whether, within the parameters required for reversal of an order of acquittal, the needful is met in the present case. The reason to treat the same with some caution has already been set out by us hereinbefore. The testimony of PW-6, that he saw the gun being fired, but could not make out whether a bullet hit the deceased or not has been taken into account, but, in the context of the overall testimony of the eyewitnesses, the story set forth by the prosecution and the witnesses was found to be believable by the High Court. However, this story does not deal with the aforesaid aspects noted by the trial court, i.e., no bullet injury, the weapon not being recovered, no bullets or bullet marks being found at the place of occurrence and the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses. The trial court rightly observed that it was accused No.1 who was the main accused, who was subsequently murdered. We may, however, note that insofar as the statement of accused No.2, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, the testimonies of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 all have been put to him but the said accused claimed absence from the place of the occurrence. As far as accused No.3 is concerned, once again, the testimonies of all the three eyewitnesses have been put to him, but the role sought to be assigned to him is stated to be a hit with the dagger, and not the role of firing at the accused as set out in the FIR.The subsequent testimonies, however, sought to assign a different role than the one assigned in the FIR, bringing about an inconsistency. The view taken by the trial court is, at least, a plausible view though that may not be the only plausible view or if one may say even the less probable one. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against these two accused, and they must get the benefit of doubt and consequently have to be acquitted.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1905 OF 2009 SAMSUL HAQUE ….Appellant VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM ….Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 246 OF 2011 J U D G M E N T SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. The incident is of 17.3.1997 at 7:00 a.m. in the morning. Keramat… Read More whether, within the parameters required for reversal of an order of acquittal, the needful is met in the present case. The reason to treat the same with some caution has already been set out by us hereinbefore. The testimony of PW-6, that he saw the gun being fired, but could not make out whether a bullet hit the deceased or not has been taken into account, but, in the context of the overall testimony of the eyewitnesses, the story set forth by the prosecution and the witnesses was found to be believable by the High Court. However, this story does not deal with the aforesaid aspects noted by the trial court, i.e., no bullet injury, the weapon not being recovered, no bullets or bullet marks being found at the place of occurrence and the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses. The trial court rightly observed that it was accused No.1 who was the main accused, who was subsequently murdered. We may, however, note that insofar as the statement of accused No.2, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, the testimonies of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 all have been put to him but the said accused claimed absence from the place of the occurrence. As far as accused No.3 is concerned, once again, the testimonies of all the three eyewitnesses have been put to him, but the role sought to be assigned to him is stated to be a hit with the dagger, and not the role of firing at the accused as set out in the FIR.The subsequent testimonies, however, sought to assign a different role than the one assigned in the FIR, bringing about an inconsistency. The view taken by the trial court is, at least, a plausible view though that may not be the only plausible view or if one may say even the less probable one. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against these two accused, and they must get the benefit of doubt and consequently have to be acquitted.

rejecting the challenge to their prosecution for lack of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 = It is therefore, held that the question of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. with regard to appellants nos.3 and 4 treating them to be ‘public servant’ simply does not arise because of their absorption in the Corporation. With regard to appellant no.2, considering his status as on deputation to the appellant Corporation at the relevant point of time and in absence of necessary evidence with regard to his status in the appellant Corporation throughout the litigation being ambiguous, we leave that question open for consideration in the trial after necessary evidence is available.

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 503 OF 2010 BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS ……….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS PRAMOD V. SAWANT AND ANOTHER ……RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J. The appellants are aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ application, rejecting the challenge to their prosecution for lack of sanction… Read More rejecting the challenge to their prosecution for lack of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 = It is therefore, held that the question of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. with regard to appellants nos.3 and 4 treating them to be ‘public servant’ simply does not arise because of their absorption in the Corporation. With regard to appellant no.2, considering his status as on deputation to the appellant Corporation at the relevant point of time and in absence of necessary evidence with regard to his status in the appellant Corporation throughout the litigation being ambiguous, we leave that question open for consideration in the trial after necessary evidence is available.

