1. Rajesh v. State of Haryana
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - The incident of slapping by the accused cannot be the sole ground to hold him responsible for instigating the deceased to commit suicide.
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - There was neither a provocation nor encouragement by the accused to the deceased to commit an act of suicide. Therefore, the accused cannot be held guilty of abetting the suicide by the deceased.
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.
Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
Citations : AIR 2019 SC 478 : JT 2019 (1) SC 360 : 2019 (1) SCALE 492
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 93 of 2019 18-01-2019
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 93 of 2019 18-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sudarshan Rajan
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
2. Nand Kishore v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 302, 363, 366 & 376(2)(i) - Criminal P.C. 1973 - S. 354(3) - Special Reasons to impose Death Penalty.
So far as the present case is concerned, it solely rests on circumstantial evidence. It is the specific case of the appellant that he was denied the proper legal assistance in the matter and he is a manhole worker. The appellant was aged about 50 years. Further, in this case there is no finding recorded by the courts below to the effect that there is no possibility of reformation of the appellant. We are of the view that the reasons assigned by the trial court as confirmed by the High Court, do not constitute special reasons within the meaning of Section 354(3) of the Cr.PC to impose death penalty on the accused. Taking into account the evidence on record and the totality of the circumstances of the case, and by applying the test on the touchstone of case law discussed above, we are of the view that the case on hand will not fall within the ‘rarest of rare’ cases. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the death sentence imposed by the trial court, as confirmed by the High Court, requires modification. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part; while confirming the conviction, recorded by the trial court, as confirmed by the appellate court, we modify the sentence to that of life imprisonment with actual period of 25 years, without any benefit of remission. It is further made clear that sentences imposed for all offences shall run concurrently.
Citations : JT 2019 (1) SC 364 : 2019 (1) SCALE 500
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 94 of 2019 18-01-2019
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 94 of 2019 18-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sushil Balwada
Respondent's Advocate : C.D. Singh
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 452
Case Number : C.A. No. 1235 of 2019 18-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr.Adv. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv. Kartikey Bhatt, Adkv. Prabhat Kumar Rai, Adv. For M/S. Aura & Co., AOR
Respondent's Advocate : Pradeep Kant, Sr.Adv., Divyanshu Sahay, Adv. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Mr. Sanjaye Goel, Adv.
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana
An important facet in the matter was that the complainant failed to establish the source of funds which he is alleged to have utilized for the disbursal of the loan of Rs.15 lakhs to the appellant. During the course of his cross-examination the complainant deposed that earlier, the appellant had furnished two cheques, one of ICICI Bank for Rs.5 lakhs and another of Canara Bank for Rs.10 lakhs which he had presented. The complainant admitted that he had not mentioned anything about the accused having issued these two cheques in his complaint. Nothing was stated by the complainant in regard to the fate of the earlier two cheques which were allegedly issued by the appellant. The non-disclosure of the facts pertaining to the earlier two cheques, and the steps, if any, taken for recovery was again a material consideration which indicated that there was a doubt in regard to the transaction.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 139 of the Act mandates that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received it, in discharge, in whole or in part, of a debt, or liability. The expression "unless the contrary is proved" indicates that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act is rebuttable. In determining whether the presumption has been rebutted, the test of proportionality must guide the determination. The standard of proof for rebuttal of the presumption under Section 139 of the Act is guided by a preponderance of probabilities.
From the judgment of the High Court, the significant aspect of the case which stands out is that there has been no appreciation of the evidence or even a reference to the reasons furnished by the first appellate court. The High Court reversed the order of acquittal by holding that a mere denial of the transactions or an omnibus denial of the entire transaction could not be considered as a tenable defence. The judgment of the High Court is unsatisfactory and does not contain any reference to the evidence whatsoever. There was absolutely no valid basis to displace the findings of fact which were arrived at by the first appellate court, while acquitting the accused.
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 548
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 95 - 96 of 2019 18-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Jay Kishor Singh
Respondent's Advocate : Abhay Kumar, Saurabh Mishra, Vineet Kumar Singh, Himanshu Pal Singh
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
3. Rahul Gupta v. Shikha Gupta
Divorce - Mediation - Settlement - 4.5 crores paid to Wife - Criminal proceedings pending against the husband quashed.Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 452
Case Number : C.A. No. 1235 of 2019 18-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr.Adv. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv. Kartikey Bhatt, Adkv. Prabhat Kumar Rai, Adv. For M/S. Aura & Co., AOR
Respondent's Advocate : Pradeep Kant, Sr.Adv., Divyanshu Sahay, Adv. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Mr. Sanjaye Goel, Adv.
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana
4. Anss Rajashekar v. Augustus Jeba Ananth
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Complainant failed to establish the source of funds which he is alleged to have utilized for the disbursal of the loan - non-disclosure of the facts pertaining to the earlier two cheques, and the steps, if any, taken for recovery was again a material consideration which indicated that there was a doubt in regard to the transaction - the presumption under Section 139 of the Act stood rebutted and that the defence stood probabalised.An important facet in the matter was that the complainant failed to establish the source of funds which he is alleged to have utilized for the disbursal of the loan of Rs.15 lakhs to the appellant. During the course of his cross-examination the complainant deposed that earlier, the appellant had furnished two cheques, one of ICICI Bank for Rs.5 lakhs and another of Canara Bank for Rs.10 lakhs which he had presented. The complainant admitted that he had not mentioned anything about the accused having issued these two cheques in his complaint. Nothing was stated by the complainant in regard to the fate of the earlier two cheques which were allegedly issued by the appellant. The non-disclosure of the facts pertaining to the earlier two cheques, and the steps, if any, taken for recovery was again a material consideration which indicated that there was a doubt in regard to the transaction.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 139 of the Act mandates that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received it, in discharge, in whole or in part, of a debt, or liability. The expression "unless the contrary is proved" indicates that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act is rebuttable. In determining whether the presumption has been rebutted, the test of proportionality must guide the determination. The standard of proof for rebuttal of the presumption under Section 139 of the Act is guided by a preponderance of probabilities.
From the judgment of the High Court, the significant aspect of the case which stands out is that there has been no appreciation of the evidence or even a reference to the reasons furnished by the first appellate court. The High Court reversed the order of acquittal by holding that a mere denial of the transactions or an omnibus denial of the entire transaction could not be considered as a tenable defence. The judgment of the High Court is unsatisfactory and does not contain any reference to the evidence whatsoever. There was absolutely no valid basis to displace the findings of fact which were arrived at by the first appellate court, while acquitting the accused.
Facts of the Case
In the present case, it is necessary now to consider whether the presumption under Section 139 stands rebutted by the accused-appellant. The defence of the appellant is that he has not borrowed the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs from the complainant as alleged nor had he issued the cheque (Exhibit P-1) in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Specifically, the defence of the accused is that no payment was made by the complainant to him, in discharge of which the cheques have been issued. His defence was that the cheque was issued to the complainant on an assurance of a loan which would be obtained from a financial institution. This, as we have noted, was also the defence in reply to the notice of demand issued by the complainant.Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 548
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 95 - 96 of 2019 18-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Jay Kishor Singh
Respondent's Advocate : Abhay Kumar, Saurabh Mishra, Vineet Kumar Singh, Himanshu Pal Singh
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud