make it abundantly clear that the appellant has made inter-lineations after the document stood executed.

In view of the above, we find no force in the appeal and it lacks merit and, is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors

10. On a scrutiny of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the learned single Judge has initiated contempt proceedings against the appellant essentially on impression and assumption that he was instrumental in ensuring that the order of stay passed in favour of the Insurance Company on 22.3.2001 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1072 of 2001 was not implemented and further the letter dated 22.12.2005 by which the appellant herein as the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) had sought the case number of the writ petition for which the order sheet was to be sent, was treated as an attempt on the part of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) causing obstruction in the way of administration of justice. It was further inferred that he had done so in order to shield the then Judge, MACT Shri S.K. Bansal from facing the vigilance enquiry.

compliance cannot be fastened on the appellant herein- Shri Gupta so as to justify initiation of contempt proceeding against him. Hence, non-

21. Hence, we set aside the impugned order dated 08.12.2006 passed by the learned single Judge by which the proceeding for contempt has been ordered to be initiated by registering a regular contempt proceeding against the appellant and the same shall be treated as dropped.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed directing the parties to bear their cost.
Gurbux Singh vs Harminder Kaur

wife, who is working as a Librarian in Government Institute DIET at Verka, Amritsar on the ground of `cruelty'. Both the courts have rejected the claim of the appellant herein on the ground that he has failed to prove `cruelty' sufficient for grant of a decree of divorce.

2) (a) On 23.11.1997, the appellant got married with the respondent at Amritsar according to Sikh rites and customs. Even on the date of marriage, the respondent had been working as a Librarian in a Government Institute DIET at Verka, Amristar. From the very beginning, the respondent expressed her dislike towards the appellant and his family and gradually started misbehaving with them. She started exhibiting short-

tempered behaviour and treated the parents of the appellant with cruelty and disrespect. The father of the 2 appellant is aged about 80 years and his mother is more than 75 years. In the month of January 1998, on the first Lohri festival after their marriage, the respondent being annoyed with the appellant on a trivial issue, abused his mother in filthy language in the presence of their relatives and neighbours causing immense pain to the entire family. Since then, the respondent started insisting that she cannot live with the parents of the appellant who are mental and nuisance in her life and pressed upon the appellant to have a separate abode from his parents.

(b) On 15.05.1999, a male child was born out of the wedlock. Even after the birth of the child, there was no improvement in the behaviour of the respondent. She always insisted that she being financially independent is not in need of the appellant and his family.

(c) Just five days before the third birthday of their child i.e. on 10.05.2002, the respondent, without any justifiable reason left the matrimonial home leaving the child 3 unattended and went to her parents house and staying there since then. The appellant having failed in his efforts to bring back the respondent to the matrimonial home and in view of the consistent cruelty filed HMA Case No. 19 of 2003 before the Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, praying for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act.

16) In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to accept the claim of the appellant, on the other hand, we are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Addl. District Judge as well as the High Court.

Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

OCTOBER 8, 2010.
Maharashtra State ... vs Datar Switchgear Ltd.& Ors

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, material for adjudication of the issue arising in this appeal may be stated thus:

4. Pursuant to various contracts entered into between respondent No. 1 and MSEB in the year 1993-94 for installation of "Low Tension Load Management Systems" (for short "LTLMS"), MSEB issued a work order on 27th March 1997 whereby respondent No. 1 was required to install at various locations and lease out 47,987 LTLMS to MSEB for a period of 10 years at a monthly rent of ` 825/- for the first six years, and about ` 650/- per month for the remaining four years.

7. On 21st April 1999, respondent No.1 terminated the contract in entirety.

10. On the basis of the said observations in the arbitral award, on 23rd June 2004 respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed criminal complaint No. 476 of 2004 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik for offences under Sections 192 and 199 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik took cognizance of the said complaint and issued summons against all the accused named in the complaint.

32.It was faintly argued that the arbitral award on the basis whereof the said complaint has been filed has been set aside and therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed on this ground. The submission is untenable as 1 the offences under Sections 192 and 199 IPC, if made out, exist independent of the final arbitral award. We are, therefore, of the opinion, that it is not a fit case for the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, in favour of appellant No. 1.

