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

Single Testimony

प्रत्येक दांडिक मामले मे यह आवश्यक नही है कि परीक्षित कराये गये प्रत्येक साक्षी द्धारा घटना का समर्थन अनिवार्य रूप से किया जावे । सम्पुष्टि प्रज्ञा का नियम है न कि विधि का । इस सवंध मे पत्तूलाल विरूद्ध पंजाव राज्य 1996 ए0आई0आर0उच्चतम न्यायालय 3197 का न्यायिक दृष्टांत अवलोकनीय है । एंकाकी साक्षी का कथन यदि वह पूर्णतः विश्वसनीय है तो दोष्सिद्धि का आधार हो सकता है और उसके कथन के आधार पर दोष्सिद्धि अभिलिखित की जा सकती है इस सवंध मे वहुलाभूषण विरूद्ध तमिलनाडू राज्य 1989 ए0 आई0 आर0 उच्चतम न्यायालय 236 और मुन्ना उर्फ पूरन विरूद्ध मध्य प्रदेश राज्य 2009 ए0आई0आर0 उच्चतम न्यायालय 1344 का न्यायिक दृष्टांत अवलोकनीय है।

Pre-conception and Pre-natel Diagostic Techniques(prohibition of sex selection) Act 1994

डा0 दास मोटवानी विरूद्ध मध्य प्रदेश राज्य विविध दांडिक प्रकरण क्रमांक-10264/2016 आदेश दिनांक-30.01.2017 मे माननीय मध्य प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय जबलपुर के द्धारा यह अभिधारित किया गया है कि
offence under pre-conception and pre-natel Diagostic Techniques(prohibition of sex selection) Act 1994 Chief medical and Health officer is not appropriate authority to file complaint

Forest Act - Seizure of Vehicle

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य व अन्य विरूद्ध श्रीमति कल्लो वी दांडिक अपील क्रमांक-932/17 उच्चतम न्यायालय निर्णय दिनांक-08.05.2017

मध्य प्रदेश वन उपज (व्यापार विनिमय) अधिनियम 1969 और भारतीय वन अधिनियम 1927 के अपराध मे जप्तशुदा वाहन के समपहरण की कार्यवाही दांडिक विचारण से प्रथक होती है और दोनो का उददेश्य प्रथक-2 है ।

Duty of Appellate Court

Rama v. State of Rajasthan(2002)4 SCC 571 

The Court has expressed about the duty of the appellate court thus:

. ... It is well settled that in a criminal appeal, a duty is enjoined upon the appellate court to reappraise the evidence itself and it cannot proceed to dispose of the appeal upon appraisal of evidence by the trial court alone especially when the appeal has been already admitted and placed for final hearing. Upholding such a procedure would amount to negation of valuable right of appeal of an accused, which cannot be permitted under law.”

Departmental Inquiry

विभागीय जॉच मे साक्ष्य अधिनियम के प्रावधान कठोरता से लागू नही होते है परन्तु विभागीय जॉच मे भी आरोप को समुचित और विश्वास योग्य साक्ष्य से सिद्ध करना आवश्यक है । संदेह व उपधारणा विभागीय जॉच मे प्रमाण का स्थान नही ले सकते और न ही अनुमान व कल्पना के आधार पर विभागीय जॉच को सिद्ध मानकर दोषसिद्धि की जा सकती है जैसा कि माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने नरेन्द्र मोहन आर्य विरूद्ध यूनियन इंडिया इन्सुरेन्स कम्पनी लि0 2006 ए0आई0आर0 1748 पैरा-26 और वैक आफॅ इंडिया विरूद्ध डेगला सूर्य नारायण 1999 ए0आई0आर0 2407 पैरा-11 मे प्रतिपादित किया है ।
सेन्ट्रल बैक आफॅ इंडिया विरूद्ध व्ही0सी0जैन 1969 ए0आई0 आर0-983 के पैरा-8 मे माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्धारा यह अभिधारित किया गया है किः-

        The principle that a fact sought to be proved must be supported by statements made in the presence of the person against whom the enquiry is held and that statements made behind the back of the person charged are not to be treated as substantive evidence, is one of the basic principles which cannot be ignored on the mere ground that domestic tribunals are not bound by the technical rules of procedure contained in the Evidence Act.

