L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
State Of Rajasthan vs Bhiya Ram

2. The prosecution version as unfolded during the trial was that the SHO, P.S. Modara, District Jalore, Gopal Ramawat (PW-5) on 22.4.2001 was conducting routine checking of the vehicles on the road near village Ramseen. In the evening, allegedly, Bhiya Ram and Prahlad Ram came riding on a motor-cycle, which had no number plate and when the same was signaled to stop, they did not stop. They were chased by the police jeep and ultimately the motor cycle was stopped. According to the prosecution, the motor cycle was searched and large quantity of opium was seized. Both were arrested. A case under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act was registered. The samples which were taken on the spot were sent for chemical examination. As per the chemical examination report (Exh.P/27) the material sent for examination was found to be opium containing Morphine. Hence, both were challaned before the said court. Both pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. DW-1 Jagdish was examined in defence. He stated that during the relevant time both the accused persons were at his house attending the betrothal ceremony of his daughter, Rekha, and the motor cycle belonging to Bhiya Ram was stolen by somebody and on the next day during the search, they found that the motor cycle was lying in the police out-post at Ramseen. In this way according to the defence version both were implicated falsely.

7. We set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to the High Court to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. This course is being adopted as the impugned order is bereft of discussion and reasoning.

8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
U.Suvetha vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr

3. Respondent No.2 was married to one Tutus Gunaraj on 18th May, 2005. Allegedly, he had some connection with the appellant. On coming to know about the same the first informant asked her husband thereabout. She was allegedly ill treated. She was left by her husband to live with her mother-in-law at Cuddalore while he went to his place of work at Sivagangai.

5. Inter alia on the premise that the allegation made against the appellant in the first information report, even if it be given face value, does not disclose an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, an application for discharge was filed by her. The same was dismissed on 25 th March, 2008. A revision application filed thereagaisnt has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment dated 1st August, 2008.

6. In the first information report except at one place the appellant has been described by the first informant as `girl friend' of her husband and only at the end the word `concubine' has been used.

22. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed.
Devendra & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Anr

7. Aggrieved thereby, Gullu filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition bearing No. 17667 of 1985 before the High Court wherein the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were not impleaded. The High Court by its order dated 7.11.1985, while issuing notice, stayed the operation of the order dated 21.10.1985 passed by the Board of Revenue.

8. On or about 22.08.1997, a sale deed was executed by the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the appellant Nos. 3 and 4.

9. On 24.08.2005, a suit was filed by the respondent No. 2 and others for cancelling the aforesaid deed of sale dated 22.08.1997, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 382 of 2005. The said suit is still pending in the Court of 4 Learned Civil Judge (Junior Div.) Ghaziabad. In the said suit, however, it was averred that Solhu had four sons whereas in the suit No. 135 of 1982, it was stated that Solhu had five sons.

11. On or about 21.09.2005, the respondent No. 2 filed an application in the Police Station, Kavinagar, Ghaziabad wherein the City Magistrate by an order dated 17.09.2005 passed an order to hear the complainant and register a First Information Report. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 filed a First Information Report in the Police Station, Sahni Gate on 21.09.2005.

21. It was, however, submitted that by reason of execution of a deed of sale claiming title over the property to which the appellants were not entitled to, the complainant - respondent had been cheated. It is difficult to accept the said contention. Appellants had not made any representation to the respondent No. 2. No contract and/ or transaction had been entered into by and between the complainant and the appellants.

What is, therefore, necessary is to execute a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document inter alia was made by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made.

We, therefore, do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders."

31. We, however, must place on record that we have not entered into the merit of the dispute as the civil suit is pending. The same has to be determined in accordance with law. We would request the court concerned to consider the desirability of the disposing of civil suit as expeditiously as possible.

32. The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions.

May 06, 2009
Subhash Soni & Anr vs State Of M.P

The appellants abjured their guilt and their defence was of false implication, therefore, they were put on trial. They stated in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `Cr. P.C.') that deceased and his brother Rajendra (PW.1) were doing colonizing business and on their behalf Radheshyam (PW.2) and Parkash (PW.3) used to collect money from the concerned persons. About three years ago one Babulal was got murdered by the deceased and Rajendra (PW.1). Dr. Komal Chandra Kothari (PW.4) was having family terms with deceased and his brother Rajendra (PW.1). They also submitted that Prakash Jadhav (PW.3) was convicted for murder of one Prabhakar Kadam and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned Sessions Court of Dewas. In the said case, 3 appellant Ramesh appeared as a witness against Parkash Jadhav. Because of all these reasons, appellants pleaded their false implication. Appellants examined Balraj Tiwari (DW. 1) in their defence whereas prosecution examined eight witnesses and proved 17 documents to prove its case.

The trial Court while acquitting Ramesh under Sections 4 read with 25(1-B), (b) and 27 of the Arms Act convicted the three appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial Court mainly relied on the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 who were eye witnesses and the dying declarations.

618)])

455)]

8. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

....................................J (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) .......................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, May 06, 2009 9
Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & Ors vs State Of Gujarat

4. The occurrence in which the appellant is involved is said to have taken place on 20th August, 2002 at Vadvasa Patia Village near Prantij. A first information report was lodged on the same date. During course of investigation all the six appellants were arrested.

5. Indisputably, they were remanded to police custody in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'). Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted. The matter was committed to the Sessions Court. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Sessions Judge. They were granted bail by the High Court by an order dated 30th August, 2003. 2

6. The matter, however, came up before this Court. A Bench of this Court by an order dated 26th March, 2008 passed by in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 109 of 2003 appointed a Special Investigation Team. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction the State of Gujarat issued a Notification on 1st April, 2008 constituting a Special Investigation Team to investigate into cases arising out of Godhra incident and communal riots erupted thereafter in the year 2002.

15. It is stated at the Bar that pursuant to the said order appellants had appeared before the concerned Sessions Judge as also the Special Investigating Team. They had visited Police Station, Prantij on 13 th September, 2008 and submitted a written representation expressing their willingness to cooperate with the further investigation by the Special Investigating Team but they were not examined. Their presence, however, was required on 14th September, 2008 wherefor a letter dated 12th September, 2008 was sent by fax on 13th September, 2008. Appellants appeared before the Sessions Judge and the on 14th September, 2008 and the matter was adjourned to 22nd September, 2008. They visited the police station also on 14th and 15th September, 2008.

27. No sufficient or cogent material has been placed on record by the State or the Special Investigating Team in this behalf.

28. For the reasons aforementioned the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. 17

29. We, however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, make the interim direction absolute subject to any other or further orders that may be passed by the Sessions Judge till an additional charge sheet, if any, is filed by the Special Investigating Agency before the learned Sessions Judge.
Harminder Kaur & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors

3. Indisputably, appellants fulfilled the requisite educational qualification. They have been drawing salary on a scale of pay. Indisputably again they had been continuing in the said posts for a long time.

Appellants, contending that they were entitled to be absorbed in the services of the Education Department, filed applications for their regularization before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") on the premise that the respondent - Administration could not have issued fresh advertisement for appointment of teachers . The said applications, however, were allowed only to the extent that they may not be replaced or substituted by another set of teachers appointed on contract basis.

By order dated 27.8.2003, the Tribunal dismissed the said Original Application opining that they had no right to be regularized in service and their appointment has to come to an end on their replacement by the regularly selected teachers.

6. However, the respondent - Administration directed appointment of teachers on deputation basis from the States of Punjab and Haryana by an order dated 15.9.2003.

We feel bound by the observations made therein.

18. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the High Court was correct in its view. We were, however, informed that 800 posts of teachers are lying vacant. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal informed that the Administration is ready and 20 willing to fill up the said posts on a regular basis. While doing so, we have no doubt in our mind that the cases of the appellants shall also be taken into consideration and the Administrator may consider the desirability of relaxing the age limit provided for in the Rules.

19. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeals are dismissed. No costs.

May 06, 2009
Suresh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P

4. On or about 8.12.1993 at about 5.10 p.m., a First Information Report ("FIR" for short) was lodged against the appellant and his family members by Ajmer Singh (P.W.1.), brother of the deceased, inter alia alleging:

5. We may furthermore notice the injuries found by the Autopsy Surgeon in his post mortem examination on the body of the deceased, which are as under:

The prosecution in support of its case examined four witnesses.

7. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant were: (1) that the death of the deceased occurred by way of an accident; (2) the marriage having taken place in the year 1983 that is not within a period of seven years from the date of her death, Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC were not applicable.

8. By reason of a judgment and order dated 30.4.1996, the learned trial judge while acquitting Smt. Kusuma Devi and Zila Jeet Singh convicted the appellant under Section 304B and 498A of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304B IPC and to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 498A IPC inter alia holding:

9. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.

12. Before adverting to the legal contentions raised herein, we may notice the deposition of the first informant - Ajmer Singh. According to him, the marriage took place sometime in April - May 1987. Dowry demands of the family of the appellant could not be fulfilled at that time. One month after the marriage, she came back to her maternal home and told her mother and other female members that the appellant and his family members had demanded a chain and a ring and also assaulted her. Six months thereafter allegedly while `Gauna' ceremony was being performed, he was informed by the deceased that they should give her a ring and a chain as otherwise the appellant would kill her. He was informed by daughter of `Maiku' who was married in the village of appellant that one year before the death of the deceased, accused persons had burnt her. She had brought the deceased and got her treated by Dr. Chedi Singh. Accused persons did not provide her any treatment and the deceased had a big wound. After healing she sent the deceased back with the cousin of appellant and thereafter the deceased was in the house of her husband for six months.

23. In view of our finding that the death did not take place within seven years from the date of marriage, no presumption could have been raised either under Section 113A or under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

24. We, however, are satisfied that the appellant has rightly been found guilty of commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Sentence imposed on him on that count is, therefore, maintained.

25. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is allowed in part and subject to the aforesaid findings.

May 06, 2009
Union Of India And Ors vs Parul Debnath & Ors

3. The respondents herein were appointed on different dates as members of the said Home Guard Organization under Regulation 4 of the said Regulation for periods of three years and since then they were continuously made to perform duties of a regular nature. They were also deployed to work under the operational control and supervision of the A&N Police and the overall control of the A&N Administration, without any break. From the tabulated statement forming part of the writ petition filed by the respondents, it appears that the respondents have been working for periods 3 ranging from 12 years to 23 years. Inasmuch as, the respondents claimed to be performing works of a permanent nature, but were treated differently from the regular employees of the same organization, they claimed equal pay for equal work with the regular Home Guards or for regularization of their services.

5. The Tribunal disposed of the said Original Applications by passing a common order dated 16th September, 2002, inter alia, with a direction to the respondents, and in particular the Union of India, the Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, to consider the framing of an appropriate Scheme, in consultation with the A&N Islands Administration, for absorption/ regularization/ appointment of persons like the respondents herein who had been working as Home Guards for a number of years. While framing the Scheme, the Respondent No.1 was directed to keep in view the observations made in paragraph 7 of the order to suit local conditions, 5 keeping in mind the particular facts and circumstances of the case. It was provided that the said action should be taken by the appellants herein within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

25. In such circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment impugned and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

26. The appellants and those concerned are directed to implement the directions given by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment within three months from the date of communication of this order.
Prem Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana

3. A First Information Report (for short, "FIR") was lodged on 8.10.1994 at about 5.50 p.m. by Prem Singh (P.W.1) inter alia alleging that Chand Ram, Ajmer and Dilbagh and the appellants (Prem Singh and Karambir @ Pappu) herein were responsible for causing death of his brother Krishan (the deceased).

They were charged under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the IPC. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined six witnesses.

4. P.W. 1 in his deposition before the learned Sessions Judge stated that on the date of occurrence he was in his Bajra field along with the deceased. At about 1.00 p.m. one Samunder and accused Ajmer were taking their bullock cart through their mustard crop which was objected to by the deceased as a result whereof they were forced to take back the same. They went away threatening to see the deceased later. At about 3.00 p.m. on the same day, accused persons came and started assaulting the deceased. Prem Singh (Accused No.2) is said to have given a jelly blow on the chest of the deceased whereas Karambir @ Pappu (Accused No. 3) inflicted a farsa blow on his head; Chand Ram (Accused No.1) is said to have given a jelly blow on his abdomen whereas Ajmer (Accused No.4) inflicted a jelly blow on his left knee. Dilbagh (Accused No. 5) is said to have given a jelly blow with a 3 lathy on the back of the deceased. While being taken to hospital, the deceased died at about 5.00 p.m.

" As regards Karambir @ Pappu, who has been attributed simple injury on the head, we are of the view that both the accused clearly shared common intention. They came prepared with deadly weapons and both have assaulted the deceased on vital parts of the body. It is not a case of sudden occurrence. The deceased died almost immediately as a result of the injuries received. There is no reason to doubt sharing of common intention by Karambir @ Pappu. He cannot, thus, avoid responsibility for causing of the death. Even if injury individually attributed to him is held to be simple, it cannot be held that he could not have pre-conceived the result of the assault.

Accordingly, while conviction and sentence of Chand Ram, Ajmer and Dilbagh are set aside and qua them, the appeal is allowed and they are acquitted, conviction and sentence of Prem and Karambir @ Pappu is upheld and qua them, the appeal is dismissed."

18. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.

May 06, 2009
Jakir vs State Of M.P

STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2003) MAY 6, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the correctness of the Judgment rendered by a Learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant who was appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2750/98 before the High Court. The present appellant was convicted after alleged commission of rape and abduction in terms of Section 366 A and 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Out of the five accused persons tried, two absconded and the rest three were convicted by the Trial Court. Trial Court imposed sentence of 10 years for each of the concerned, he preferred an appeal, as also two co-accused who were convicted by the Trial Court.

5. That being so the conviction so far as the present appellant is concerned cannot be maintained. The appeal is allowed. The bail warrant executed to give effect to the order of bail in terms of the order of 10.2.2003 shall stand discharged.
Subhash Kumar vs State Of Uttarkhand

3. One Surendra Kumar Sehgal was a student of D.B.S. (P.G.) College. Appellant herein also was a student of B.A. Part II of the same 2 college. On 31.1.2000, when Surendra Kumar Sehgal was entering the college through its gate to attend his N.C.C. class, appellant along with three other persons who were armed with "Khukries" (a sharp edged weapon) assaulted him on instigation made by the appellant as a result whereof he suffered five injuries, which are as under:

The first informant, who examined himself as P.W.2, in his evidence stated:

11. FIR as is well known is not to be treated to be an encyclopedia. Although the effect of a statement made in the FIR at the earliest point of time should be given primacy, it would not probably be proper to accept that all particulars in regard to commission of offence in detail must be furnished.

The prosecution has brought on record that four persons assaulted the injured. P.W. 2 sustained serious injuries. He felt unconscious but must have regained consciousness for some time. After he was brought to the hospital then he could get the FIR lodged. If the deposition of P.W. 4 is to be believed, the prosecution must be held to have proved that he became unconscious again as a result whereof his statement could not be recorded on that date.

14. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is dismissed. 9

May 06, 2009
Secretary, M/O Defence & Ors vs Ajit Singh

09-1985 had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to disability pension with effect from 31-03-1990. According to him, during the course of his service, he has sustained 20% disability on account of electric shock suffered by him while he was on casual leave. On account of this he was declared medically unfit and ultimately discharged on 31-03-1990. According to the present respondent he was entitled to disability pension.

6. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case payment, if any, already been made to the respondent by way of disability pension shall not be recovered.

7. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Bharat Prasad & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors

4. By the said order dated 27.7.1992, the Executive Magistrate declared possession in favour of the opposite parties in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. The relevant portion of the order is:-

5. The material facts of the case are as under: 2

7. The case of the appellants is that one Ram Lagan Tiwari mortgaged the said land to one Jagdish Prasad Singh son of Tapasi Rai of village Bhopatpur Bajhia, P.S. Keshariya, District East Champaran on 21.7.1920 for a period of 60 years.

8. It is further contended that some time on or about 9.11.1943, Ram Lagan Tiwari sold the land to one Jamadar Rai @ Jamadar Bhagat of Village- Lahadia, P.S. Darpa, District East Champaran by a registered sale deed. Neither Jamadar Rai @ Jamadar Bhagat nor Ram Lagan Tiwari redeemed the mortgage and as a result whereof Jagdish Prasad Singh continued in the possession over the disputed land. The said 3 Jagdish Prasad Singh, the mortgagee gave the said agricultural land to the appellants and his brothers to cultivate as Bataidars.

11. The concluding portion of the said order as follows:

12. Against the said order no appeal was preferred. The said order has become final.

33. In this case, this Court is of the opinion that if the respondents are aggrieved by the findings reached in the Bataidari proceeding they have the statutory right of the appeal to be exercised according to law. Without doing that the affect of Bataidari proceeding cannot be scuttled with the subterfuge and juggle of 144/145 proceedings. In the facts of this case, such a proceeding is an abuse.

34. For the reasons discussed above, we find that the High Court has not approached the legal issues involved in this case in their correct perspective nor considered the affect of Section 48E or sub-section (13) of the said Act on a 145 proceeding.

35. Therefore, we quash the High Court's order and also the 145 proceeding. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.