L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi vs The State Of Gujarat

The appellant assails his conviction by the High Court under Section   376(2)(f)   IPC,   sentencing   him   to   ten   years   rigorous imprisonment,   with   fine   of   Rs.5,000/­   along   with   a   default stipulation, after reversing his acquittal ordered by the trial court.

2. The prosecutrix PW­2, aged 9 years, was sexually assaulted on   20.02.2004   by   an   unknown,   tall   and   thin   person   wearing white clothes. PW­3 Jasiben, accompanying the prosecutrix was also a minor.   She informed PW­1 Ambaben, the mother of the 1 prosecutrix. F.I.R. was lodged by PW­1 the same day. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was also done the same day, by PW­9 Dr. Meghna Narendrabhai Mehta.  Sexual assault on PW­2 stood   established   by   rupture   of   the   hymen,   with   fresh   blood oozing, and injury of  1.5  cm to 2 cm extending upto the lower part   of   the   body.     The   appellant   and   one   Dhirubhai   Mulubhai Desai were taken into custody on suspicion.   Test Identification Parade   (T.I.P.)   was   conducted   by   PW­11,   the   Executive Magistrate,   Dilipkumar   Kantilal   Rathod   two   days   after   the occurrence on 22.02.2004.  The T.I.P. report Exhibit P­38,  bears the thumb impression of       PW­2 who was accompanied by her mother.  The appellant was identified by PW­2.  Six months later, on 31.08.2004 while deposing during trial PW­2 and PW­3 denied the sexual assault and also declined dock identification.  The trail court consequentially acquitted the appellant.

13. The present was an appropriate case to direct the prosecution of the prosecutrix under Section 344 Cr.P.C alike Mahila Vinod Kumari (supra) for tendering false evidence. But considering that the prosecutrix was barely 9 years old on the date of occurrence, that the occurrence had taken place 14 long years ago, she may have  since been married and settled to a new life, all of which may   possibly   be   jeopardised,   we   refrain   from   directing   her prosecution, which we were otherwise inclined to order.

14. The appeal is dismissed.
Basavaraj @ Basavannappa Parmeshwar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra

The   appellant   has   been   convicted   under   Section   302, I.P.C.   and  sentenced   to  life imprisonment  on the  charge of killing his own father.

2.  The   occurrence   is   stated   to   have   taken   place   in   the night   of   01.12.2003.     The   police   report   was   lodged   next morning by PW­2 Ratanchand, another son of the deceased. The   appellant   was   stated   to   be   a   wayward,   addicted   to alcohol, and nursed a grudge against his father with regard to his claim to a share in the lands of the deceased.  There is 1 no eye witness to the occurrence and the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence.

3. PW­2   stated   that   while   he   was   at   the   shop,   the appellant came at about 9.00 p.m. and asked for a torch light which was given to him by the witness.   The deceased had gone to the agricultural fields in the night and did not return till next morning.  The appellant was also seen going towards the   fields   that   night   and   did  not  return   home.    The   police report was lodged by PW­2 the next morning.  The appellant was absconding.  He was ultimately arrested on 17.03.2004. On information furnished by the appellant, his blood stained clothes,   confirmed   in   the   FSL   report   Exhibit   41,   were recovered   from   the   Someshwar  Milk Dairy   belonging   to  his friend   PW­6   Mahadeo   Pailwan.     PW­8,   who   owned   the adjacent agricultural field, was declared hostile.  Nonetheless his   admission,   elicited   during   cross­examination,   being admissible in evidence, testified the presence of the appellant proximate in time to the incident.  The witness had seen the appellant   in   the   fields   with   an   axe.     The   postmortem conducted by PW­3  Dr. S.M. Vaidya  confirmed death due to 2 cardio–respiratory failure caused by obligenic and neurogenic shock due to multiple, deep incised wounds over the scalp, face and neck.

7. In   the   entirety   of   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the case, we see no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant.  The appeal is dismissed.
Vijay Kumar vs Om Parkash

(3) The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows. The appellants-defendant and the respondent-plaintiff had entered into an agreement for sale on 9th November, 2007 in respect of a shop for a total sale consideration of Rs.26,00,000 (Rupees twenty six lakhs). Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) was paid by the respondent-plaintiff to the appellants-defendant as earnest money and the remaining amount of Rs.22,00,000/- Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2018.10.06 (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs) was to be paid on 31st March, 2008 11:35:02 IST Reason:

(10) The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Pappu @ Hans Raj vs The State Of Punjab

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.09.2003, calf of the buffalo of deceased Amar Nath entered in the field of accused Makhan Ram whereupon accused Makhan Ram beat up the animal. When deceased Rajji, wife of deceased Amar Nath 2 enquired from accused Makhan Ram, he beat her also by pulling her long hair. Deceased Amar Nath and Rajji narrated the whole incident to complainant Sarabjit Kaur (PW-2) and they started to convene a panchayat along with Ram Lubhaya, husband of complainant (PW-5). When deceased Amar Nath and Rajji reached near the house of Chanan at about 1.30 p.m. accused Makhan Ram (A1) armed with datar, accused Ricky (A-2) armed with Kirpan, accused Daljit Kumar (A-4) armed with takua accused Pappu (A6) armed with Datar, accused Seebo, mother of A-1, accused Kulwinder Kaur, sister-in-law of A-1 came from the opposite side. Accused seebo and Kulwinder Kaur exhorted other co- accused to catch hold of deceased Amar Nath and Rajji and kill them.

3. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 21.09.2007 convicted Makhan Ram (A-1), Daljit Kumar (A-4), Pappu alias Hans Raj appellant herein (A-6) under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. The Court acquitted the accused Ricky (A-2), Seebo (A-3) and Kulwinder Kaur (A-5) from all the charges holding that the prosecution has not established the guilt against those accused. The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by accused Makhan Ram, Daljit Kumar and the appellant-Pappu alias Hans Raj. Being aggrieved the appellants – Pappu @ Hans Raj and Daljit Kumar are before this Court.

7. We do not find any good ground warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
The State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Naveen Kumar

3. The brief case of the prosecution necessary for the adjudication of the matter is as follows. On 10.09.1999, around eight persons including the accused-Respondent were alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly with a common object of causing deadly assault upon PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, PW-2 Ram Pal and three other deceased persons. The accused persons allegedly armed with deadly weapons such as, swords, gandasis, hockey sticks, clutch wire, etc. blocked the roads and around 9:30p.m, the victims reached the place of occurrence, the accused persons attacked them and the intended criminal act was accomplished within 3-4 minutes. The alleged persons fled the scene of crime before the injured and the deceased could raise an alarm. Thereafter, the police were informed by 9:35 p.m., through the telephone and an entry was made in the Rojnamacha, at the Police Station, regarding the aforesaid incident.

6. Aggrieved by the above order of conviction, the accused persons preferred an appeal before High Court. The High Court, upon finding lack of evidence against the accused-Respondent and four other accused persons, allowed their appeal and acquitted them, while upholding the conviction of the other two accused persons. It may be noted that, since accused no.5, Ashok Kumar passed away during the trial, the proceedings against him stands abated.

7. The State has preferred the present appeal against aforesaid order of acquittal.

12. Having observed the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that, the High Court has rightfully acquitted the accused-Respondent, as the case of the present respondent cannot be equated with that of the convicted accused persons. In our opinion, there exists no perversity in the judgment of the High Court. Further, in the absence of compelling reasons, this court is not keen to entertain this appeal challenging the order of acquittal.

13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Medical Council Of India vs Lord Buddha Education Society

4. The College filed W.P. [C] No.1825/2017 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh and it was disposed of vide order dated 3.8.2017. 3 The   Court   directed   the   Government   of   India   to   reconsider   the case of the College and decide the representation of the College by a reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the Government of India again   granted   an   opportunity   of   hearing   to   the   College   and passed a reasoned order on 14.8.2017 and the earlier decision to debar   the   college   from   admitting   students   and   to   encash   the bank guarantee was reiterated.

7. On 23.2.2018 the case of the College was placed before the Sub­Committee   of   the   Council   in   its   meeting   on   21.2.2018. Regulation   18(3)(1)(a)   of   the   Regulations   of   1999   had   been invoked against the College. The matter was then referred to the Oversight Committee vide letter dated 23.2.2018. Before the final decision was reached, the College approached the High Court of Delhi by filing W.P. [C] No.2022/2018. The High Court vide order 5 dated 6.3.2018 disposed of the petition and directed the MCI to take a decision within a period of 5 weeks.

The writ petition and IA No.82637 of 2017 are disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.”

8. In view of the above, Bed occupancy of genuine patients was 33% as detailed in the report at 10 a.m. on the day of assessment.

11. OPD: Various sections of OPDs are haphazard and spread here and there and are highly disorganized.

13. Casualty: Separate Casualty for O.G. is not available. Disaster Trolley, Crash Cart is not available.

15. 2 Static X-ray machines are available against the requirement of

16. Lecture Theaters: Only 2 Lecture Theaters are available against the requirement of 3. Arrangement is not proper as detailed in the report.

