3 Important Supreme Court Judgments July 22, 2019

1. Sanjay Rajak v. The State of Bihar

Evidence Law - Calls on Mobile demanding Ransom - Voice Recognition - Every individual has a distinctive style of speaking which makes identification by those acquainted possible - Even if a person tries to camouflage his voice in one call, given the limitations of human nature there will be a tendency to state certain words or sentences in an inimitable style exposing the identity.

PW11 and PW12 deposed that Balram had made calls on mobile demanding ransom. Balram having worked earlier in the house of the witness, we find no infirmity in their statement of having recognised his voice. Every individual has a distinctive style of speaking which makes identification by those acquainted possible. Identification of a known person by voice in the darkness has been well recognized in criminal jurisprudence. Even if a person tries to camouflage his voice in one call, given the limitations of human nature there will be a tendency to state certain words or sentences in an inimitable style exposing the identity. The High Court without considering the aforesaid factors, unfortunately granted acquittal opining that no recorded voice sample was available. [Para 6]

Evidence Law - the failure of the police to recover the dead body is not much of consequence in the absence of any explanation by the accused both with regard to the victim last being seen with him coupled with the recovery from his house of the belongings of the deceased.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1070 of 2017 22-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Mansoor Ali

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

2. Ramesh Das (dead) Thr. Lrs. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Substantial Question of Law - No document of title was relied upon by the plaintiff herein to establish his claim - Even the Revenue entry was not individually in the name of the plaintiff but was being claimed based on the entry of his father’s name with that of the temple - No substantial question in the contest of ownership has arisen - If that be the position no issue arises for consideration in the instant appeal as well.

Referring to Bandobasti Khasra (ExD1), the First Appellate Court held that Ex.D1 is an important document in which the disputed land has been shown as “Inam Devsthan” and being of ownership of the temple and pujari has been shown as the Manager and later, the name of the District Collector, Dhar has been recorded and the said position has been continuing. Based upon the evidence, the First Appellate Court rightly held that mere statement of the plaintiff and Hari SinghPW2, cannot prove the disputed temple as a private temple, the First Appellate Court held that in the Revenue record, the ancestors of the plaintiff has been shown only as Manager and this position has been shown in Ex.D1 also. In that circumstance, in our considered view that as rightly observed by the High Court in S.A.No.274 of 2001, no substantial question of law as contemplated under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure had arisen for consideration.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5041 of 2009 22-07-2019

Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna

3. Ram Gopal v. C.B.I. Dehradun

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 201 - The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - The fraud was committed in a systematic manner by persons well acquainted with banking procedures. The appellants were also the employees of the Bank. There is no defence evidence that they had no access to records of the Bank at any stage to commit the offence attributed to them. On the contrary, the evidence of their involvement is clinching. They also had access to the vouchers and ledgers as part of their normal duties. Even the specimen signature card was made to disappear replaced by a torn paper. Therefore find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. The appeals are dismissed.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1085 of 2019 22-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Danish Zubair Khan

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog