Sec.302 - Accused Vagabond - Motive Not proved - Material Witness not examined - another witness turned Hostile - in this circumstance mens rea is as important as the evidence to prove the occurrence - No one kill another for a Beedi at the stake of serious punishment = In the charge sheet, Hemla Naik was described as a victim eye-witness. When such an important witness was available, failure on the part of the prosecution to examine him would lead to an adverse inference referable to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer did not even mention the factors that prevented or disabled them from examining L.W.4 as a prosecution witness. the failure to examine a material witness by the prosecution would certainly weaken its case. More over, P.W.4 who is said to be another eye-witness has turned hostile. In any criminal prosecution, mens rea is as important as the evidence to prove the occurrence. Hardly, there exists any standard in this behalf. A small factor can be sufficient, a provocation for one to commit an offence, whereas the same would not matter for another. Even if the attitude or conduct of a person with utmost self-respect is treated as standard, it is impossible to imagine that one would kill a person, on the sole ground that such a person did not accede to the request to give a beedi. Such a thing cannot at all constitute motive, even for a short tempered person, to commit a serious offence running the risk of being imposed punishment of the highest order. It is rather unfortunate that the appellant, who according to the prosecution itself, was a vagabond, was implicated in the murder of an unknown rag picker and the trial Court has convicted him to undergo imprisonment for life. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. - 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.302 - Accused Vagabond - Motive Not proved - Material Witness not examined - another witness turned Hostile - in this circumstance mens rea is as important as the evidence
to prove the occurrence - No one kill another for a Beedi at the stake of serious punishment =

In the charge sheet,
Hemla Naik was described as a victim eye-witness.
When such an important witness was available, failure on
the part of the prosecution to examine him would lead to an adverse inference
referable to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.

 The Investigating Officer
did not even mention the factors that prevented or disabled them from examining
L.W.4 as a prosecution witness. the failure to examine a material witness by
the prosecution would certainly weaken its case.

 More over, P.W.4 who is said to be another
eye-witness has turned hostile.
In any criminal prosecution, mens rea is as important as the evidence
to prove the occurrence.  
Hardly, there exists any standard in this behalf.
 A
small factor can be sufficient, a provocation for one to commit an offence,
whereas the same would not matter for another.
 Even if the attitude or conduct
of a person with utmost self-respect is treated as standard, it is impossible to
imagine that one would kill a person, on the sole ground that such a person did
not accede to the request to give a beedi.
Such a thing cannot at all constitute
motive, even for a short tempered person, to commit a serious offence running
the risk of being imposed punishment of the highest order.
It is rather
unfortunate that the appellant, who according to the prosecution itself, was a
vagabond, was implicated in the murder of an unknown rag picker and the trial
Court has convicted him to undergo imprisonment for life.
 In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. - 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

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