17. Students' Hostels: Accommodation is available for 292 students against the requirement of 339.

18. Residents’ Hostel: Rooms on I floor are not furnished.

21. UHC: Survey/MCH/Immunization/FP registers are not available. Specialists’ visits are not organized.

Note: In the above clause, "six months" shall be substituted by "as per latest time schedule”:

28. Resultantly, we find that no case for quashing order dated 31.5.2018   passed   by   the   Government   of   India   had   been   made out. The judgment and order passed by the High Court are thus liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed. The judgment   and   order   are   set   aside   and   the   appeal   is   hereby allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Mohd. Sahid vs Raziya Khanam (Died) Thr. Lrs

3. Respondent No.1-Raziya (since dead) filed a Civil Suit No.591 of 1979 against the appellants No.1 to 3 for cancellation of sale deeds dated 17.02.1979 and 17.05.1979 in favour of the appellants Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH and for relief of permanent injunction against them over the suit land. Date: 2018.10.10 14:57:58 IST Reason: Respondent No.1-Raziya (since dead) contended that appellants No. 1 1 to 3 forged documents and executed a bainama of the suit property in their favour on 17.02.1979. Some part of the suit property was also sold to appellant No.4-Mahesh by sale deed dated 17.05.1979. The respondents resisted the suit contending that respondent No.2- Hadisunnissa executed a Hibanama in favour of respondent No.1- Raziya Khanam (since dead) on 27.02.1979 of her properties and building situated in the village Nadva Khas and Revri Dihi and other villages on 27.02.1979 in the consolidation office.

6. Respondent No.1-Raziya Khanam (since dead) filed a Writ Petition(C) No.19550 of 1985 before the High Court against the order of the First Appellate Court in which interim order dated 20.02.1985 was passed by the High Court. The said writ petition remained pending for nearly fifteen years. In the said writ petition, the appellants herein were neither served nor they entered their appearance. The High Court noted that the First Appellate Court recorded a finding that the appellants were not served with notice and rightly set aside the decree dated 16.04.1981 and remanded the matter back to the trial court. The said writ petition was dismissed on 20.02.2001 and order of interim stay dated 20.02.1985 was vacated.

7. The order sheet of the trial court dated 30.05.2011 indicates the order dated 20.02.2001 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.19550 of 1985 was produced before the trial court. The fact that the order in the said writ petition was placed before the High Court on 30.05.2011 is clear from the order sheet of the trial court dated 04.03.2011 which reads that “Proceeding of suit is stayed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court Record may be produced on 30.05.2011 for further orders.” Before the trial in Suit No.591 of 3 1979 was taken up, substitution applications No.113K2, 114G2, 115G2, 116G2 and 117G1 were taken up and orders were passed on various dates.

………..

19. The order sheet and other materials placed on record clearly show that the appellants had full knowledge about the proceedings of the Original Suit No.591 of 1979 and also about the disposal of the Writ Petition(C) No.19550 of 1985 and the appellants have filed application for condonation of delay with incorrect facts. Both the First Appellate Court and the High Court recorded concurrent findings that the appellants have filed the application for condonation of delay with incorrect facts and were negligent in pursuing the matter and rightly refused to condone the delay. We do not find any perversity or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

October 10, 2018 11
Pradeep Bisoi @ Ranjit Bisoi vs The State Of Odisha

2. The prosecution case as is revealed from the record is that Bhaskar Sahu (deceased) on 28.11.1990 in the morning at 7.00 A.M. was going near Belapada by a bicycle. Near the Belapada bridge, the accused threw a Reason: bomb towards the deceased, which hit the right leg of Bhaskar Sahu, the deceased, due to which he fell down on 1 the road. Bhaskar Sahu when started running to save his life, accused came running before the deceased and dealt a kati blow on right shoulder of Bhaskar Sahu on which he fell down thereafter the accused poured acid on head, face and chest of Bhaskar Sahu. Thereafter the accused and his friends left that place. One Khalia Pati belonging to the village of Bhaskar Sahu took the deceased with the help of bicycle. Thereafter brother of Bhaskar Sahu – Surendra Nath Sahu after receiving the news of assault came with Tarini Sahu, Kasinath Bisoi and Bidyadhar Babu belonging to the village and got admitted Bhaskar Sahu in Berhampur Medical College. Suurendra Nath Sahu, the brother of Bhaskar Sahu lodged a First Information Report naming the accused. First Information Report was lodged under Sections 324/326/286/34 IPC. The I.O. visited the spot on 30.11.1990 and seized one blood stained stone and sample stone and one yellow colour banian with smell of acid and prepared the seizure list. Some sample earth, one towel with smell of acid was also noticed. Thereafter the I.O. examined the witnesses. The I.O. on 05.12.1990 showed arrest of the accused. On 05.12.1990 the I.O. recorded the statement of Bhaskar Sahu under Section 161 Cr.P.c. in which statement Bhaskar Sahu named the 2 accused, the persons, who has thrown the bomb, hit with kati and thrown acid on his face and head. The accused was challaned and PW1, the informant, PW2 - Dandopani Dass and PW3 – Prafulla Leuman Sahu were examined by the prosecution. I.O. (PW4) – Prithandhi Moghi also appeared in the witness box. The deceased while still in hospital died on 25.03.1991. Defence examined two witnesses namely DW1 – Ramesh Chandra Sahu and DW2 – Bidyadhar Sahu.

