APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [8]

Sections 148, 302 read with  Section  149  and
201 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’).- where  the  Trial  Court  and  the  High  Court,  on appreciating the  entire  oral  evidence,  recorded  categorical  concurrent
findings of fact against the appellants (accused) about their complicity  in
commission of crime in question which resulted in killing of mother and  her
unmarried daughter.- HELD THAT - This Court, being the last  Court  of  appeal,  does
not re-visit and re-appreciate the entire  oral  evidence  de  novo  in  its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution unless there  are  strong
and prima facie reasons to do so pointing out  therein  any  apparent  legal
and jurisdictional error prejudicing any rights of the accused.;

Sections 148, 302 read with  Section  149  and 201 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’).- whether  bones recovered were human or animal bones,- In our considered opinion,  the  disclosure  statements  made  by  the accused during their interrogation on the basis of which the  recoveries  of articles were made such as - gandasa, bones,  ashes,  blood  stained  bricks
and earth, tractor with cart, two plastic cans smelling  diesel  oil,  which
were duly proved by the Investigating Officer are sufficient to sustain  the
conviction when it is examined in  the  context  of  oral  evidence. -  Merely
because no expert  opinion  was  obtained  to  prove  as  to  whether  bones
recovered were human or animal bones, in our  view,  would  not  weaken  the
case of prosecution in the  light  of  overwhelming  evidence  available  on
record to prove the complicity of the appellants. ;

Sections 148, 302 read with  Section  149  and 201 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’).- close relation with the deceased persons, she  should  not  be
believed for want of evidence of any independent  witness,  deserves  to  be
rejected - HELD THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT  “There is no proposition  in  law  that  relatives  are  to  be  treated  as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown  when  a  plea of partiality is raised to show that the  witnesses  had  reason  to  shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.” - “. ………. it is clear that a close relative cannot be  characterised  as  an“interested” witness. He is a  “natural”  witness.  His  evidence,  however, must be scrutinised carefully. If on such scrutiny, his  evidence  is  found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable  and  wholly  trustworthy, conviction can be based on the  “sole”  testimony  of  such  witness.  Close
relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground  to  reject his evidence.  On  the  contrary,  close  relative  of  the  deceased  would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and  falsely  implicate an innocent one.”-   We follow and apply this well settled principle of law  for  rejecting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants.;

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

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

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