Daily Archives: June 8, 2013

Wife dies ’84, HC confirms acquittal in 2012. appeal court NOT 2 interfere with acquittal / re write judgement unless lower court judgement totally perverse


  • Accusation of snide remarks and ill treatment of wife
  • Wife commits suicide on 13.9.1984
  • Charges framed , husband pleads NOT guilty
  • Case committed to Court of Sessions.
  • After appreciating oral & documentary evidence, husband acquitted on 30.10.1996 by sessions court
  • State goes on appeal & original complainant [father in law ? ] has preferred Criminal Revision Application No.20 of 1997 before HC
  • For reasons not known to us the HC order is pronounced only on 07/09/2012, that is approx 26 years after death of the woman
  • HC affirms lower court decision
  • HC follows earlier Supreme court judgements and says that appeal courts should NOT ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal and re write the judgement unless lower court judgement is totally perverse


CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 105 of 1997



For Approval and Signature:


1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant(s)



Appearance :
MR LB DABH, APP for Appellant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1,
MR KB ANANDJIWALA for Opponent(s) : 1,


Date : 07/09/2012


1. The Criminal Appeal No.105 has been filed by the appellant – original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Criminal Revision Application No.20 of 1997 has been filed under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioner – original complainant viz. Chandanben Dhirajlal Parmar, against the Judgment and order dated 30.10.1996 rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.145 of 1991. The said case was registered against the present respondent viz. Dineshchandra Trikamji original accused for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. According to the prosecution case, the accused husband of the deceased Kashmira was giving mental and physical harassment to Kashmira telling her that she is black and he has committed mistake in selecting her. The accused was giving cruelty to deceased Kashmira frequently in presence of other person and he did not allow her to go on service on 13.9.1984. Due to mental and physical harassment meted out to deceased Kashmira she committed suicide on 13.9.1984 at night by strangulating herself with rope. Hence the complaint came to be lodged.

3. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused person was arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed against him. As the case was sessions triable the same was committed to the Court of Sessions.

4. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused person, to which the accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused person, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.

6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused person has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.

7. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondent – accused.

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.10.1996 rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.145 of 1991, the appellant – State has preferred the Criminal Appeal No.105 of 1997 and original complainant has preferred Criminal Revision Application No.20 of 1997 before this Court.

9. Heard Learned APP Mr.L.B.Dabhi, appearing on behalf of the State. He has contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law and evidence on record. He has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties in its proper perspectives.

10. He has contended that the accused used to harass deceased on the ground of demand of dowry. He has contended that the learned Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased Kashmira committed suicide because of the mental and physical torture and ill treatment meted out to deceased by the accused.

11. He has contended that on 13.9.1984 the deceased went to see his aunt but the accused did not allow her and had beaten the deceased in public and on the very same day the deceased committed suicide which clearly reveals ill treatment meted out to the deceased by the accused. Lastly, he has read observations of the learned Judge and contended that the observations made by the learned Judge are not proper in the eye of law and therefore, judgment and order of the learned Judge is required to be set aside.

12. Mr.U.M.Panchal, learned advocate appearing for petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No.20 of 1997 has contended that the learned Judge has materially erred in holding that the evidence against the accused is inadequate on the record and, therefore, benefit of doubt is given to the accused. He has contended that the learned Judge has relied on two hand written letters of the deceased Kashmira where the deceased Kashmira has stated that her husband is not responsible for this. But, in fact, on bare reading of those two letters case under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC is made out and even those two letters are required to be considered as a dying declaration of the deceased. He has also read observations of the learned Judge and contended that the observations made by the learned Judge are not proper in the eye of law and therefore, judgment and order of the learned Judge is required to be set aside.

13. Notice is served to the other side. Mr.K.B.Anandjiwala, learned advocate is appearing for respondent – accused.

14. Mr.Sahi, learned advocate appearing for Mr.Anandjiwala, for the respondent – accused has contended that the prosecution’s evidence primafacie is not sufficient to establish that the deceased was meted out with cruelty and physical harassment as she was black. He has contended that mental and physical harassment to the deceased meted out by the respondent accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has prayed that no interference is required in the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge.

15. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. I have gone through the papers produced in the case. From the papers it appears that the prosecution has primafacie failed to prove that deceased was given mental and physical harassment as she was dislike by the respondent accused as she was black and due to provocation and instigation she committed suicide by strangulating herself. It is true that primafacie role of the present respondent is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

16. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:

| “16.From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that
| while exercising the powers in appeal against the
| order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not
| ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal
| unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by
| some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at
| would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and,
| therefore, the decision is to be characterized as
| perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the
| Court of appeal would not take the view which would
| upset the judgment delivered by the Court below.
| However, the appellate court has a power to review the
| evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion
| arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the
| Court has committed a manifest error of law and
| ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is
| cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances,
| to reappreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
| decision on the basis of material placed on record to
| find out whether any of the accused is connected with
| the commission of the crime he is charged with.”

17. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.

18. It is settled legal position that in an acquittal Appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to rewrite the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondent – accused and adopting the said reasons as well as the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, this Appeal requires to be dismissed.