No doubt, that nonexplanation or false explanation by appellant cannot be taken as a circumstance to complete the chain of circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant. However, the false explanation can always be taken into consideration to fortify the finding of guilt already recorded on the basis of other circumstances.

1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 751 OF 2010 SUDRU …. APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF CHATTISGARH …. RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T B.R. GAVAI, J. The appellant has approached this court being aggrieved by the Judgment and order passed by the High… Read More No doubt, that nonexplanation or false explanation by appellant cannot be taken as a circumstance to complete the chain of circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant. However, the false explanation can always be taken into consideration to fortify the finding of guilt already recorded on the basis of other circumstances.

Cheque bounce case – burden of proof – mere non mentioning in the complaint that towards credit of grossary the accused issued empty cheques – can not be burshed aside the evidence of the Pw1 – burden of proof lies on the accused .

In the present case, by examining himself as PW-1, the complainant has discharged the initial burden cast upon him that the cheques were issued for the rice bags purchased on credit. With the examination of PW-1, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act arises that the cheques were issued by the respondent-accused for… Read More Cheque bounce case – burden of proof – mere non mentioning in the complaint that towards credit of grossary the accused issued empty cheques – can not be burshed aside the evidence of the Pw1 – burden of proof lies on the accused .

It is a settled principle that to prove the guilt of the accused in a criminal proceeding, authorities have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the element of mens rea is also to be established. On the other hand, such a strict proof is not necessary for assessing the liability under Section 126(1) of the Act.

C.A.@S.L.P(c) No.22207/2018 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6547 OF 2019 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.22207 of 2018] West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. … Appellants Versus M/s. Orion Metal Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents J U D G M E N T R.… Read More It is a settled principle that to prove the guilt of the accused in a criminal proceeding, authorities have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the element of mens rea is also to be established. On the other hand, such a strict proof is not necessary for assessing the liability under Section 126(1) of the Act.

Allegations of illegal intimacy with other women by the wife after successful martial life of 25 years, can be considered as misunderstanding and it can not be considered as mental cruelty for granting divorce -; legal heirs can be added in divorce procedings on the death of spouse .

Allegations of illegal intimacy with other women by the wife after successful martial life of 25 years, can be considered as misunderstanding and it can not be considered as mental cruelty for granting divorce -; legal heirs can be added in divorce procedings on the death of spouse . the marriage between the parties had… Read More Allegations of illegal intimacy with other women by the wife after successful martial life of 25 years, can be considered as misunderstanding and it can not be considered as mental cruelty for granting divorce -; legal heirs can be added in divorce procedings on the death of spouse .

Quashing of FIR = Sections 376, 417, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code3 and Sections 3(1) (u), (w) and 3(2) (vii) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (as amended by the Amendment Act, 2015) – There is no allegation in the FIR that when the appellant promised to marry the complainant, it was done in bad faith or with the intention to deceive her. The appellant’s failure in 2016 to fulfil his promise made in 2008 cannot be construed to mean the promise itself was false – No offence was made out and Mere whatsapp message what ever it may be does not attaract the provisions of St & Sc Act.

Quashing of FIR = Sections 376, 417, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code3 and Sections 3(1) (u), and 3(2) (vii) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (as amended by the Amendment Act, 2015) – There is no allegation in the FIR that when the appellant promised to… Read More Quashing of FIR = Sections 376, 417, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code3 and Sections 3(1) (u), (w) and 3(2) (vii) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (as amended by the Amendment Act, 2015) – There is no allegation in the FIR that when the appellant promised to marry the complainant, it was done in bad faith or with the intention to deceive her. The appellant’s failure in 2016 to fulfil his promise made in 2008 cannot be construed to mean the promise itself was false – No offence was made out and Mere whatsapp message what ever it may be does not attaract the provisions of St & Sc Act.