second complaint

Udai Shankar Awasthy v. the State of U.P. [(2013) 2 SCC 435, para 30] 

                 has observed that "the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the Court, or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour.

evidence act 1872

SHAFHI MOHAMMAD  V. THE STATE OF H. P. SLP (CRL.) No.2302/2017

              on the aspect of the requirement of certificate under Sec. 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872,has held that the applicability of procedural requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act of furnishing certificate is to be applied only when such electronic evidence is produced by a person who is in a position to produce such certificate being in control of the said device and not of the opposite party. In a case where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in possession of a device, applicability of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act cannot be held to be excluded.  In such case, procedure under the said Sections can certainly be invoked.  If this is not so permitted, it will be denial of justice to the person who is in possession of authentic evidence/witness but on account of manner of proving, such document is kept out of consideration by the court in absence of certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, which party producing cannot possibly secure.  Thus, requirement of certificate under Section 65B(h) is not always mandatory

S/C & S/T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Surendra Kumar Agrawal v. State of M.P. 2001 (1) MPLJ 683

                    Doctrine of parity would not be applicable in a case of anticipatory bail, where the provisions of section 18 S/C & S/T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act specifically declares that section 438 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 will not apply to persons committing an offence under this Act. The Apex Court also considered and has held so in the case of State of M.P. and another v. Ram Krishna Balothia and other, 1995 MPLJ 303 and the anticipatory bail order in the situation like this is against the provisions of section 18 of the said Act and the decision of the Apex Court and as such, the said order is per incuriam.

 Mohar Singh and another v. State of M.P. 1995 JLJ 584

            Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Bar regarding grant of anticipatory bail – Unless accusation of facts constituted an offence under the Act, bar not applicable –

                     

                   Dule Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1992(II) MPWN 108. The bar of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act shall not apply in the facts of the instant case, because there was, in fact, no accusation of having committed any offence under the Atrocities Act, ingredients of the offence must be stated clearly by the complainant or by eye-witnesses in their statement recorded by the Police so as to attract the provisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act.

                   if there was no accusation, therefore offence under the Act could not be constituted. where there is no accusation of any ingredients constituting an offence under the Atrocities Act, the Bar of section 18 will not apply.
see also      Vilas Pandurang Pawar and other. v. State of Maharashtra and ors. AIR 2012 SC 3316

Mirchi alias Rakesh Jain v State of M.P. 2001 (3) MPLJ 356

           Sessions Court have no power to grant bail u/s 439 criminal procedure code 1973. in a case triable by Special Court

Bachu Das v. State of Bihar and others (2014) 3 SCC 471

Section 18 of the sc/st act creates a bar for invoking Section 438 of the Code. However, a duty is cast on the court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act has been prima facie made out. In other words, if there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. The court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence.

Death penalties Aggravating and Mitigating circumstance

aggravating circumstances are concerned, they refer to the crime. They are: -

a. "if the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or

b. if the murder involves exceptional depravity; or

c. if the murder is of a member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of a member of any police force or of any public servant and was committed-

i. while such member or public servant was on duty; or

ii. in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such member or public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty as such member or public servant whether at the time of murder he was such member or public servant, as the case may be, or had ceased to be such member or public servant; or

d. if the murder is of a person who had acted in the lawful discharge of his duty under Section 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or who had rendered assistance to a Magistrate or a police officer demanding his aid or requiring his assistance under Section 37 and Section 129 of the said Code."

 In so far as mitigating circumstances are concerned, they refer to the criminal. They are: -

1. "That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.

2. The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death.

3. The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society.

4. The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (3) and (4) above.

5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence.

