Case title: Vishal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan

Provisions of law: Section 374(2) Cr.P.C...................Section 302 1PC

Facts:
In the city of Jodhpur PW6 Mukesh with his uncle PW 7 Chetan Prakash as also his father
Kaluram (since deceased) went to Railway Stadium on bicycles to bring waste meals
discarded by the marriage party for their pigs. By the side of the road five persons were
standing with a scooter and a Hero Puch. They stopped the complainant party and asked
wherefrom they are coming and called them thieves and wanted to take their personal search.
When Kaluram (since deceased) as also PW 7 Chetan Prakash refused to give their personal
search Vishal Singh, accused appellant herein, took out a knife from his pocket and inflicted
the fatal blow on the chest of Kaluram. Co-accused Manoj Kumar (acquitted by the trial
Court) inflicted a stone blow on the head of Kaluram. Thereafter injured Kaluram was taken
to Railway Hospital through a taxi from where he was referred to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital
for treatment. Knife Article 1 was recovered on the voluntary disclosure statement given by
Vishal Singh accused appellant which was seized, sealed and sent to the FSL where it was
found stained with human blood.
Issues:
As there been a sudden fight, the exception of sec 300 The help of Exception 4 can be
invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the
offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the
fight must have been with the person killed.
Judgment:
There was no evidence of any scuffle much less sudden fight or sudden quarrel or altercation
between the parties. It was the right of the deceased and PWs 6 and 7 to resist their personal
search because they were not armed. That being so, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC has no
application to the facts of the case. The appellant has been rightly convicted in terms of
Section 302 IPC. We find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
Observation:
• The past conduct, activities or the antecedent history of a person which the detaining
authority took into account, in making a detention order. No doubt the past conduct,
activities or antecedent history should ordinarily be proximate in point of time and
should have a rational connection with the conclusion that the detention of the person
was necessary.
Case title: Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi

Provisions of law: Sections 302/307/120-B of Indian Penal Code

Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Facts: One Blueline carrying passengers on its route to Nangloi from Ajmeri Gate stopped at
Rampura Bus Stand at Rohtak Road for passengers to disembark. The moment the bus
stopped, an explosion took place inside the bus. The incident resulted in death of four persons
and injury to twenty-four persons. The FIR of the incident was registered and investigation
into the crime commenced. On completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet
against four accused persons one of them being the present appellant, a national of Pakistan
for the commission of offences under Sections 302/307/120-B of Indian Penal Code
Judgment:
The nature of the incident and the circumstances in which it occurred speak volume about the
very grave nature of offence. As a matter of fact, the appellant has been charged for the
offences under Section 302/307 IPC and Section 3 and, in the alternative, Section 4(b) of ES
Act. the appellant is convicted under Section 302 IPC on retrial, the sentence could be death
or life imprisonment. Section 302 IPC authorises the court to punish the offender of murder
with death or life imprisonment.
Grounds for appeal: The Accused submitted before us that he would appear for the accused
(appellant) in the trial. In case he does not appear for the appellant or the appellant does not
engage the lawyer on his own, we direct that the trial court shall provide an appropriate
Advocate to the accused (appellant) immediately.
Order: In what we have discussed above we answer the reference by holding that the matter
requires to be remanded for a de novo trial. The Additional Sessions Judge shall proceed with
the trial of the appellant in Sessions of 1998 from the stage of prosecution evidence and shall
further ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as may be possible and in no case
later than three months from the date of communication of this order.
Observation or comment:
It is desirable that punishment should follow offence as closely as possible. In an extremely
serious criminal case of the exceptional nature like the present one, it would occasion in
failure of justice if the prosecution is not taken to the logical conclusion. Justice is supreme.
The retrial of the appellant, in our opinion, in the facts and circumstances, is indispensable. It
is imperative that justice is secured after providing the appellant with the legal practitioner if
he does not engage a lawyer of his choice.
Case title: Lunaram vs Bhupat Singh & Ors
Provisions of law: Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act; Sections 302, 307, 323 under INDIAN PENAL CODE

Facts: Complainant Luna Ram lodged an FIR in Police station, Bakhasar at about 8.30 a.m.
On 31.08.1998, complainant reported that almost two months back he alongwith Sugala, Tila
and Lila went to Dhanera, Gujarat, for a job. they came to Sanchore in a Jeep and, thereafter,
by another Jeep, they went to village Madhav. At around 7.15 P.M., they boarded a Bus from
Village Madhav and reached Sata at around 9.30 P.M. From Sata, accused Bhupat Singh.
After just leaving village Sata, Bhupat Singh, Rai Singh, Pratap Singh and Ganu Singh came
near their seat, as they all four were sitting on the last seat of the bus. Rai Singh stated that
they will kill all the four. Bhupat Singh caught Lila by holding his neck and, thereafter, Rai
Singh, Pratap Singh and Ganu Singh threw Lila out of bus. Complainant hid himself out of
fear.

Judgment: The High Court noted that the evidence of PWs 9, 10 and 11 did not have any
credibility. It was full of omissions and contradictions which affected the credibility of their
evidence. Contradictions and omissions were held to be not of any minor nature. There is no
embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is
based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption
of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal.

Cases referred: Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973 (2) SCC 793),

Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996 (9) SCC 225),

Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana (2000 (4) SCC 484),

Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003 (11) SCC 519),

State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh (2003 (11) SCC

Observations or comment: The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not
clearly believable. Some of the so called eye witnesses stated that the deceased died because
his ankle was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. Considering the
parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this
appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on
the evidence.