Statements made by A as to the cause of his or her death, referring respectively to the murder, the rape and the actionable wrong under consideration, are relevant facts.

5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision when read with Section 32 of the Indian Evi- dence Act would reveal that a statement of a person recorded under Section 161 would be treated as a dying declaration after his death. The observation of the High Court that the dying declarations Ex.44 and 48 had no ev- identiary value, therefore, is erroneous. In this view of the matter, the first dying dec- laration made to the Magistrate on 14th Sep- tember 1993 would, in fact, be the First In- formation Report in this case.”

562.”
Subhash Malhari Muneshwar . vs Arvinde Anandrao Kadam .

2. The case of the appellants-plaintiff(s) is that an amount of Rs.3,000/- was borrowed from the respondent and in security the property was mortgaged under Exhibit P-33 (15.02.1975) with condition that if the amount is paid on or before 15.03.1980, the property can be redeemed. The appellants–plaintiff(s) filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage alleging that the document (Exhibit P-33) was a mortgage by conditional sale and not a sale with condition for reconveyance.

3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the document Exhibit P-33 was not a mortgage with conditional sale; but a sale deed with condition for repurchase. The first Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court holding that the Exhibit P-33 is a mortgage by conditional sale as defined under Section 58(c) of Transfer of Property Act and not a sale with condition to repurchase. The High Court in Second Appeal, reversed the judgment of the First Appellate Court by holding that Exhibit P-33 was a sale with condition to repurchase and not a mortgage by conditional sale.

10. Admittedly pursuant to Exhibit P-33 possession was handed over to the respondent(s) vesting on them the absolute right to enjoy the property. Exhibit P-33 does not show that the amount of Rs.3,000/- was taken as a debt or loan; nor does the document show that the income from the land was to be appropriated towards the interest by the respondent(s). We do not find any ground warranting interference with impugned judgment. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

11. The parties are to bear their respective costs.

12. We place on record the valuable assistance rendered by learned amicus, Mr. Akshat Shrivastava appearing on behalf of the respondent(s).
Surender Singh vs The State Of Haryana

accused under Sections 436, 429, 323 and 506 I.P.C. and also the sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed upon the appellant.

(2) The case of the prosecution is that during the intervening night of 24th/25th November, 2000, the appellant Surender Singh and his real brother, Jai Bhagwan, alleged to have set fire to the house of the complainant-Sandeep (PW-4) who was at that time studying in Class-XII. Further case of the prosecution is that Sandeep’s father, Inder Singh, was away on his work and Sandeep son of Inder Singh was alone in the house at the relevant point of time and before Sandeep could let loose the 2 cattle, two buffaloes, one she calf and one off-spring of the buffalo sustained burn injuries and subsequently they died. The complainant-Sandeep also got burn injuries in the said incident.

(3) Based on the evidence of Sandeep (PW-4) and other evidence, the Trial Court convicted the appellant and his real brother-Jai Bhagwan under Sections 436, 429, 323 and 506 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them imprisonment for seven years. In appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants. (4) The earlier S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7705 of 2015, preferred by co- accused-Jai Bhagwan, was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 21st September, 2015; the review petition filed by Jai Bhagwan also came to be dismissed.

(7) In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant is reduced to five years and the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is directed to surrender to custody within a period of six weeks from today to serve the remaining sentence failing which he shall be taken to custody. (8) A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Trial Court for necessary action.
The Income Tax Officer, vs Urban Improvement Trust

3. For deciding this batch of appeals, it shall be sufficient to notice the facts of Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18067 of 2018 – The Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota.

By Order of the Governor, R.K. Saxena, Secretary to the Government”

pality as referred to in clause (e) of Article 24 243-P of the Constitution of India. However, there is no reference to Article 243 after the words “Municipal Committee” and “District Board”. In our view, the Municipal Committee and District Board in the said Explanation are used out of abundant caution.

clause (3) Municipal Committee and District Board are legal entity entrusted by the function of the Government within the control or management of the municipal or local authority and will try to help the assessee.

18. In that view of the matter, deletion of 20A will not make difference in case of assessee. In our considered opinion, Clause-3 will come in the help of the assessee. In that view of the matter, we are considered opinion, that the authority assessee is a local authority for the purpose of carrying out of the improvement and development function of the State.”

40. In view of foregoing discussions, we are of the view that judgments of the High Court deserves to be set aside. All the appeals are allowed. In view of setting aside the judgments of the High Court dated 25.07.2017 and 23.10.2017, the order passed by ITAT revives. Parties shall bear their own costs.