6. That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person.

7. That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.

see-

1-           Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 

2-           Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470

3-           B.A. Umesh v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, (2011) 3SCC 85 

4-           Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 2 SCC 338

5-           Mohd. Chaman v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 2 SCC 28

6-          Sebastian v. State of Kerala, (2010) 1 SCC 58 

7-          Rajesh Kumar v. State, (2011) 13 SCC 706

8-          Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 107  

osification test

चिकित्सक द्वारा अस्थि एक्स-रे परीक्षण के आधार पर प्रकट की गई आयु में अधिकतम 6 माह का अंतर हो सकता है, जैसा कि नंदा विरूद्ध मध्य प्रदेश राज्य 2009 आईoएलoआरo-3221 के मामले में माननीय मoप्रo उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिधारित किया गया है ।



             The Supreme Court in Mukarrab vs. State of UP CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1119-1120 OF 2016  on 30 November, 2016 has reiterated that ossification test cannot be regarded as conclusive for ascertaining the age of a person.

                  The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh (2015) 7 SCC 773  it was held that the ossification test is not the sole criteria for age determination.

  "Determination of Age

As per Modi's Medical  Jurisprudence  and  Toxicology,23^rd Edn., the age of a person can be  determined  by  examining  the teeth (Dental Age), Height, Weight,  General  appearance  (minor  signs) i.e. secondary sex characters, ossification of bones  and producing the birth and death/school registers etc. However, for determining the controversy involved in the present case, only a  few of them are relevant.

           Teeth- (Dental - Age)

           So far as permanent teeth are concerned, eruption  generally takes place between 6-8 years. The  following  table  shows  the average age of eruption of the permanent teeth :-

           Central incisors                           - 6th to 8th year

           Lateral incisors                            - 7th to 9th year

           Canines                                       - 11th to 12th year

           Second Molars                                        - 12th to 14th year

           Third Molars or Wisdom Teeth  - 17th to 25th year

           In total, there are 32 teeth on full eruption of

           permanent teeth.

Arms Act 1959

जप्तीकर्ता अधिकारी,प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट का लेखक और विवेचक एक ही पुलिस अधिकारी हो सकता है । अवलोकनीय है - राज्य विरूद्ध जयपाल 2004 ए.आई.आर. (एस.सी.डव्लू.)1762

Temporary Injunction

एक अतिक्रामक के हित मे साम्या पर आधारित अस्थाई निषेधाज्ञा की सहायता प्रदान नही की जा सकती है ।  केदारसिह विरूद्ध महिला गीतावाई 1997 म0प्र0वीकली नोट 10 और कन्हैयालाल विरूद्ध जियाजीराव कॉटन मिल्स 1983 म0प्र0वीकली नोट 119 का न्यायिक दृष्टांत अवलोकनीय है ।


जहॉ साक्ष्य अभिलिखित किये जाने की आवश्यकता हो,वहॉ वादगत सम्पत्ति को वाद प्रस्तुति दिनांक की स्थिति मे सरंक्षित करना उचित है क्योकि पश्चातवर्ती अन्तरण या सम्पत्ति के स्वरूप का परिवर्तन प्रकरण के निराकरण मे जटिलता और विलभंता कारित करता है। प्रिया ठकराल विरूद्ध अमरसिह 1988 भाग-2 म0प्र0वीकली नोट 125 और दयाराम सोनकर विरूद्ध श्री निर्मल चंद सोनकर 1991 भाग-2 म0प्र0वीकली नोट 178 के मामले मे माननीय मध्य प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय ने यह प्रतिपादित किया है कि लंवित वाद के सिद्धान्त के होते हुये भी वाद व पक्षकारो के वाहुल्ल तथा जटिलता से वचने के लिये सम्पत्ति का अन्तरण अवरोधित किया जा सकता है ।
        श्री गंगाधर बाल विधालय विरूद्ध श्रीमति संतोश 1982 म0प्र0 वीकली नोट 328 के मामले मे माननीय मध्य प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय ने यह प्रतिपादित किया है कि जहॉ विधि व तथ्य के विचारणीय प्रश्न अन्तर्निहित हो,वहॉ मामला वादी के हित मे प्रथम दृष्टि मे पुष्ट होना माना जा सकता है । 

Also Refer,

1. Kamal Singh V. Jairam Singh 1986(1) MPWN 116
2. Mahadev Sawal Ram V. Pune Municipal Corporation (1995) 3 SCC 33
3. Gangubai v. Sitaram AIR 1983 SC 743