Gangamma v. G. Nagarathnamma and Ors (Decided on 06.07.2009)
Dispute as to partition of the property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Whether certain properties which are recorded in the name of
Appellants can be held as joint family property and whether a partition can be effected on the basis of that
If the properties are recorded in the name of the
Appellant, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Appellant by operation of Section 14(1) of the said Act is the full owner of those properties. As per
catena of judgments ,Sub-section (1) of Section 14 is very large in its amplitude and covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu. Regardless of whether such property was possessed by a female Hindu on the date of commencement of the Act or was subsequently acquired or possessed, she would be the full owner of the property. So partition cannot be effected in respect of those properties which was in the name of the
Appellant as if it were joint family property.
v. State of UP (Decided on
Appeal filed against conviction by the Sessions Court as well as the High Court under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing the
Appellant to undergo life imprisonment - The weapon of alleged attack was not a dangerous weapon and was only a lathi and allegedly only one blow was given by the
accused-Appellant on the deceased which clearly establishes that it is neither a case of murder nor could be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Whether conviction can be passed by a Court when there was no intention of causing death or causing any bodily injury to the deceased by the
The submission that there was no motive in committing the offence is clearly belied from the fact that the motive
had been established in the present case. The accused-Appellant being an employee of the contractor definitely had a grudge against the deceased and although it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but considering the nature of the injuries which was caused on a vital part of the body, it can be said that there was intention on the part of the
accused-Appellant to cause death of the deceased. Section 304 Part I IPC is wide enough to cover punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and as such the Court alters the conviction of the
Appellant from Section 302, IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence the Appellant
to undergo imprisonment for a term of 10 years.
v. State of H.P. (Decided on
Appeal filed against conviction by the High Court under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing the
Appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine and in default of payment of fine to also undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of one year - Whether a Court can sentence of conviction when it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily
It is quite clear from the record that there was an altercation preceding the incident of murder in which the
accused-Appellant was insulted by the deceased and by doing so the deceased provoked the
accused-Appellant. The deceased also took out the weapon with the intention of assaulting the
accused-Appellant and the accused-Appellant in order to save herself grappled with the deceased and during that process she also received injuries. The prosecution has failed to give any explanation with regard to those injuries received by the
accused-Appellant. Further, it is also established in evidence that the weapon used in the commission of offence was kept by the deceased under her pillow while she was sleeping in the veranda outside the house. Clearly, there was no intention on the part of the
accused-Appellant to kill the deceased. That being the position, the present case cannot be said to be a case under Section 302 IPC but it is a case falling under Section 304 Part II IPC. It is trite law that Section 304 Part II comes into play when the death is caused by doing an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but there is no intention on the part of the accused either to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
CRIMINAL / CONSTITUTION
Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT and Ors
(Decided on 02.07.2009) MANU/DE/0869/2009
Dispute with regard to sexual acts under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code between consenting adults the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India - Whether the penal provisions which are recorded in the provision on unnatural offences should apply only to non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non- vaginal sex involving
If consensual sexual act, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary performed in private, is criminalised by Section 377, that portion which criminalises the consensual sex act is violative of articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. However, provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors.
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Ltd and
Anr. (Decided on 02.07.2009) MANU/DE/0867/2009
Electricity - Respondent applies for resumption of supply of electricity on transfer of premises in its name - The
Appellant in exercise of its powers under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 asked the first respondent to deposit development charges, advance consumption deposit and all such charges as may be applicable including the outstanding dues against the premises and/or disconnected connections as a condition precedent for resumption of electricity supply - Whether a purchaser of the property can be asked or coerced to pay the amount which the
Appellant as the licencee may be claiming from the former consumer?
If there are electricity dues against the previous owner or occupant of a premises who transfers the premises to a new owner or occupant, the new owner or occupant applying for a fresh electricity connection can be compelled by the Distribution company to pay the arrears of electricity dues of the previous owner or occupant and the distribution company can refuse to supply electricity to the premises on account of such non-payment. Clause 2.1(iv) of 'General Conditions of Supply" contained in the Tariff Order issued by the DERC in exercise of its powers under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 is very large in its amplitude and covers all kinds of dues regardless of the ownership. In the result the appeal succeeds.
Bombay High Court
Satish Kumar Aggarwal v. The State
(Decided on 6.7.2009) MANU/MH/0489/2009
Indian Penal Code - Appeal filed against conviction by the Sessions Court under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing the
Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life - Whether conviction can be based on extra judicial
catena of judgments, the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and
categorical in laying down that when any fact is especially with the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act.