Legal Reference Library

State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh Vitthal Mule, R/o. Kasheli, Tal. Rajapur, Dist. Ratnagiri JUDGMENT Prakash D. Naik, J. - Heard learned APP for Appellant-State and learned counsel for the Respondent. This appeal has been preferred by invoking Section 378(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') against judgment and order dated 16 April 1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajapur in Summary Criminal Case No.224 of 1996. 2. The Respondent-accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC') and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act. The proceedings were conducted in accordance with summary procedure as envisaged under Chapter XXI of Cr.P.C.. By judgment and order dated 16 April 1999, the Trial Court has acquitted the Respondent-accused under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follo...

In an order with wide ramification, the Punjab and Haryana high court has held that getting injured while leaning out from a train door couldn't be termed as self-inflicted injury as such kind of negligence was not uncommon in the country. HC passed these orders while setting aside the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal that had denied compensation to the kin of a passenger who died after falling from a train. Deceased Munna Kumar was travelling from Patna to Ludhiana on a valid ticket on March 27, 2011. When he was passing through Kesri railway station near Ambala, due to heavy rush in the train and a sudden jerk, he fell down and hit a pole and later succumbed to injuries. His widow Sheela Devi was denied compensation by railway authorities on the grounds that the deceased was leaning out of the door and in the process he fell down and struck a pole of an overbridge. The railway had taken the stand that it amounted to self-inflicted injury and own criminal act. Therefore...

Asserting that it was state government's duty to maintain law and order and protect its citizens during hartals or bandhs, the Madras High Court has directed it to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation with interest to a bank employee, who lost an eye in a stone-pelting incident on the eve of a DMK bandh to protest party chief M Karunanidhi's arrest in 2001. Justice M Satyanarayanan passed the order yesterday while disposing of a petition by S Krishnaswamy, seeking a compensation of Rs 25 lakh from the state for the loss of vision and suffering caused to him by the injury inflicted on him on July 1, 2001. The judge said "The state government through an announcement had indicated that it had taken all necessary steps to maintain law and order problem and also ensured that public will not be put to any inconvenience on account of the bandh called for by DMK party following the arrest of DMK leader M Karunanidhi and also indicated that normal bus facilities would be in place." Th...

Clarifying that an injury does not always need to be physical, the Madras High Court has held that the parents of a minor girl who was allegedly abducted and married by her cousin which led to the suicide of the girl’s 12-year-old brother is entitled to compensation under the Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme. A Division Bench of Justices S. Nagamuthu and V. Bharathidasan made the clarification while hearing a habeas corpus plea moved by the minor girl’s parents alleging inaction on the part of police on the missing person complaint filed by them. According to the petitioner, his nephew had allegedly abducted his minor daughter last year and married her. Following this, his minor son allegedly committed suicide. He had filed a police complaint on November 18, 2015. Claiming inaction on part of the police he approached the High Court. Article referred: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/injury-need-not-be-physical-high-court/article8923612.ece

Supreme Court in State of M.P. vs. Goloo Raikwar, has held that when medical report establishes that the injuries inflicted intentionally on the deceased by the accused, were cumulatively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, Thirdly of Section 300 IPC is attracted, even if no significant injury had been inflicted on a vital part of the body and when the accused could not be said to have the intention of causing death. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices J.S. Kehar and C. Nagappan was hearing an appeal by the State against the High Court Judgment which had altered the conviction recorded by Trial court under Section 302 IPC to Section Part I IPC. Referring to State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr. (1976) 4 SCC 382), the Court said “In the present case, the fact that the accused hurled country made bombs, has been established. The incised injuries caused to Hari were intentional and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of natu...

The Supreme Court has held that the sufficiency of injury to cause death must be proved to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and that cannot be inferred from the fact that death has taken place. Three Judge Bench comprising of the Chief Justice, T.S. Thakur, Justices A.K. Sikri and R. Banumati, in Nankaunoo vs State of UP, modified conviction of an a person who was convicted for murder as that under Section 304 Part 1 IPC. In this case, the appellant was accused of killing the deceased using a country made pistol which was never recovered during investigation. Relying on the oral testimony and medical report, the Trial Court had convicted the accused. The High Court affirmed conviction. He approached Apex Court. The Apex Court observed that in the light of unimpeachable oral evidence which is corroborated by the medical evidence, non-recovery of ‘country made pistol’ does not materially affect the case of the prosecution. The Court added that any omission on t...