    
माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने नरेन्द्र मोहन आर्य विरूद्ध यूनियन इंडिया इन्सुरेन्स कम्पनी लि0 2006 ए0 आई0 आर0-1748 के पैरा-26 मे यह अभिधारित किया हैः-

    (1) the enquiry officer is not per- mitted to collect any material from outside sources during the conduct of the enquiry. [See State of Assam and Anr. v. Mahendra Kumar Das and Ors.[ (1970) 1 SCC 709 : AIR 1970 SC 1255] 

 

             (2) In a domestic enquiry fairness in the procedure is a part of the principles of natural justice [See Khem Chand v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1958 SC 300 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Om Prakash Gupta, (1969) 3 SCC 775]. 

 

    (3) Exercise of discretionary power involve two elements - (i) Objective and (ii) subjective and existence of the exercise of an objective element is a condition precedent for exercise of the subjective element. [See K.L. Tripathi v. State of Bank of India and Ors. [(1984) 1 SCC 43 : AIR 1984 SC 273]. 

 

     (4) It is not possible to lay down any rigid rules of the principles of natural justice which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case but the concept of fair play in action is the basis. [See Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan [ AIR 1986 SC 995] 

   (5) The enquiry officer is not permitted to travel beyond the charges and any punishment imposed on the basis of a finding which was not the subject-matter of the charges is wholly illegal. [See Director (Inspection and Quality Control) Export Inspection Council of India and Ors. v. Kalyan Kumar Mitra and Ors. [ 1987 (2) CLJ 344].

   (6) Suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof even in a domestic enquiry.

Non examination of Investigating Officer

Ambika Prasad v. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 2000 SC 718 it was held that non examination of Investigating Officer could not be a ground for disbelieving eye witnesses

Bahadur Naik v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC, 1582 it was held by the Apex Court that non examination of an Investigating Officer was of no consequence when it could not be shown as to what prejudice had been caused to the appellant by such non-examination.

Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, 2001 AIR SC 2842 In Supreme court's view, in this case also non examination of Investigating Officer has caused no prejudice at all

Tape Statement

 Rama Reddy vs. V.V. Giri, AIR 1971 SC 1162 in which it was held that the previous statement recorded on tape could be used not only to corroborate the evidence given by the witness but also to contradict the evidence given before the Court as well as to test the veracity of the evidence and also to impeach his impartiality upon holding that it was primary and direct evidence admissible as to what has been said and picked up by the recorder. Further it is observed that the production of the tape recorded conversation to comply with the aforesaid provisos can be made in any mode:

There can be no straightjacket formula .

Electronic Records

Section 65B – Admissibility of Electronic Records

Sec. 65B(1): Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record –

• which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or
• copied in optical or magnetic media
• produced by a computer
• shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied
• in relation to the information and
• computer in question and
• shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original,
• as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.

Sec. 65B(2):

• The computer from which the record is generated was regularly used to store or process information in respect of activity regularly carried on by a person having lawful control over the period, and relates to the period over which the computer was regularly used;
• Information was fed in computer in the ordinary course of the activities of the person having lawful control over the computer;
• The computer was operating properly, and if not, was not such as to affect the electronic record or its accuracy;
• Information reproduced is such as is fed into computer in the ordinary course of activity.

