Girish Singh Vs. State of Utrakhand 2019
💁Hon'ble Supreme Court Held Conviction U/S 304B IPC can be made only if the women was subject to cruelty and Harassment by the Husband and his relatives which must before or in Connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death.
Reasonable time is the best criteria to be applied
V. K Mishra Vs. State of Utrakhand 2015
👉 Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Punjab. 2013
Confession By Co Accused - Section 30 Of Indian Evidence Act
As per Section 30 IEA
Co-Accused Accomplice
(sec.30) Sec.133
Joint Trial Offence Commit together
Essential of Section - 30 IEA
1. There should be more than one person
2. They are tried jointly
3. For the same offence.
4. Statement should be of Co-accused
5. Such Statement tends to implicate equally.
6. The Court may take into consideration as against such other person.
Evident Value:-
Bhubani Sahu Vs. Emperor (1949) a Confession of co-accused can not be a basis of conviction but can support other evidence.
Kashmira Singh Vs. M.P. 1952: Accused person should not be convicted with imprisonment for life or for death sentence on the basis of uncorroborated confession of co-accused
Shri Shaid Nagesh Paray Vs. St. of Maharastra ----Related with: Retrated Confession of Co-accused
MERE ONE PERCENT ARRESTED PERSON REPRESENTED THROUGH LEGAL AID......Need to Spread Awareness......Justice U.U.Lalit.
Bharat Bhushan Chauhan Advocate........
💁 While Justice Speaking in Lucknow in an inaugural ceremony of "Capacity Building Programme on Pro-active Approach in Legal Assistance: Invention at earlyStages.....Organised by UP Legal Services Authority (UPSLSA) under the aegis of National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) The Programme was organized at Judicial Training & Research Institute (JTRI), Lucknow under the guidance of Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Acting Chief Justice Of Allhabad High Court.
In the said inaugral ceremony Justice UU Lalit Remarked :- Only 1% of the entitled have been represented through legal aid in the last Twenty years. He attributed lack of knowledge and awareness as the cause for the low statistics.
Quote of Krishna Iyer Report : " Legal Aid does not require large number of advocates providing these services; What matters is capable and committed persons."
Other Remarks of Justice U.U Lalit:
One Jail was found severely overcrowded. It was found that the inmates lodged in the prison were 180% of its capacity. further noted that more than 75% of prison in the State are overcrowded. Therefore, it becomes even more essential to ensure that the basic amenities are made available to the inmates in such a situation.
Emphasized:- "The need for legal aid at all trial stages and even after conviction through competent legal professionals. We must facilitate at every juncture the entitlement as a citizen afforded to him.The second aspect to look out for are the living conditions in the prisons; They must be in order so that we can say proudly that our citizens are being taken care of."
Further attention was made to the Juvenile Homes - as many children found to be in conflict with the law are lodged in Juvenile Homes and due to the pandemic, the education of these children has tremendously suffered. Benefit of internet must be given to them and emphasise that special attention to this must be given in order to provide them good opportunity as such child to develop themselves as a full citizen.
"Those child are in our care and custody we must make available to them every opportunity to develop them to the fullest citizen of the country"
Permanent Lok Adalats: In country must be efficient network of permanent Lok Adalats, which would lessen the burden of the regular courts. If these Adalats are made fully functional, they will be one of the brightest jewels in the legal system.
Source : Live Law
This CASE IS RELATED WITH COMMON INTENTION
IN THIS criminal judgment dated 5 November 2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, was tested which was dissmissed that Criminal Appeal No.1050 of 1994 documented by the litigant, and maintaining the Judgment dated 26th August 1994 Trial Court ASJ PATNA in Sessions Case No. 13/1993, entomb alia, sentencing the blamed litigant for an offence under Section 307 read with segment 34 IPC.
Main Issue The main Contention of this appeal was whether, having regard to the facts established by the Prosecution, the appellant could have been held guilty of an offence under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Facts: In a quarrel between the accused-appellant and the complainant on 22 October 1992, the main accused Khilai intervened and took out a country-made pistol from the right pocket of his trousers, and later pointed it towards the complainant and fired at the instigation of the accused-appellant. The complainant as the result got injured and started bleeding. The ASJ, Panna on 26 august 1994 held the accused-appellant guilty of an offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC, and the main accused Khilai guilty of an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved the accused-appellant appealed to the High Court, the following appeal was dismissed by the judgment and order impugned in this appeal
Judgment: Hon'ble Supreme Court Revealed In the above-mentioned matter that section 34 is only attracted when a specific criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, in which case all the offenders are liable for that criminal activity in the same manner as the principal offender as if the act were done by all the offenders. This Section does not whittle down the liability of the principal offender committing the principal act but additionally makes all other offenders liable. The essence of liability under Section 34 is the simultaneous consensus of the minds of persons participating in the criminal act to bring about a particular result, which consensus can even be developed at the spot as held in Lallan Rai & Ors. vs. State of Bihar reported in (2003) 1 SCC Mere participation in crime with others is not sufficient to attribute common intention.
The court said that section 34 IPC, is really intended to meet a case in which it is difficult to distinguish between the acts of individual members of a party and prove exactly what part was played by each of them. Even though there may be some evidence that the main accused took out a pistol and opened fire, the Prosecution failed to establish any common, premeditated, or prearranged intention jointly of the accused-appellant and the main accused Khilai to kill the complainant, on the spot or otherwise. The Prosecution has also failed to prove that the pistol was fired at the exhortation of the accused-appellant. The court also mentioned that the Sessions Court and the High Court both fell in error in convicting the accused-appellant.
Supreme Court Held : - Thus the judgment and order of the High Court under appeal, confirming the judgment and order of the conviction of the Sessions Court as also the judgment and order of the Sessions Court were set aside, as against the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant was acquitted and directed to be set free forthwith. It was also made clear that the Court has not considered the merits of the conviction of the main accused Khilai and the appeal, if any, filed by the main accused Khilai shall be decided on its own merits.
Note : Kindly go through source before using the contents of this Notes.
SOURCE OF THIS JUDGEMENT
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62704506/
Circumstances sometimes speak as forcefully as does direct evidence What is Circumstantial Evidence:- ‘Circumstantial Evidence’ includ...
