Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, 2011

By

Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, 2011

Facts

  1. An FIR was registered by the Motihari Town Police Station on 03.08.2005 against the appellants Mohan Singh, Laxmi Singh and others for the murder of the father (Sureshwar Jha) and brother (Anil Kumar Jha) of the informant Vikas Kumar Jha.
  2. The informant in its fardbeyan disclosed that the appellants were known to his family and had made several attempts to extort money from his family earlier by threatening them for which a complaint had been also filed with the police. The informant alleged that the appellants had killed his brother and father for not having paid the extortion money.
  3. Accordingly, the charges were framed for the murder of the deceased and criminal conspiracy under S.120B and extortion under S.387 of the IPC.

Case History

  1. The Session Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment for criminal conspiracy to murder under S.120B, IPC and for extortion (S.387)
  2. The High Court upheld the conviction order of the Session Court.
  3. There this appeal was preferred here in the Supreme Court.

Contentions of the Appellant's Council

  1. The charges framed nowhere mentioned the commission of the offence of murder punishable under S.302 of the IPC, it only mentioned the offence committed is punishable under S.120B for which punishment of life imprisonment can not be made.

Issue 

  1. Can the conviction of murder be set aside for the appellant on the ground that the specific section is not mentioned in the charges framed? 

Ratio Decidendi 

  1. The purpose of a framing of charge is to give information to the accused of the nature of the accusation which he will meet in the course of a trial.
  2. Section 214 of the CrPC says the words used to describe an offence shall be deemed to have been used in the sense attached to them by the law.
  3. In K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao (2003), the Court observed that mere omission in framing of charges does not disable the criminal court from convicting the accused for the offence which has been proved on the evidence on record. Section 221 and Section 215 of CRPC, 1973 safeguards this power.
  4. In the Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P., 2004, the Court observed that Section 464 CrPC, 1973 empowers the revisional Court to convict an accused for an offence which has not been charged unless there occurs a failure of justice. Also in State of UP v. Paras Nath Singh (2009), the Court observed that the burden to prove the failure of justice lies on the accused.
  5. In the Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v State of AP (2009), the Court observed that a conviction can be sustained even if the particular section is not mentioned in the charge if the ingredients of the section charged are obvious and implicit.

Decision 

  1. The appeal was dismissed, as the charge clearly mentioned that the accused had committed the murder of Anil Jha although the section for murder was not mentioned in the charge, the accused will be convicted. 





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more