Legal Reference Library

Attributing ‘culture of compromise’ as one of the reasons for witnesses turning hostile during trial, the Supreme Court in Ramesh vs. State of Haryana, has upheld a High Court judgment that reversed an acquittal recorded by the trial court in a murder case. The high court, while convicting one Ramesh and others for murder of his wife, had observed that certain prosecution witnesses, which includes father and brother of the deceased, had turn hostile and have been won over by the accused. The high court held that a dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence and can be made the basis of conviction once the court is convinced that dying declaration is made voluntarily and is not influenced by any extraneous circumstances. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/culture-compromise-makes-witnesses-turn-hostile-trials-sc/

Application for Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be filed at any stage and the Court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial, the Apex Court has reiterated in R. K. ROJA VS. U. S. RAYUDU AND ANOTHER. The High Court, in this case, had taken the view that the same “was not filed at the earliest opportunity” and that appellant was not diligent in prosecuting the application. Therefore, the court took the view that … “this application filed by the first respondent shall be decided at the time of final hearing …” The Bench comprising of Justices Kurian Joseph and R F Nariman observed “We are afraid that the stand taken by the High Court in the impugned order cannot be appreciated. An application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC can be filed at any stage, as held by this Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others … “The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit – be...

Supreme Court in Hardei vs. State of UP, has held that choice of police not to send up a suspect to face trial does not affect power of the trial court under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon such a person on account of evidence recorded during trial. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh dismissed an appeal against High Court order refusing to set aside the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate summoning a ‘suspect’, in exercise of power under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, to face trial in Sessions Trial. One of the contention on behalf of the summoned person was that he was not named as an accused in the FIR nor any charge-sheet was submitted against her after completion of investigation. Rejecting the aforesaid contention, the Bench observed that F.I.R. may not contain all the details of the occurrence or even the names of all the accused and it is not expected to be an encyclopaedia even of facts already known. The Court further held “The...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 231 OF 2015 DAMODAR LAL ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS SOHAN DEVI AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT (S) The facts unfold the plight of a poor landlord languishing in courts for over fourty years. The case gets sadder when we note that appellant had been successful both in the trial court and the first appellate court and the saddest part is that the High Court in second appeal, went against him on a pure question of fact! Issue number-3 framed in Civil Regular Suit No. 191 of 1974 for eviction on the ground of unauthorised construction/material alteration, decided on 21.12.1989 in the Court of Munsiff, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, reads as follows: Whether the tenant has carried out permanent construction on the plot thereby causing a permanent change in the identity of the plot against the terms of the rent agreement? Having analysed and appreciated the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 and also DWs- 1 to 4, the trial court came to ...