Sec.302 - Accused Vagabond - Motive Not proved - Material Witness not examined - another witness turned Hostile - in this circumstance mens rea is as important as the evidence to prove the occurrence - No one kill another for a Beedi at the stake of serious punishment = In the charge sheet, Hemla Naik was described as a victim eye-witness. When such an important witness was available, failure on the part of the prosecution to examine him would lead to an adverse inference referable to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer did not even mention the factors that prevented or disabled them from examining L.W.4 as a prosecution witness. the failure to examine a material witness by the prosecution would certainly weaken its case. More over, P.W.4 who is said to be another eye-witness has turned hostile. In any criminal prosecution, mens rea is as important as the evidence to prove the occurrence. Hardly, there exists any standard in this behalf. A small factor can be sufficient, a provocation for one to commit an offence, whereas the same would not matter for another. Even if the attitude or conduct of a person with utmost self-respect is treated as standard, it is impossible to imagine that one would kill a person, on the sole ground that such a person did not accede to the request to give a beedi. Such a thing cannot at all constitute motive, even for a short tempered person, to commit a serious offence running the risk of being imposed punishment of the highest order. It is rather unfortunate that the appellant, who according to the prosecution itself, was a vagabond, was implicated in the murder of an unknown rag picker and the trial Court has convicted him to undergo imprisonment for life. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. - 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.302 - Accused Vagabond - Motive Not proved - Material Witness not examined - another witness turned Hostile - in this circumstance mens rea is as important as the evidence
to prove the occurrence - No one kill another for a Beedi at the stake of serious punishment =

In the charge sheet,

Hemla Naik was described as a victim eye-witness.
When such an important witness was available, failure on
the part of the prosecution to examine him would lead to an adverse inference
referable to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Investigating Officer
did not even mention the factors that prevented or disabled them from examining
L.W.4 as a prosecution witness. the failure to examine a material witness by
the prosecution would certainly weaken its case.

More over, P.W.4 who is said to be another
eye-witness has turned hostile.
In any criminal prosecution, mens rea is as important as the evidence
to prove the occurrence.  
Hardly, there exists any standard in this behalf.
 A
small factor can be sufficient, a provocation for one to commit an offence,
whereas the same would not matter for another.
 Even if the attitude or conduct
of a person with utmost self-respect is treated as standard, it is impossible to
imagine that one would kill a person, on the sole ground that such a person did
not accede to the request to give a beedi.
Such a thing cannot at all constitute
motive, even for a short tempered person, to commit a serious offence running
the risk of being imposed punishment of the highest order.
It is rather
unfortunate that the appellant, who according to the prosecution itself, was a
vagabond, was implicated in the murder of an unknown rag picker and the trial
Court has convicted him to undergo imprisonment for life.
 In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. - 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS