(1)
RAMNATH AND COMPANY ........ Vs.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ........Respondent D.D
05/06/2020
Facts: The appellants claimed deduction under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for income received from providing services to foreign enterprises engaged in purchasing frozen seafood and marine products. The appellants argued that the services rendered involved technical guidance, advice, and information.Issues:Whether the services provided by the appellants qualify for deduction under Se...
(2)
B. SANGEETHA AND ANOTHER ........ Vs.
OMR TRAVEL ACCESS PVT LTD. AND ANOTHER ........Respondent D.D
05/06/2020
FACTS:The appellants, wife, and mother of the deceased, appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras that enhanced the compensation awarded by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.The accident occurred on 21 June 2012. The deceased, a BSc graduate, was employed in a private company. The appellants provided salary certificates and bank statements to support their claim for co...
(3)
M/S. CENTROTRADE MINERALS AND METALS INC. ........ Vs.
HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. ........Respondent D.D
02/06/2020
Facts: The case pertains to a contract of sale of a commodity between M/S. Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. and Hindustan Copper Ltd. The contract contained an arbitration clause providing for a two-tier arbitration process, with the first tier to be held in India and the second tier by the ICC in London. A dispute arose between the parties, and the appellant invoked the arbitration clause. Th...
(4)
TELANGANA STATE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER ........ Vs.
M/S. SRIGDHAA BEVERAGES ........Respondent D.D
01/06/2020
FACTS: The respondent, an auction-purchaser, acquired a unit owned by M/s. SB Beverages Private Limited through an auction conducted by Syndicate Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The previous owner had failed to pay electricity dues, leading to the auction. The question at hand was whether the liability for the pas...
(5)
SONU @ SUNIL ........ Vs.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ........Respondent
SECTIONS, ACTS, RULES, AND ARTICLE MENTIONED:
Sections 394, 460, 302 r/w s.34: Penal Code, 1860
Sections 11 and 13: Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Avam Vyapharan Adhiniyam, 1981
Section 114: Evidence Act, 1872
SUBJECT:
Robbery, Murder, Criminal Conspiracy, Circumstantial Evidence, Section 34 of IPC, Common Intention, Vicarious Liability, Chain of Circumstances, Recovery of Stolen Property, Test Identification Parade.
HEADNOTES:
FACTS:
The case involves the appellant and four other accused charged with robbery and murder based on circumstantial evidence. The victim, who resided alone, was found dead in his house with missing articles from an almirah. The prosecution's case relied on evidence such as the victim's son discovering the body, recovery of stolen items from co-accused, and an overheard conversation suggesting a conspiracy to commit robbery.
ISSUES:
Whether the appellant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented.
Whether the appellant's connection to the crime was established through a chain of circumstances.
Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 302 of IPC was justified.
HELD:
The recovery of an article from an accused person accused of multiple offenses, including theft and murder, requires careful consideration. Factors such as the nature of the stolen article, manner of acquisition, identification evidence, and circumstances of recovery should be assessed. In this case, the appellant failed to explain his possession of the mobile phone, and the recovery suffered from suspicion and doubt due to discrepancies. (Para 28-29)
The appellant was charged under Section 34 of IPC along with others, indicating shared criminal liability and common intention. However, the trial court's finding was that the death resulted from injuries inflicted with a knife, wielded by a co-accused. The appellant's conviction based solely on the mobile phone recovery was unsafe. The evidence of the chain of circumstances was reliant on PW5's testimony and recovery, which had inconsistencies. The appellant was not conclusively linked to the crime. (Para 30, 34-35)
The appellant's involvement was not established, as he was not mentioned as a frequent visitor to the deceased's house, and no Test Identification Parade was conducted. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt, and his conviction was set aside. (Para 30, 34-35)
REFERRED CASES:
Arun vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, 2008 (15) SCC 501
Ashish Jain vs. Makrand Singh and others, (2019) 3 SCC 770
Baiju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 522
Bhikha Gobar vs. Emperor, AIR 1943 Bom 458
Brijlal Pd. Sinha vs. State of Bihar, 1998 (5) SCC 699
Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana, 1978 (4) SCC 440
Earabhadrappa vs. State of Karnataka [(1983) 2 SCC 330 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 447]
Girija Shankar vs. State of U.P., 2004 (3) SCC 793
Hardev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 179
Sanwant Khan and another vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1956 SC 54
Shri Bhagwan vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 2342
Sunder Lal alias Sundera vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 28
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J. - The appellant was tried with 4 others and was convicted under Sections 394, 460 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the IPC' , for short) . He was also found guilty of offences under Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Avam Vyapharan Adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as, ^Madhya Pradesh Adhiniyam'). The appellant was, in fact, sentenced to death for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC along with two other accused apart from a fine of Rs. 5000/-. He was sentenced to10 years Rigorous Imprisonment in regard to the offence under Section 460 of the IPC. He was also handed down a sentence of 10 years for the offence under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Still further, he was also sentenced to 7 years for the offence under Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Adhiniyam. By the impugned judgment, the High Court answered the death reference by holding that in the circumstances, the death penalty was not warranted. In place of death penalty, the High Court sentenced the appellant and two other accused to life imprisonment and enhanced the fine to Rs. 25,000/-. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed otherwise. The prosecution case, in brief, appears to be as follows:
On 08.09.2008, in the night, Bharosilal (hereinafter referred to as, 'the deceased', for short) was at his village Bilaua. He was residing alone. One Abhay Sharma-PW9, who is the son of the deceased, was informed by one Neeraj Bhargav that his father has not opened the door on that day. On receiving such information, PW9, who also turned out to bethe complainant, finally went to his father's residence and it was found that his father was dead and the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 10.09.2008. On the basis of the investigation conducted, Kalli, Hariom, Veeru, Virendra and the appellant came to be charged with the offences as noticed. In fact, the appellant was charged under Section 397 of the IPC also.
2. PW1 to PW15 were examined as prosecution witnesses. Material objects were also produced. The following are the questions, which were framed by the Trial Court:
"(i) Whether accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Sonu @ Sunil and Hariom on the date of incident after sunset and before sunrise after committing house tress pass in the residential house of deceased Bharosilal, committed the murder of Bharosilal?
(ii) Whether accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Sonu @ Sunil and Hariom formed common intention to commit murder of Bharosilal?
(iii) Whether accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Hariom and Sonu @ Sunil in fulfilment of their common intention committed murder of Bharosilal by strangulation and cutting by a chhuri (knife)?
(iv) Whether accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Hariom and Sonu @ Sunil by using deadly weapon in committing robbery, committed the murder of Bharosilal and looted gold and silver jewellery and two mobile phones of Nokia made from the possession of Bharosilal?
(v) Whether accused Veeru and Virendera along with accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Hariom and Sonu @ Sunil, at the house of accused Virendra Singh, Kushmah hatched conspiracy of committing robbery in the house of Bharosilal?
(vi) Whether the accused persons committed the offence defined and specified under Section 2 (b) of MPDVPK Act and committed the offence u/s 11/13 of the above said Act?"
3. The Trial Court found that it was a case entirely based on circumstantial evidence. It noticed that the deceased had suffered the following injuries:
Injury No.1
Incised of 6x1.5x1 c.m. on the right side of the chin.
Injury No. 2
Incised wound of 4 x 1 1/2 cm below 1 cm from the injury no. 1.
Injury No. 3
Incised wound of 6 x 3 x 2cm left fore arm anteriority middle.
Injury No. 4
Incised wound of 6 x 1 x 1cm, just 2cm below injury no. 3.
Injury No. 5
Incised wound of 6 x 1 x 1cm, just 2cm below injury no. 4.
Injury No. 6
Incised wound on abdomen 3" below measuring 3 x 2 x deep upto peritoneum, part of intestine coming out from the wound.
4 . The cause of death was found to be shock and hemorrhage due to excessive bleeding caused by multiple wounds. The death was caused within 36 hours of the postmortem report. The postmortem was conducted on 10.09.2008. It cannot be disputed that the death was homicidal and it was caused with the intent to commit murder. The Trial Court further proceeded to find that the certain articles were found missing from the almirah in the house where the deceased stayed. PW8 is wife of the deceased. PW9, as already noticed, is one of the sons of the deceased. PW13 held identification of the gold and silver jewellery and the mobile phones, which according to them, belonged to the deceased. The identified articles were belonging to the deceased. One hasli (necklace) made of silver, one pair of earrings and two mobile phones were identified. The contention of the accused that PW13, who held the identification proceedings, deposed that at that time a Police Officer was present, was rejected by finding that from the Identification Memo-Exhibit P21, it was clear that no Police Officer was present at the time of the identification of the proceedings. The Court also relied upon the evidence of PW8 and PW9, who were found to have not stated about the presence of Police Officers at the time of the identification proceedings. The evidence of PW9 and the evidence of PW8, were also referred to, to find that the Police came to open the door. It was opened and it was seen that the almirah was opened and goods/gold articles were scattered, and out of the said goods, one hasli (necklace) made of silver, one pair of gold earrings and two mobile phones, were missing. The evidence of PW3-another son, was relied upon to find that PW5 had overheard the conversation between all the accused which was to the effect that the deceased was living alone and they were making a plan for committing a loot in his house. No doubt, the Court also noticed that PWl, who was cited by the prosecution, to prove the said conversation, turned hostile. PW3 had also deposed that he was told by PW5 about having overheard the conversation between theaccused. The evidence of PW3 was relied upon to find that both Virendra and Veeru used to come to massage the body of his father and his father used to say that they would be got employed. PW3 deposed about his familiarity with accused Virendra, Veeru and Kalli present in the Court. PW6- another son of the deceased, has deposed that Kalli used to come to his village to sell ghee and used to sit and talk with the deceased and used to massage the body of his father. The Trial court finds that Veeru, Virendra and Kalli used to come and they were also acquainted with the deceased and his family members. Thereafter, the Trial Court also referred to the recoveries of the articles. From Hariom, one mobile phone was recovered. From Kalli, the Chhuri (knife) , used for committing the offence, was recovered. From the appellant, another mobile phone of Nokia Company, Model 5110, of black colour, upon which the Number 97321820 was written in red ink, was also seized. The evidence of PW9 was relied upon wherein he has deposed, that a Nokia Mobile on which B.L. in English was written with red marker, and on the battery of the same, Number 97321820 in red ink,had been written, was stolen. From accused Virendra, the recovery of hasli (necklace) was effected. From Veeru, one pair of gold earrings was seized. On the basis of the same, it was found that the stolen property and weapon have been seized on the statement of the accused, and that these circumstances, completed the chain of circumstantial evidence. Reliance was placed on the deposition by PW5, who had overheard the conversation between the accused about the criminal conspiracy. PW7, a witness to the recovery statement of the appellant-Exhibit P13 and also evidence of PW12- the Police Inspector, who arrested the appellant, has been relied upon to prove the statement leading to the recovery of the mobile from the appellant. The following findings may be noted:
"In the above said analysis it is proved that there is criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons to commit theft or loot in the house of deceased, on the basis of memorandum statement of accused Hariom, the looted mobile is recovered/ seized from the possession of accused Hariom on the basis of memorandum of accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma and on producing by him one blood stained sharp edged chhuri (knife) used in the offence has been seized from the possession of accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma. On the basis of memorandum statement of accused Sonu @ Sunil and on producing by him the looted mobile Nokia is seized from accused Sonu @ Sunil. In the same manner on the basis of Accused Virendra one old and used hasli (necklace) made of silver is seized from the possession of accused Virendra. On the basis of accused Veeru and on producing by him the looted property i.e. one pair of earrings are seized by the police from the possession of accused Veeru. All the four looted properties i.e. two mobile phones, one hasli (necklace) and one pair of gold earrings have been identified by Rukmani (PW-8) and Abhay Kumar Sharma (PW-9) in identification proceedings and they admitted that the same belong to them. All these circumstances complete the chain of circumstances against the accused persons. The accused persons have not produced any evidence in rebuttal of the same. The defence did not explain the fact that the looted property and weapon of offence have been recovered from their possession in this situation it is clear that. The accused persons hatched criminal conspiracy of committing loot in the house of the deceased, accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Hariom and Sonu @ Sunil has committed murder of deceased before sun rises and after sun set by entering in the house of the deceased.