Sec.65B(3):

The following computers shall constitute as single computer-

• by a combination of computers operating over that period; or
• by different computers operating in succession over that period; or
• by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or
• in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers,

Sec. 65B(4):  

Regarding the person who can issue the certificate and contents of certificate, it provides the certificate doing any of the following things:

• identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
• giving the particulars of device
• dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate,

Voice Conversation is Admissible in Evidence

 1-          R.M. Malkani  vs. State of Maharashtra 1973 AIR 157  Supreme court has observed that tape recorded conversation is admissible provided first the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue; secondly, there is identification of the voice; and, thirdly, the accuracy of the tape recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing the tape record



2-               Ziyauddin Barhanuddin Bukhari vs. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and others 1975 AIR 1778 held by Supreme Court That tape-records of speeches were “documents”, as defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act, which stood on no different footing than photographs, and that they were admissible in evidence on satisfying the following conditions:
(a) The voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who know it. (b) Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved by the maker of the record and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be there so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record. 
(c) The subject-matter recorded had to be shown to be relevant according to rules of relevancy found in the Evidence Act.” 

Solitary Eye Witness

Ramswaroop And Anr. vs State Of M.P. on 3 August, 2005

 There is no bar that the conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of solitary eye-witness. It is true that in such circumstances the evidence of solitary eye-witness should be scrutinised carefully and that should be not only corroborated, but must be cogent, reliable and should inspire confidence



Virender Kumar @ Gara vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 18 December, 2000

The testimony of a solitary eye witness, particularly when his testimony is found to be reliable and trust worthy, the accused can be convicted. It is only when the testimony of solitary eye witness is partly reliable that it requires corroboration

See-

1-          Namdeo vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 March, 2007
2-         Munna @ Pooran Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 2008

Duty of Judge

State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, it was held that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform.

Conduct of witness

                           नारायण सिह विरूद्ध म0प्र0राज्य 1985 ए0आई0आर0 1678 के मामले मे माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह प्रतिपादित किया है कि धटना की भयावता को देखकर व्यक्ति अपना संतुलन खो देता है और गंूगा हो जाता है इसलिये धटना के कुछ समय तक धटना का विवरण न देना या हमलावर का नाम न वताना अस्वभाविक आचरण की श्रैणी मे नही आता है ।

                            सत्यनारायण रेडडी और अन्य विरूद्ध हैदरावाद राज्य 1956 ए0 आई0आर0 379 के मामले मे माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह प्रतिपादित किया है कि जहाॅ धटना के चक्षुदर्शी साक्षी ने धटना के धटित होने के कुछ दिन वाद धटना के सवंध मे कथन किया हो,वहाॅ ऐसी साक्षी की परिसाक्ष्य पर सतर्कता से विचार करना चाहिये और यदि साक्षी का कथन सत्य पाया जाता है तो ऐसे साक्षी के कथन पर विश्वास कर दोषसिद्धि अभिलिखित की जा सकती है । 

Circumstantial Evidence

संजय विश्वकर्मा विरूद्ध़ मध्य प्रदेश राज्य 2008 आई0एल0आर0-2693 के मामले मे माननीय मध्य प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय ने यह अभिधारित किया है कि जहां मृत्यु धर के अंदर हुई है वहां अभियुक्त के लिये यह आवश्यक है कि वह परिस्थिति स्पष्ट करे कि मृत्यु किस प्रकार से हुई है

विहारी विरूद्ध मध्य प्रदेश राज्य 2008 आई0एल0आर0-2666 के मामले मे माननीय मध्य प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय ने यह अभिधारित किया है कि जहां अभियुक्त पति और मृतिका पत्नि को अंतिम वार धर के अंदर देखा गया है तथा उनके मध्य धर के अंदर झगडा भी हुआ है और उसके तुरंत पत्नि गंभीर क्षतियो के कारण मृत पाई गई है वहां तर्क संगत स्पष्टीकरण देने का भार अभियुक्त पर था कि कैसे उसके पत्नि उसके निवास गृह मे मृत्यु को प्राप्त हुई है । ऐसा ही मत स्वामी श्रृद्धानंद उर्फ मुरली मनोहर मिश्रा विरूद्ध कर्नाटक राज्य 2007 ए0आई0आर0(उच्चतम न्यायालय) 2531 के मामले मे अभिधारित किया गया है ।