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

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
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 o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more