Appreciation of Evidence - Whether a person as a result of falling of a lamp on the mattress could be reduced to the status of 100 per cent burns. Even if he was asleep, the normal reaction of such person and the other inmates of the house would be to douse the fire. - Therefore the matter had to be considered whether the death occurred in suspicious circumstances or not.-The statement “jo hona tha ho gaya” attributed to Sunita is not indicative that whatever happened was a pure accident - - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS


On 01.09.1994 in the early hours a dhebri i.e. lamp is  said  to  have
fallen on the mattress on which Sunita was sleeping.  She  caught  fire  and
was completely burnt.  The fact that she was so burnt at 4.00  am  was  seen
by neighbour PW4 Bachhi Devi.   According to the  witness  Sunita’s  brother
in law came to her  place  asking  for  a  torch  stating  that  Sunita  had
suffered burns.  The witness went to the house of Respondent No.1 and  found
Sunita in burnt condition.  Sunita then  stated to the witness “jo hona  tha
ho gaya”.
 Trial court
It  was  held  that  the
possibility could not be ruled out that the death of Sunita had occurred  as
a result of a lamp having fallen on the mattress.  The trial  court  further
relied upon the fact that the parents of deceased Sunita were  informed  and
that the cremation had taken place after their  consent.   Though  PW1  Tara
Devi had stated that her signatures  were  obtained  on  a  piece  of  paper
forcibly, the trial court concluded that the death occurred as a  result  of
falling of a lamp on the mattress  and  acquitted  the  respondents  of  the
charges leveled against them.
High court
     The order passed by the High Court is quoted below:
“We have heard learned A.G.A.  for  the  State  appellant  and  perused  the
impugned  judgment.   The  deceased  Sunita  died  of  burn  injuries.   Her
cremation was made in presence of her parents.  A delayed F.I.R. was  lodged
with the allegation that there was demand of  dowry  and  she  was  done  to
death.  The trial court  appears  to  have  considered  all  the  facts  and
circumstances of the case emerging from the record.

 In above view of the matter, we do not find  any  force  in  the  prayer  to
grant the leave to appeal.

 The leave to appeal is rejected.” 

Apex court
  To  say  the  least,  it
appears improbable that a person as a result of falling of  a  lamp  on  the
mattress could be reduced to the status of 100 per cent burns.  Even  if  he
was asleep, the normal reaction of such person and the other inmates of  the
house would  be  to  douse  the  fire.   Therefore  the  matter  had  to  be
considered whether the death occurred in suspicious  circumstances  or  not.
The statement “jo hona tha ho gaya” attributed to Sunita is  not  indicative
that whatever happened was a pure accident. - 2015 S.C. 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