10 Important Indian Courts Cases Decided Today [Wednesday, January 9, 2019]

1. Tulsi Ram @ Suresh v. State [Rajasthan High Court]

Evidence Law - Last Seen Theory - Circumstantial Evidence - Principles to be followed - Criminal P.C. 1973 - S. 374 (2) - Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - In a case where the other links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation would provide an additional link which completes the chain. In the absence of proof of other circumstances, the only circumstance of last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation cannot be made the basis of conviction.

The recovery of key of the lock of Pushpa's house and the blood stained clothes of the accused are not at all reliable for the reason that there is nothing on record to show that the key which was recovered from the accused was of the same lock which was broken open by the Investigating Officer PW-24 Surendra Singh Khangarot and much less recovery of the key after a period of 20 days from the open space, on the face of it, is wholly unreliable because it does not stand to reason and is contrary to normal human behaviour that a person having committed murder would hide the key near the house, after locking the room from outside wherein a dead body is lying. Such a conduct is highly improbable. In these circumstances, the recovery of key is liable to be discarded. So far as the recovery of blood stained clothes from the house of the accused-appellant is concerned, the same is also not worth reliable because it is highly questionable that the accused would hide and preserve the blood stained clothes in safe custody for more than 20 days so that the same could be used as evidence against him. The same also appears to be highly improbable. 

The samples which were taken to the Forensic Science Laboratory were not properly sealed as it has come in the statements of PW-22 Sajjan Singh and PW- 23 Kalu Ram. There were certain discrepancies in the handing over and taking over the articles which were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Except the evidence discussed above, there is no other evidence which is convincing enough so as to connect the present appellant with the commission of the alleged offence of murder of Pushpa Kanwar. The chain of circumstances is not so complete which indicts that none other than the appellant could have committed murder of Pushpa Kanwar. Evidence against the present appellant is not sufficient to hold him guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC in the present case. In our opinion the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts as the distance between "may be true" and "must be true" has not been travelled successfully by the prosecution.

In view of the discussion made above, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 04.02.2014, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh is quashed and set aside. The appellant Tulsi Ram @ Suresh is acquitted of the charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He shall be released from the judicial custody forthwith if not required in any other case.

Bench : Jodhpur Division Bench
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 178 of 2014 09-01-2019
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, Public Prosecutor

2. Indira Majumder v. Usha Holding Enclave Pvt. Ltd [Calcutta High Court]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 - Application for Injunction - Eviction Decree - Question to be determined - In order to get an injunction/stay of eviction, only a prima facie case, meaning thereby a triable issue, is to be made out by the petitioner. The petitioner need not prove her/his case to the hilt, as in the final adjudication of a suit or a proceeding under Order XXI Rules 99 to 101 of the Code.

Court : Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side
Judge : The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
For the petitioners Mr. Jayanta Mitra, Mr. Samit Talukdar, Mr. Ranjit Kumar Basu, Ms. Shebatee Datta
For the opposite party nos. 1 to 11 Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee, Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Mr. Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay
For the opposite party nos. 12 to 14 : Mr. Suman Dey

3. Awadhesh Kumar Dubey v. State [Allahabad High Court]

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 498A & 304B - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - S. 3 & 4 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 374 (2) - Evidence Act, 1872 - Ss. 113 & 114 - Four essential ingredients of offence of dowry death - Ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 304B of I.P.C.

Dowry death is a great social evil practised against women of this country for centuries. Section 304-B I.P.C. is a stringent provision meant to combat this social evil of alarming propositions. Therefore, this provision must be given a fair, pragmatic, and common sense interpretation so as to fulfill the object sought to be achieved by Parliament. A strict construction merely it being a penal statute would not be appropriate. Dowry system is a big slur and curse on our society, democracy and the country. It is incomprehensible how such unfortunate and condemnable instances of dowry deaths are frequently occurring in our society. All efforts must be made no combat and curb the increasing menace of dowry death.

Case Number : Jail Appeal No. 7238 of 2008 09-01-2019
Counsel for Appellant :- From Jail, Smt. Archana Singh (A.C.)
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A., Nikhil Chaturvedi.
Bench : Sudhir Agarwal & Ram Krishna Gautam, JJ.

4. Dr. Nutan Thakur v. Department of Fertilisers [Central Information Commission]

Right To Information Act, 2005 - Ss. 2 (f), 6, 6 (3) & 7 - Information regarding the complete documents belonging to MHRD including the Note-sheets and various correspondences between MHRD and other offices relating to the appointment of various Directors of different Schools of Planning and Architecture appointed by the Government of India since 01.01.2010.

5. Shravan @ Sharvan v. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court]

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Criminal P.C. 1973 - S. 374 (2) - In the circumstantial evidence case motive plays a vital role and when motive is established, it becomes a scanner for appreciation of other evidence.

Case Number : Jail Appeal No. 3346 of 2012 09-01-2019
Bench : Sudhir Agarwal & Ram Krishna Gautam, JJ.
Counsel for Appellant :- From Jail,H.N. Sharma, Prateek Samadhiya (A.C.)
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A. Ratan Singh

6. Sarita Agarwala v. Ruby Ganguly [Calcutta High Court]

Civil P.C. 1908 - Order VII Rule 14 (3) - Applicability of - Remedy and sanction for non‐production of a document referred to in the plaint - The said provision provides a lease of life to the plaintiff to produce such a document with the leave of the Court to be received in evidence. This further indicates that the sanction against the non‐production of such a document could only be the plaintiff being precluded from producing such document in evidence at the hearing of the suit. Rejection of plaint is not a remedy provided for such an infraction of Order VII Rule 14 of the Code.

Case Number : C.O. No. 1251 of 2018 09-01-2019
Bench : Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
For the petitioners : Mr. Joy Saha, Mr. Mainak Bose, Mr. Debdatta Ray Choudhury
For the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 : Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Mr. A. Banerjee, Mr. J. Mukherjee, Mr. R. Baliyal

7. Regional Transport Officer v. K. Jayachandra [Supreme Court of India]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 52 - No vehicle can be altered so as to change original specification made by manufacturer. Such particulars cannot be altered which have been specified by the manufacturer for the purpose of entry in the certificate of registration.

Case Number : C.A. Nos. 219 - ­222 of 2019 09-01-2019
Bench : Arun Mishra & Vineet Saran, JJ.

8. Dr. Subroto Roy v. Union of India [Calcutta High Court]

Contract Law - Government Servant - It is true that the origin of Government service is contractual. There is an offer and acceptance in every case. But once appointed to his post or office the Government servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are 6 no longer determined by consent of both parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. In other words, the legal position of a Government servant is more one of status than of contract. The hall-mark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law and not by mere agreement of the parties. The emolument of the Government servant and his terms of service are governed by statute or statutory rules which may be unilaterally altered by the Government without the consent of the employee.

Case Number : W.P. 15270 (W) of 2003 09-01-2019
Petitioner : Dr. Subroto Roy
For respondent Institute : Mr. R.N Majumder, Adv. Mr. Sourav Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Supratim Bhattcharjee, Adv.
Amicus Curiae : Mr. Soumya Majumder, Adv.

9. Republic of India v. M/s Agusta Westland International Ltd. [Delhi High Court]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 29A - Time-limit for arbitral award - If Arbitral proceedings have commenced under Section 21 of the Act, prior to coming into force of the 2015 Amendment Act, then Section 29A of the Act would not be applicable.

Case Number : CS(COMM) 9/2019 09-01-2019
Coram : Prathiba M. Singh, J.
For Plaintiff : Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG with Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Mr. Sumit Teterwal, Mr. Joel, Ms. Kritika Sachdeva, Advocates (M-9810003146)
For Defendent : Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Prasad, Mr. Ashok Bhan, Mr. Mohit Rohatgi & Ms. Swati Narnulia, Advocates (M-9971997784)

10 . Dr. Dalpat Singh Rajpurohit v. State [Rajasthan High Court]

Service Law - Double Jeopardy - Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 - Rule 21(3) - Challenge to the vires of - Concept of double jeopardy in abstract sense is oxymoron to service jurisprudence.

Case Number : Civil Reference No. 1/2018 09-01-2019
Full Bench : Jodhpur
Coram : Sangeet Lodha, P.K. Lohra, Dinesh Mehta, JJ.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manoj Bhandari and Akhilesh Rajpurohit
For respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG
Previous Post Next Post