From the criminal conspiracy and in fulfillment of the same and from the seizure of weapon of offence and looted property from the accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Hariom, Sonu @ Sunil and no explanation of the same on behalf of defence it would be presumed that accused Kalli @ Gopal, Sonu @ Sunil and Hariom by entering in the house of deceased before sun rise and after sun set has committed loot and in committing of the said loot has committed the murder of deceased Bharosilal Sharma by inflicting injuries with knife. Because at the time of committing loot all the three accused persons Kalli @ Gopal, Hariom and Sonu @ Sunil were present at the place of occurrence, all the three have also committed loot and in committing of the said loot the murder of deceased Bharosilal has been committed, from this it is clearly concluded that there were common intention amongst the accused persons Kalli @ Gopal, Hariom and Sonu @ Sunil to commit the murder of deceased Bharosilal. Therefore, the offence u/s460/302/34 against accused Kalli @ Gopal, Hariom and Sonu @ Sunil are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
So far as the question of offence u/s 397/34 IPC against accused Kalli @ Gopal, Hariom and Sonu @ Sunil is concerned the weapon used in the offence knife is only seized from accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, it is clear from the same that at the time of incident a chhuri, used in the incident which is deadly and sharp edged was in possession of accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma." (Emphasis supplied)
5. The appellant was found along with Hariom, guilty of the offence under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the IPC, whereas, Section 397 of the IPC was found proved against Kalli. The Trial Court found Kalli guilty under Section 397 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Appellant was also convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Thereafter, it was also found that the appellant and others were guilty of the offences under Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Adhiniyam, based on the offences proved otherwise.
6. The High Court, in appeal, proceeded to find that eleven circumstances emerged before the Trial Court:
i. The incident in connection with the loot took place on 08.09.2008 after locking the doors from inside in the house of the deceased who was residing alone.
ii. That the postmortem confirms the prosecution case. It is found that it is natural that on 09.09.2008 when the deceased did not appear to be seen and was not responding on knocking the door, Neeraj Bhargava informed PW9 that he was not responding. PW9 and PW8 departed to the place to know about the welfare of the deceased.
iii. Upon request of PW9, his neighbor-Phoolchand climbed through the stairs and he found the deceased with blood on his hand andwas lying dead. He went to the Police Station Bilaua for lodging the report which was recorded at about 11:30 P.M in night. The dead body was referred for postmortem on the same day and the FIR was lodged in the evening of 10.09.2008.
iv. On 10.09.2008, Ashok Kumar(PW3), in his Case Diary Statement, disclosed that the Cell Phone Number 9406586386, generally used by his father, was also found missing. Another Cell Phone Number 9928120429, which was made available by son of deceased, was also found missing.
v. Investigation was conducted by PW15 and initially names of the assailants were not dictated by that time.
vi. The successor of PW15-(PW14) conducted subsequent investigation. Statements of witnesses were recorded, call details of stolen mobile sets from Cyber Cell was received. On 18.10.2008, he came to know the names of assailants from Cyber Cell. Within two days, arrests were made of the accused, viz., Kalli,Hariom, Parihar, Virendra Kachhi and Veeru. The Churri (knife) was seized from accused Kalli, one necklace from Virendra, one pair of gold earrings from Veeru.
vii. The accused cannot get benefit for the inaction/ latches of the investigation.
viii. On 02.11.2008, D.P. Sharma-PW12, arrested appellant and recovered from him one mobile phone bearing SIM No. 97321820.
ix. As per medical evidence, it is clear that the deceased was put to death by the accused or any one of them. Looking to the nature of the incised wounds seen on the body of the deceased, the death appears to be homicidal.
x. Identification of properties, which were seized/ recovered in between 18.10.2008 to 02.11.2008, was conducted on 10.12.2008, which cannot be said delayed because the persons who have identified the articles, were the residents of Gwalior.
xi. The motive of the incident is apparently clear. It was committed for committing loot/theft, and during the incident of theft, the deceased was killed by the accused.