Surendra Chauhan Vs. State of M.P.25)

Therefore, in order to attract Section 34 of the IPC, the complaint must, prima facie, reflect a common prior concert or planning amongst all the accused. In our opinion, in the present case, the complaint does not indicate the existence of any pre-arranged plan whereby appellant No. 2 had, in collusion, with the other accused decided to fabricate the document in question and adduce it in evidence before the arbitral tribunal. There is not even a whisper in the complaint indicating any participation of appellant No. 2 in the acts constituting the offence, and that being the case we are convinced that Section 34 IPC is not attracted in his case.

35. In the final analysis, we are of the opinion that no prima facie case has been made out against appellant No.2 in respect of offences under Sections 192 and 199 of the IPC, even with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. Therefore, it was a fit case where the High Court should have exercised its powers under Section 482 of the Code by quashing the complaint against appellant No. 2.

36.For the aforegoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed qua appellant No. 1; it is allowed in relation to appellant No.2; and consequently order of the Magistrate taking cognizance against appellant No. 2 in Complaint No.476 of 2004 is quashed.

OCTOBER 8, 2010 2
All Sikkim Youth Asson. & Anr vs H.R. Subba & Ors

2. The All Sikkim Youth Forum, a registered body, filed a writ petition in public interest in the High Court. This appeal was based on a news item which was published in the `Sikkim Observer', a National Hill Weekly, from 13th to 17th November, 2000 under the title `Transparency and Accountability-I'. In 2 the news item it was published that according to well placed sources the Public Works Department (Roads and Bridges), Sikkim had submitted a report to the Finance Commission showing a financial liability of more than Rs.60 crores.

6. The officers of the Finance and Revenue departments had been named in the writ petition. In the writ petition it was stated that the petition was not aimed at any individual or set of persons and was not filed with any ulterior motive. The petition was genuinely filed in the larger public interest.

22. Out of Rs.3.41 crores, only an advance of Rs.32750 [Rs.12987 under Non-plan + Rs.19763 under Plan] which could not be assigned to anyone was indicated. As the previous advances taken by different drawees got adjusted, new advances were drawn and, therefore, at no point of time the total advance got adjusted to zero level and therefore, this amount of advance that could not be assigned to anyone remained undetected. This amount obviously had rolled over 14 from past many years. Efforts were being made to reconcile this. The department had kept the record of total amount of money which was outstanding against the officers at the end of the every month and periodic adjustments were being made regularly. It was stated that all the advances against the respondents had been accounted for.

23. In view of the above, it was submitted that the allegation that the officers concerned had misappropriated the amount or that it was to be recovered from them was incorrect and the relief sought in this regard was misconceived, mala fide and motivated.

According to the impugned judgment the writ petition filed in the High Court by the appellant was devoid of any merit and was dismissed. The appellants being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment approached this Court.

In our considered opinion, no interference is called for. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

October 8, 2010.
Bangarayya vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

3. On a report filed by the appellant on September 1, 2002, a case was registered against 17 persons named as accused in the report. The police after investigation, submitted charge sheet under sections 143, 147, 451, 323, 427, 504, 506 read with section 149 of the Penal Code against all the accused named in the FIR, excepting accused nos. 2, 3 & 6. The learned magistrate proceeded with the trial summoning only those accused against whom the charge sheet was submitted. During the trial, prosecution witnesses 1 & 2 (examined on August 24, 2007 and February 2, 2008 respectively) in their deposition narrated the occurrence in detail and also 2 named accused nos.2, 3 & 6 (respondent nos.2-4 herein), against whom the police had not submitted the charge sheet, among the offenders. The prosecution then filed a petition under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter `the Code') for summoning those three accused as well for facing trial. The magistrate by a brief order passed on August 18, 2009, rejected the application. He took the view that the two witnesses were related to the complainant and no independent witness had till then been examined before him. He further observed that it was an old case in which the accused had been appearing in court from 2003. Summoning of the three more accused would further delay the matter. Some of the accused were "teachers and well known persons" and they would suffer due to the delay caused by summoning the additional accused.

7. We are, therefore, constrained to interfere in the matter. The orders passed by the High Court and the magistrate are set aside and the matter is remitted to the magistrate to consider the petition under section 319 of the Code afresh and pass an appropriate order on it, in accordance with law.

8. In the result the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.

...................................J (AFTAB ALAM) ....................................J (R.M. LODHA) New Delhi, October 8, 2010