Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 IPC.- the time and occurrence was between 8 to 9 pm, the night was dark, -the accused were strangers to the witnesses and no test identification was conducted during the investigation.-the accused persons were not in the front of the tractor or in the light of the tractor-The informant PW3 Lalaram turned hostile and could not identify the assailants-PW4 Ramkaran. His behaviour in leaving the place of occurrence and not reporting the matter to any one is extremely unnatural.- as to how "one child" who was on the tractor, has after investigation been found to be none other than PW5 Ramratan, aged about 22 years and a stout person. - High court rightly acquitted the accused nothing to interfere - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS




 PW3 Lalaram at 11.30 pm  on
21.05.1982 that at about 8.30 pm while  returning  from  his  field  he  had
stayed at piao of Padmaji for having water and  smoke.  
That  time  he  saw
Bhagirath, resident of Tausar ploughing his field with a tractor  driven  by
PW4 Ramkaran.
 He also saw "one child" sitting on the  tractor,  whose  name
he did not know.
 While so sitting at piao  he  saw  that  the  respondents-
accused and one more person armed with lathis  and  kassies  had  formed  an
unlawful  assembly  and  entered  into  the  field  of  Bhagirath.
 As  per
reporting, he was able to identify them all in the light of the tractor  and
he had seen accused-respondent  Manglaram  stopping  the  tractor  whereupon
Bhagirath came down from the tractor.
Accused  Sampat  Ram  then  allegedly
inflicted a kassi blow on the head of Bhagirath  who  fell  down.   Treating
him to be dead all the accused ran away.  PW3  Lalaram  went  to  the  spot,
remained there for about an hour and since nobody appeared he left the  dead
body of Bhagirath there itself.

The  informant  PW3
Lalaram  turned  hostile  and  could  not  identify  the  assailants.    PW4
Ramkaran, driver of the tractor could identify all the  accused  and  stated
that respondent Sampat Ram had dealt kassi blow on  the  head  of  Bhagirath
while the others with their lathis had  given  blows  to  him.   He  further
stated that immediately  after  the  incident  he  had  left  the  place  of
occurrence with his tractor to his house.  The person who  was  referred  to
as "one child" in the initial reporting, according to  the  prosecution  was
PW5 Ramratan.   As a matter of fact, PW5 Ramratan was aged  about  22  years
and a stout person.  He could identify  only  one  accused  i.e.  respondent
Sampat Ram, who allegedly was carrying a kassi and had given a blow  on  the
head of Bhagirath.
The High Court observed that the time and occurrence was between 8  to
9 pm, the night was dark, the accused were strangers to  the  witnesses  and
no test identification was  conducted  during  the  investigation.   It  was
further observed that according to PW4 Ramkaran, the  accused  persons  were
not in the front of the tractor  or  in  the  light  of  the  tractor.   His
behaviour in leaving the place of occurrence and not  reporting  the  matter
to anyone was found to be against normal human behaviour.   As  regards  PW5
Ramratan who was a total stranger and  whose  very  presence  was  doubtful,
material contradictions were also found in his statement.   On  the  overall
analysis of the matter the prosecution witnesses  who  claimed  to  be  eye-
witnesses were found to be unreliable and untrustworthy by the  High  Court.
The High Court, thus, allowed the  appeal  and  acquitted  the  respondents-
accused of all the charges.

We have gone though the record and considered the  rival  submissions.
PW3 Lalaram, having turned hostile, the  matter  completely  hinges  on  the
testimony  of  PW4  Ramkaran.   His  behaviour  in  leaving  the  place   of
occurrence and not reporting the matter to any one is  extremely  unnatural.
The incident having  occurred  in  the  darkness  and  as  accepted  by  PW4
Ramkaran it was not in front of the tractor, the chance and opportunity  for
him to have sufficiently identified the assailants is also doubtful.   There
is nothing on record as to how "one child"  who  was  on  the  tractor,  has
after investigation been found to be none  other  than  PW5  Ramratan,  aged
about 22 years and a stout person.-2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

The petitioner filed the above-mentioned suit against the
respondents for recovery of certain money based on a contract.

As per the admitted plaint averments,
the office of the defendants is located in Pargi,
the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi,
the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was
executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.

 According to the petitioner, as the acceptance of the
contract made by the respondents was received by him at
Malkajgiri, the Court at Malkajgiri has territorial jurisdiction.


The lower Court while returning the plaint has observed
that the ingredients of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure
are not satisfied as the place of work or business of the
respondents does not fall within its jurisdiction or that the
property in respect of which the contract has been executed is
also not situated within its jurisdiction.
A further observation
was made that though initially the p…
Read more

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

Law :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.
Sub :- Quash the criminal proceedings
Offence :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination
(Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997
Summary :-
 The investigation revealed that
clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the
exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually
facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation,
filed the charge-sheet.
  The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded
against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination
(Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for
short).

    Section 5 of the Act reads as under:
Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with
examination works:
No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a
public examination shall, except where he is permitted by
virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or
cause to be divulged or make known to any other person
any information o…
Read more

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

the power of the revenue Court in deciding the disputed questions
of fact.

The application before the Mandal Revenue Officer
was filed under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land
and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, the Act of 1971).

Thereupon in accordance with the provision contained in the A.P.
Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, the Mandal
Revenue Officer conducted enquiry and after giving due
opportunity to the objectors and on detailed consideration of the
revenue records, passed orders on 15.03.1991.
The objection as
to maintainability of such application and the competency of the
Mandal Revenue Officer to decide the disputed questions of fact
with reference to the succession was considered and specifically
rejected by the Mandal Revenue Officer.
 In support of his
decision, the Mandal Revenue Officer placed reliance on the
provision contained in Rule 9(1)(a)(i) read with Rule 9(1)(c)(i) of
the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rule…
Read more