7 . We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and also learned counsel for the state. Learned Senior Counsel would complain that there is no evidence against the appellant for convicting him for the offences, he has been found guilty of. He complained that the Court's below have erred in placing reliance upon PW-5 who allegedly overheard the conversation between the five accused persons by standing outside the house of one of them. He points out that the witness could not be believed. It is pointed out that PW-1 who was cited by the prosecution to prove the said conversation has not adhered to the version which was sought to be attributed to him. It is highly improbable that PW-5 could have overheard any such conversation. He pointed out that a clear discrepancy in regard to the recovery of the mobile phone from the appellant. In the memorandum relating the alleged recovery of the mobile phone, what is stated is that the appellant took one mobile phone make of Nokia of the deceased and he has hidden the same on the roof of his house. The seizure memo reveals the following as what was recovered:
S.No.
Property
Signatures obtained on packets or property
1.
One mobile phone of Nokia company of black colour old and used, model No. 5110 made in Finland CE 0188X no. 490541/30/26305416 is written. Code No. 0502182 is written. B.L. is written on the mobile in red ink and on its battery a no. 97321820 is written with red ink. (some portion not illegible).
8. He would then point out that the High Court, in the recital of circumstances, has found that a Cell Phone Number 9928120429 was found missing, and then he points out the eighth circumstance, which is noted by the Court, is that one mobile phone, bearing SIM Number 97321820, was recovered from the appellant. Therefore, the phone that was seized from the appellant was notthe phone number which was mentioned by the son of the deceased, PW-3, as was being used by his father. He further pointed out about the mysterious maxi found at the premises. In this regard, we may notice the following findings by the Trial Court:
"It is argued on behalf of defence that one blood stained and sleeveless maxi of white colour having lines of brown colour, the lower portion of the same is blood stained and the same is used is seized by the police wide Ex P-6 from the place of occurrence, while there was no woman present at the place of occurrence. In such a situation, on account of seizure of maxi from the place of occurrence, the presence of any woman at the time of the incident is proved, but who was that woman, the prosecution did not produce any evidence in this regard hence, the prosecution case is doubtful. Only recovery/ seizure of blood stained maxi from the place of occurrence does not make doubtful to the prosecution case. Human blood was detected on the shirt of deceased and on the said maxi, there is no evidence that there was blood of any other person on the maxi. Because the wife of the deceased Rukmani Sharma is alive and Rukmani Sharma (PW-8) has admitted in her cross examination that she used to go occasionally to the house/ place of occurrence at Bilaua. In this sitation where there are visits of the wife of deceased in the house then this probability could not be denied that the said maxi would be of the wife of the deceased. In this situation from the seizure of maxi from place occurrence the incident could not be doubtful."
9. He would point out that the Investigating Officer admitted that he did not carry out any investigation regarding the maxi. He would further contend that there is no evidence, as far as the appellant is concerned, to convict him of the offences. The evidence, even according to the prosecution witnesses, show that the other accused, viz., Veeru, Virendra and Kalli, were known to the prosecution witnesses as persons who would frequent the house of the deceased. As far as the appellant is concerned, there is no such evidence. In short, the contention is that the case is one where the appellant is convicted without any evidence and the injustice may be set right.
10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State supported the judgment.
11. As already noticed the appellant stands convicted under Section 460, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 394 read with Section 34 of the IPC. This is besides convicting the appellant under Sections 13 and 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Adhiniyam. The case hinges entirely on circumstantial evidence. Though eleven circumstances have been enlisted by the High Court, the circumstances Nos. 2 and 3 relate to the prosecution version as to the discovery of the death of the deceased by his son and his wife. They relate to going to the place of his residence, finding out the dead body and the lodging of the FIR. Circumstance No. 5 also does not amount to a circumstance. Equally, we are not convinced that the circumstance No. 7, viz. , that the accused cannot get benefit for the inaction/latches of the investigation, can amount to a piece of circumstantial evidence for the prosecution to discharge its burden to prove the case against the accused.
12. The circumstances, which can be culled out, can be put as follows:
The deceased died in his house where he was living alone, as a result of shock and hemorrhage from 6 incised wounds as noticed and proved by medical evidence. The death is homicidal too. There were valuable articles, namely, a silver necklace, gold earring and two mobile phones which were found missing too. These articles have been recovered from the accused as already mentioned. A knife stood recovered from Kalli, one of the accused. The other valuable articles identified by the closed relative, namely, his wife and his son stood recovered. From the articles so recovered, one mobile phone was recovered from the appellant.
