9 Important Indian High Courts Cases Decided Today [Friday, October 5, 2018]

1. Suhaib Ilyasi v. State [Delhi High Court]

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 201, 302, 304B, 468, 471 and 498A - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 176 - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death - Did the Appellant murder his wife or was it a case of suicide - Events immediately preceding the incident - Statement of the Appellant under Section 176 Cr.P.C. - Testimonies of other witnesses - Inquest proceedings conducted by the SDM - First post-mortem report - The SDM's Report - Investigation - Charge sheet - Second post mortem report - Deposition of PW-2, the brother of the deceased - Deposition of PW-5, the father of the deceased - Deposition of PW-6, The mother of the deceased - Deposition of PW-18, elder sister of the deceased - Deposition of PW-20, eldest sister of the deceased - Deposition of Investigating Officer - Constitution of the five member medical board - Order of the Single Judge - Trial Court frames additional charge - Opinion of the five member medical board - Statement of the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. - Judgment of the trial Court - The present appeal - Trial Court proceedings consequent to framing of additional charge - No challenge to Appellant's acquittal under Sections 498A and 304B IPC - Nature of death whether homicidal - Forensic evidence - Shifting the burden of proof - Statements made before the SDM not admissible in evidence - Whether charge of murder proved beyond reasonable doubt - Evidence of PW-13, Personal Security Officer (PSO) - Conduct of the Appellant - PW-20 an unreliable witness - Test of circumstantial evidence - Summary of conclusions - The gap between 'may be true' and 'must be true' - Conclusion - the Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

2. Nav Ratan Tiwari v. State [Chattisgarh High Court]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - It is not established beyond reasonable doubt that he accepted the illegal gratification. It is also not established that the tainted money was recovered from his hands - demand and acceptance of bribe by the Appellant is doubtful. Mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of the Appellant is not enough to prove the guilt.

3. Apurba Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection [Bombay High Court]

Appointment - Select List - If name of the candidate appears in the select list, he does not have absolute right in asking for the appointment. Mere inclusion of candidate's name in the select list does not confer any right to be appointed even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. The concern candidate cannot claim that there is a hostile discrimination. The select list cannot be treated as a reserve list for the purpose of issuing appointment, so that the vacancies can be filled up by taking the names from the list as and when if so required.

4. Broad Son Commodities v. State of Bihar [Patna High Court]

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 406 and 379 r/w. 34 -  Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 - Section 21 - Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 - Rule 40 - Rule 40(8) of the Rules of 1972 clearly provides that for illegal mining by violating the rules there may be any other action which may be provided under any other law for the time being in force - If the petitioner has allegedly violated the Rules of 1972 and removed minor mineral from an area of which there is no approved mining plan, he cannot come out of the rigours of Rule 40(8) of the Rules of 1972 by offering the additional royalty for excess amount.

5. Ghulam Ali Dar v. State [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (Jammu & Kashmir) - Sections 5(1) (e) r/w. 5 (2) - Public Men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and other Provisions Act, 1984 - Section 14 - The appellant has succeeded in furnishing the explanation as regards the source of income. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly supports the explanation given by the appellant. The appellant had thus, discharged the burden of explaining the sources of those amounts.

6. Mudasir Ahmad Bhat v. State [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]

Public Safety Act, 1978 (Jammu and Kashmir) - Section 8 (1) - if a detenue is permitted to challenge and seek a stay of the operation of the order before its execution, the purpose of the order and the law under which it is made will get frustrated for the reason that such an order remains in operation for a limited period only.

7. Ghulam Mohammad Lone v. State [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]

Civil Services Regulations (Jammu and Kashmir) - Article 226 (2) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (Jammu & Kashmir) - Sections 5 (1) d r/w. 5(2) - Ranbir Penal Code, 1932 - Section 161 - Merely that a case or cases have been registered against the petitioner by the Vigilance Organization cannot form the basis of retiring him compulsorily.

8. Hilal Ahmad Ahanger v. State [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]

Public Safety Act, 1978 (Jammu and Kashmir) - Section 8 (a) - Life and liberty of the citizens of the State are of paramount importance. A duty is cast on the shoulders of the Court to enquire that the decision of the Executive is made upon the matters laid down by the Statute and that these are relevant for arriving at such a decision. A citizen cannot be deprived of personal liberty, guaranteed to him/her by the Constitution and of which, he/she cannot be deprived except in due course of law and for the purposes sanctioned by law.

9. State of Maharashtra v. Sk. Jabbar Sk. Sattar [Bombay High Court]

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 302, 306 r/w. 34 -  Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 4 - If on appraisal of evidence and on considering relevant attending circumstances, it is found that two views are possible, one for acquitting accused and other for convicting accused, in such a situation, rule of prudence should guide High Court not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial court, unless conclusions of trial court drawn on evidence on record are found to be unreasonable and perverse or unsustainable, High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post