Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302

Murder - conviction and sentence - Whether the petitioner is guilty for commission of an offence under any of the parts of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 thereof - Consider -Deceased was working in the house of the appellant as a maid - She was absent from her duties and the appellant went to her house, to call her to join her duties as a maid - An altercation followed and the appellant on the spur of the moment, went to the deceased and gagged her mouth - Appellant almost emptied the can of kerosene on the deceased and lit the match stick - Case related to circumstantial evidence - No inconsistency between the dying declarations of the deceased recorded at the interval of few hours on the day of the incident - Appellant had no pre-meditation to kill the deceased or cause any bodily harm or injury to the deceased - Everything happened on the spur of the moment - Fact that kerosene was sprinkled on the deceased by the appellant possibly cannot be disputed -Supreme Court - Held - Case falls under Section 304 Part II and the sentence which has already been undergone by the appellant is more than sufficient under Section 304 Part II, thus, directed the appellant to be released - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985  - Section 50

Mandatory provision - Non-compliance of - Obligation under section 50 of the Act has not been discharged by the appellant - Conviction vitiated.

Found In:  Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302

Bombay Police Act - Section 135(1) - Conviction and sentence - Appellant caused the fatal blow from an axe on the person of the deceased causing his death instantaneously - Statement of PW-3 stood fully proved and corroborated from the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6, who were informed soon after the incident as to how, the injury was inflicted by the Appellant on her husband - during the course of investigation Appellant's blood stained scarf, blood-stained axe, used in the commission of the offence were recovered from the place shown by appellant - The FSL report conclusively established that it was Appellant who caused the fatal blow on the deceased - Supreme Court held no interference in the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below - Appeal dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302 , Section 304

Respondent No.1 hit the deceased thrice on his head with the Farsa - Trial court held the respondent no. 1 guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment - High Court while converting the conviction of the respondent no. 1 from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II held that the relations between respondent no. 1 and the deceased Jenu were cordial and the injury inflicted by respondent no. 1 was not pre-meditated and that only one blow caused by the respondent No.1 on the head of the deceased that proved fatal - Appeal - Respondent no. 1 did not strike the deceased at the first instance, but he struck him after an interval of time since he left the place of occurrence, went to his home and then came back armed with a Farsa - He hit the deceased repeatedly on the head, a vital part of human body, with Farsa and caused very grevious injuries - Impugned judgment of the High Court for conversion of conviction of respondent no. 1 from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II set aside and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court restored - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894  - Section 4 (1) , Section 6

Notification and declaration - Acquisition of land - Land Acquisition Officer award compensation Rs.300/- per Aar and Rs.3,79,498/- Towards structures and Rs.6,300/- towards fruit-bearing trees -Reference Court enhanced compensation Rs.650/- per Aar as cost of land - High Court partly allowed - Appeal of State - Reduced market value Rs.500/- per Aar - Appeal for enhancement - Though claimant unable to prove - Existence of a hotel - Some structures existed -There is some development on acquired land - Land adjacent to Aurangabad-Jalgaon highway - 6 to 8 kms. away from Ajantha caves - An internationally famous tourist destination - Great future potential for development with respect to acquired land - Impugned order of High Court set aside - Reference Court restored - Appeal partly allowed - No costs.

Found In:  Judgement

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894  - Section 4 (1) , Section 17 (1) ,  (4)

Acquisition of land - Whether Division Bench of Allahabad High Court - Justified - Allowing writ petition - Nullifying acquisition of land by State Government - Notification dated 8.9.2023 - Followed by declaration dated 7.9.2023 - Ground - Non passing of award within time prescribed under Section 11A - Held - No - Respondent No.1 no complaint against acquisition - Taking possession by State Government - Delivery thereof to BDA - Supreme Court held - Delay of nine years from the date of publication of declaration - Six years from the date of passing of award - More than sufficient for denying equitable relief - Action of concerned State authorities - Go to spot and prepare panchnama - Showing delivery of possession - Sufficient for recording a finding - Actual possession taken and handed over to BDA in 2001 - Impugned order acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-compliance of Section 11A set aside - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

Motor Vehicles Act,1988  - Section 166

Appellant and others going in a Fiat car - Driven by first respondent - Lost control of car and dashed the car with full force against a milestone - Occupants of the car sustained serious injuries - Tribunal found - First respondent absolutely liable for accident in view of his careless, rash and negligent driving - Directed respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to jointly and severally pay total compensation of Rs.6,07,000/- with interest at rate of 9% - Appeal for enhancement - Appellant 100% disability permanent in nature with no sign of recovery - Has two children and her husband died prior to incident - Dependence of children and running of family is to be shouldered by her - She is infirm and bedridden - Supreme Court enhanced compensation to Rs.15 lakhs with interest @ 8% p.a. to appellant-claimant - Appeal allowed - No costs.

Found In:  Judgement

The Consumer Protection Act,1986  - Section 12

Respondent deficiency in service - Appellant university did not issue M.Sc certificate after deposited the requisite fees - Ex-party order District Consumer Forum - Appellant to issue certificate and also pay Rs 50,000/- State commission dismissed appeal - National Commission agreed - Appeal - Respondent is employed as a teacher - Such an appointment could not have been possible without producing evidence of his having secured post graduate degree - Order set aside - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Order VII Rule (5) ,  Rule (7)

Title of the land - Suit filed - Trial Court - Dismissed the suit - High Court - Defendants have failed to establish their plea by way of adverse possession thus, held that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession in the suit - Appeal - Amended plaint the prayer is only against defendant no.1 and not against defendant no.2 - Provisions of Order VII of CPC, in a case where prayer is not made against a particular defendant, no relief possibly can be granted against him - Appellants had been in peaceful possession of the disputed property from July 1963 and their predecessor-in-interest was in possession of the same property from 1950 till the property was transferred to predecessor-in-title of the appellant and the suit filed only in 1975 - Impugned order of the High Court set aside and that of the trial Court affirmed - Appeal allowed - No costs.

Found In:  Judgement

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894  - Section 54

Appeal for enhancement of acquisition compensation - Allowed - Hence, the appeal - Acquisition of land for public purpose - Land Acquisition Collector passed an award fixing the rate of compensation at 3,000/- per bigha - Reference Court enhanced and fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of 10,000/- per bigha for ab-pash land and 5,000/- per bigha for gair-ab-pash land - High Court further enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants to 345/- per square yard with the other benefits - Directed to reduce the compensation payable to the claimants to 76,550/- with 10% acceleration and other statutory benefits available to them under law - Further directed that the claimants shall be entitled to claim interest on the amount of solatium for the permissible period - Appeal partly allowed.

Found In:  Judgement