13. There is evidence of prosecution witnesses that out of the five accused, viz., Kalli, Veeru and Virendra used to frequent the house of the deceased. The over hearing of the conversation by PW-5 amongst the accused prior to the death of the deceased about their plans to commit loot/theft from the house of the deceased is another circumstance relied upon.
WHETHER A MOBILE PHONE WAS RECOVERED BASED ON STATEMENT BY APPELLANT
14. PW12 has deposed that on 01.11.2008, after arresting the appellant and on enquiry in custody, he (appellant) made Statement-P13 to the effect that the looted mobile seized was hidden on the loft of his room and he would recover the same. He further deposed that appellant took the looted mobile from the loft and he prepared the Seizure Memo. In the cross-examination, he states that the seized mobile was of the deceased. He further stated that no documents were produced. He denied that he had planted the mobile from anywhere and false proceedings have been done. PW7 has been examined to prove, inter alia, that he was called to the Police Station, and after 15 to 20 days of the proceedings relating to the recovery of the knife from Kalli, enquiry was made from the person, who he has told was Sonu-appellant. On making enquiry, he gave an information in respect of the mobile. He deposed that he has signed on the Statement-P13 [the Statement purportedly to be under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Evidence Act', for short) ] . He also admits that he had signed on the Seizure Memo prepared based on the Statement-P14. Thus, PW7 and PW12 prove that a statement was given by the appellant while in custody. Based on the statement, a mobile phone was recovered from the appellant. The recovery was from his house. It was not from an open space.
WHETHER RECOVERED PHONE PROVED AS BELONGING TO THE DECEASED. EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE MOBILE PHONE, RECOVERED FROM THE APPELLANT
15. PW3-son of the deceased has this to say:
On 10.09.2008, his brother told him that some persons had committed murder of his father causing injuries with sharp-edged weapon and took away goods/articles from the almirah. Along with this, they also took away two mobile phones of his father. The mobile phone of his father is 940655863866 which is of BSNL. The sim of the same has been issued either from Dabra or Bilaua (We are not concerned with this phone as this phone has been recovered from another accused).
What is stated next is as follows:
The other phone bearing number 9920121429 make of M-Nokia was fitted with square LKD Red LED which had a light while charging the mobile. The mobile was bought by him at Bombay prior to three months ago when his father came to Bombay so that information about him could be communicated. He, however, also says in his cross-examination that he had stated in his statement to the Police that when his father came to Bombay, then, he had given him another phone of make Nokia which had LED and showing light while charging the mobile. The mobile number of the other phone was mentioned in Exhibit Dl. He is unable to explain as to why if such statement is not found in the statement given by him to the Police. He said that again he is unable to give the reason as to why it is not mentioned in the statement to the Police that he had stated that the father had two sims out of which one was of Vodafone which was purchased from Bombay. Lastly, he states in further cross as follows:-
"Cross-examination by Sh. A.K. Shrotiya, Advocate for Sunu@Sunil.
I could not tell the date on which I had given mobile phone to my father the above said mobile I had purchased from Mahesh Gahera, Mahesh Gahera is residing Bombay he lived at Bandra the same was given in gift the EMI of the same. I could not tell today I can not produce a receipt of the same as I was given the above said mobile as gift to me by Mahesh Gahera, he deals in mobile phone he as several sets of the same. My father had another mobile phone made of Nokia EMI no of the same I would not tell I neither have receipt of the same nor I could produce the same."
16. PW9 is another son of the deceased, who has identified the mobile phones. This is what he has to say in regard to the mobile phones:
The mobiles were of black colour and having old antenna. On the battery of one mobile A-9406586386 is written in red ink and on the other mobile on the back side it is written capital BL , in English and number 97321820 was written with red marker. He says that after 8 to 10 days, when they checked the goods, they came to know that some articles had been stolen. He further states that they had informed the Police by that day about the theft of the mobiles. He and his mother went to identify the goods. His mother was called first and he went later.
It is to be remembered that PW3 says he had given the mobile in question prior to 3 months ago when deceased came to Bombay. The deceased was staying alone. It is PW9 now who has identified by the number written in the battery.
17. PW8 is the mother. She says first, on the next day, Police Officer came and they opened the room and they saw that almirah was opened and articles were scattered. Out of the articles, one hensli (necklace made of silver) , gold earrings and two mobile phones of Nokia Company, were stolen. Except this, no article was stolen. She says that identification of the articles was got done by her. In cross-examination on behalf of Kali alias Gopal, she says that on 11th or 12th, she came to know about the articles which were stolen. She says that in her statement to the Police, she has stated that on the next day of incident, the almirah was opened and the articles were scattered and, then, she came to know that her goods had been stolen. She had not made any complaint anywhere in respect of her stolen goods. She denies allegation that they have concocted a false story of goods being stolen after 8 to 10 days of the incident for creating evidence. In this regard, it may be noticed that in the evidence of PW9-son, he has stated that after going to the lower room on the next day, he saw the almirah on that day. Articles were lying outside. Therefore, they guessed that something had been stolen. At that time, it could not be known what had been stolen. After 8 to 10 days, when they checked the goods, they came to know that some articles had been stolen.
18. In the Recovery Memo of the phone from the appellant, it is stated as follows:
One mobile phone of Nokia company of black colour mode no. 5110, made in Finland, followed by a certain number, code number is shown as 0502182 was written, BL is written on the mobile in red ink and, on its battery, the number 97321820 is written with red ink.
19. According to the deposition of PW3, the recovery of phone which is attributed from the appellant, was bearing number 9920121429. The High Court has, in the impugned judgment, found that another Cell Phone Number 9928120429, which was made available by hisson-PW3, was found missing. Thereafter, the finding by the High Court is that D.P. Sharma, ASI arrested the accused and on 02.11.2008 recovered from him one mobile phone bearing sim number 97321820. It is clear that the finding by the High Court that recovery was made from the appellant of one mobile phone sim number 97321820, is clearly contrary to the version of PW3 who purchased or was gifted the phone which he allegedly gav D.D
29/05/2020
FACTS: The case involves the appellant and four other accused charged with robbery and murder based on circumstantial evidence. The victim, who resided alone, was found dead in his house with missing articles from an almirah. The prosecution's case relied on evidence such as the victim's son discovering the body, recovery of stolen items from co-accused, and an overheard conversation sug...
(6)
GOPAL PRASAD ........ Vs.
BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
28/05/2020
Facts: The case involves Gopal Prasad, an employee of the Bihar School Examination Board, who entered service at the age of 15 years and 6 months. The retirement age at the time of his entry was 58 years, which was later extended to 60 years. The minimum qualifying service for pension was 18 years.Issues: Whether an employee can be superannuated (retired) before reaching the age of 60 years solely...
(7)
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED ........ Vs.
SRI RABINDRANATH CHOUBEY ........Respondent D.D
27/05/2020
Facts: The respondent, an employee of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, faced disciplinary proceedings initiated while he was in service. These proceedings continued after his superannuation. The employer withheld his gratuity pending the outcome of the proceedings. The employee challenged this action, leading to this appeal.Issues:Can an employer withhold gratuity during the pendency of disciplinary p...
(8)
PATEL ENGINEERING LTD. ........Appellant Vs.
NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. (NEEPCO) ........Respondent D.D
22/05/2020
Facts:NEEPCO filed applications under Section 34 challenging the arbitral awards.The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) rejected NEEPCO's applications and upheld the awards.NEEPCO appealed under Section 37 to the High Court, which set aside the Deputy Commissioner's judgment.The petitioner, Patel Engineering Ltd., filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in the Supreme Court, which we...
(9)
THE WORKMEN THROUGH THE CONVENER FCI LABOUR FEDERATION ........Appellan Vs.
RAVUTHAR DAWOOD NASEEM ........Respondent D.D
19/05/2020
Facts: Workers employed as contract laborers sought regularization at the respondent-Corporation's depots. An understanding was recorded in a meeting on April 12, 1996. An Industrial Tribunal directed the workers' regularization, which was affirmed by higher courts, culminating in a Supreme Court decision.Issues: Whether the direction for regularization applied to the Departmental Labor ...