19. In the result, the Appeal and Criminal Revision Application are hereby dismissed.

The impugned Judgment and order dated 30.10.1996 rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.145 of 1991, acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed.

Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.

Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled.



IF peaceful husband ARREST, if TERRORIST appease!, 50000 jobs after naxal attack

Roshni’ launched for worst Naxal-affected districts

By Yatish Yadav | ENS – NEW DELHI

08th June 2013 08:15 AM

  • Minister for Rural Development Jairam Ramesh launching a new skill development programme ‘Roshni’ in New Delhi on Friday | PTI
    Minister for Rural Development Jairam Ramesh launching a new skill development programme ‘Roshni’ in New Delhi on Friday | PTI

In a bid to tackle the Naxal menace in 24 worst-affected districts, the Centre has decided to start a training and placement initiative ‘Roshni’ for 50,000 youth from vulnerable tribal groups.

Under the scheme, national-level agencies will be designated to act as monitoring and coordinating agencies in the Naxal-hit districts.

Sukma, one of the worst-affected districts of Chhattisgarh where May 25 attack on Congress leaders took place, has also been included under the ‘Roshni’ programme.

Beneficiaries aged between 18 and 35 years with requisite aptitude depending upon the trade or job requirements will be selected according to the ‘participatory identification of poor’ to make inroads among the people from whom Naxals draw their cadres.

Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh on Friday said at least 50 per cent of the candidates covered under the scheme would be women and training would be imparted through public-private and public-public partnerships.

Educational institutions, corporate entities, commercial and non-profit training providers would be roped in for implementing the scheme.

“Roshni will show a new path to the youths being targeted by Maoists. The training providers will ensure 75 per cent placement defined as continuous employment for three months at higher than minimum wages. The placements will be provided anywhere in the country,” Ramesh said. The funding for the ‘Roshni’ scheme would be in the ratio of 75:25 to be shared between the Centre and the states.

Four training models with the duration ranging from three months to one year would be taken up to meet the diverse needs of youth depending on their entry-level qualifications.



Accused in ’98, arrested 2002, arrested man claims he is NOT even d guy named, accused; he’s finally acquitted in 2013, a full 15 years later as the prosecution case has MANY infirmities. How slow and how lethargic and how routine can this become ? Is this what happens to the case of a school girl who was outraged ? what is happening to criminal administration in this country ? … and a REAL SALUTE to HC for painstakingly blowing the case to bits and once again FREEING A MAN !! PKB 25 04 2013 CRL A 155 2004


  • A class VII girl complains that some one tried to detain her and tried to pull her underwear and she raised an alam and ran away
  • She names one "nimmi" as the culprit who tried to outrage her
  • In her initial complaint the accused appears as some one know to her !!
  • Police register an FIR(Ex. PW-5/A) on 17th August, 1998
  • Unfortunately , No one is arrested immediately
  • Four years later one Niamuddin is arrested as the accused in this case
  • Niamuddin claims HE IS NOT the guy who is accused by the girl (he claims being taken to the girl’s house and girl saying he is NOT the person !!)
  • The victim girl herself makes contradicting statements and this is what the HC has to say about the victim’s statements "…. As noticed already, the complainant had stated in the FIR that one Nammi who was resident of Mehrauli and whom she knew from before had enticed her to accompany him and had taken her to some building under construction. In cross-examination, however, she admitted in answer to the very first question put to her by the counsel for the accused that she neither knew the accused nor she knew his name….."
  • ….and 15 years later Niamuddin is RELEASED as NOT proven / innocent
  • Honbl’e HC Judge concludes "….In my view, this reasoning of the learned trial Judge is not sound at all. It is well settled that in criminal trials benefit of every doubt in the prosecution case has to go to the accused and not to the prosecution….."…."

CRL. A. 155/2004 Page 1 of 8


% CRL.A. NO.155/2004

+ Date of Decision: 25th April, 2013

# NIAMUDDIN ….. Appellant ! Through: Mr. S.R. Sharma Advocate


$ THE STATE ….Respondent Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP



This appeal has been filed by the appellant(hereinafter to be referred as ‘the accused’) who was convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 366, 354 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 5th February, 2004 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default stipulation for the offence u/s 342 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default stipulation u/s 354 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two and half years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation u/s 366 IPC vide order dated 6th February, 2004.

2. The prosecution case as noticed by the trial Court in the impugned judgment is as under:-

| "1…………. It has been stated in the complaint by
| the prosecutrix that she is a student of Class VII in
| Sarvodaya School, Mehrauli. On the day of the
| complaint at 7.30 p.m., she had been sent by her
| mother to the shop of a tailor master for collection
| of her clothes. Tailor master told her that the
| clothes were not ready, therefore, he had started to
| return, when a boy named Nimmi, resident of Mehrauli
| met her on the way. He caught hold of her hand and
| after enticing her, took her to the first floor of a
| building which was under construction at Mehrauli. He
| asked the complainant to stay back for some time and
| he started kissing the complainant. He also started to
| pull down the underwear which the complainant was
| wearing; when she raised an alarm, he put his hand on
| her mouth. The complainant got herself freed and
| started running from the room. She also raised alarm
| at which, her mother Sunita reached there, who had set
| out to look for her because the complainant had been
| delayed. On the asking of her mother, complainant
| narrated the entire incident to her mother. Nami whom
| the complainant knew earlier ran away from the
| spot……………………………………………
| ……………………."

3. After receiving the complaint of the complainant the police registered an FIR(Ex. PW-5/A) on 17th August, 1998. The police could arrest the accused only on 27th March, 2002 on getting some secret information about his whereabouts

4. The accused was charged and tried by the Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 354 and 342 IPC.

5. In order to prove its case the prosecution had examined ten witnesses in all including the complainant and her mother.

6. At the time of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he had taken a plea that his name was not ‘Nimmi’ as had been claimed by the complainant in the FIR. Another plea taken by him was that after his arrest he was taken to the house of the complainant where she and her mother had told the police that he was not the person involved in commission of the crime. He examined two witnesses also in defence.

7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the accused found him guilty and convicted him. Feeling aggrieved, the accused-appellant filed the present appeal.

8. The prosecution’s star witness is the complainant herself. This is what she had deposed in her examination-in-chief:-

“On 17.8.98 I went to shop of a tailor. Name of tailor I do not remember. The shop of the tailor was situated at a small distance from my house. Tailor master was present at the spot who told me that my clothes had not been stitched yet. My mother had sent me to bring cloths of my mother. When I was coming back to my home, accused present in the court met me on the way (witness pointed out towards the accused) and asked to come towards him. Construction work was going on and some flats were under construction. The accused took me inside a flat under construction and there was no light. I covered distance of 15-20 steps of stair cases and took me in a room. The accused kissed me and he was trying to remove my pantee and at that time I was wearing skirt and pantee. I raised alarm and came out from there. Accused could not remove my pantee. I came out and ran towards my house, on the way I met my mother and I told the incident to my mother. The accused ran away from the spot after seeing my mother when I along with my mother came towards place of incident. We reported the matter to the police on 17.8.98 at 12 midnight. My complaint is Ex. PW-1/A bearing my signature at point A.”

9. The mother of the complainant was examined as PW-2 and this is what she had deposed:-

“On 17.8.98 I sent my daughter Swati aged about eleven and half years to bring my clothes from a shop near to my house from Raja Tailor. Again said it might be Sonica Tailor. The shop of that tailor was situated near my house. The shop was too near to my house but my daughter could not return till 5-7 minutes. Then I left my house for shop of tailor because distance between my house and tailor shop was one minute walking distance and on the way my daughter met me and she was frightened I asked her as to what had happened, then she told me that someone had caught hold of her, had taken her in the flats under construction. I took my daughter towards the flat and on seeing us, accused fled away. I saw the accused present in the Court today running from the place of incident. My daughter told me the whole incident.”

Rest of the case on the link below (those reading on tumblr check the blog post heading )


Police have filed case against 5 of husband’s family for dowry ; பெண்ணிடம் வரதட்ச ணை கேட்டவர்கள் மீது வழக்கு

News in Tamil and brief notes

  • Police have filed a case against 5 of husband’s family for demanding dowry from woman
  • Jayashri (aged 22) , resident of chengodan gounder puthur , near Suulur, Coimbatore in Tamilnadu was married to one Pandi (aged 33), of uppukkottai, two years ago
  • Gifts and Jewels were given during the marriage
  • There have been various misunderstanding, fights and panchayat held between the couple
  • At this stage , wife filed a complaint at Theni Police station stating that husband, father in law, mother in law and five of husband’s family locked her up in her matrimonial home and tortured her
  • Police have filed a case against 5 of husband’s famly

பதிவு செய்த நாள் : ஜூன் 03,2013,01:21 IST

தேனி: பெண்ணிடம் வரதட்சணை கேட்ட கணவன் உட்பட 5 பேர் மீது மகளிர் போலீசார் வழக்கு பதிவு செய்துள்ளனர். கோவை சூலூர் அருகே செங்கோடன் கவுண்டன்புதூரை சேர்ந்தவர் ஜெயஸ்ரீ, 22. இவருக்கும் வீரபாண்டி அருகே உப்புக்கோட்டையை சேர்ந்த பாண்டி, 33, என்பவருக்கும் இரண்டு ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன்னர் திருமணம் நடந்தது.

திருமணத்தின் போது 20 பவுன் நகையும், 2 லட்சம் ரூபாய் ரொக்க சீர்வரிசையும் கொடுத்துள்ளனர்.

குடும்ப பிரச்னை காரணமாக இருவரும் பலமுறை போலீஸ் ஸ்டேஷனில் புகார் செய்து, ஊர் பஞ்சாயத்தும் நடந்துள்ளது.

இந்நிலையில் ஜெயஸ்ரீ, தன் கணவன் மற்றும் மாமா தங்கமணி,54, மாமியார் ராணி, 50, உட்பட 5 பேர் தன்னை வீட்டில் அடைத்து கொடுமைப்படுத்தியதாகவும், 20 பவுன் நகையும், 2 லட்சம் ரூபாய் வரதட்சணையும் கேட்டதாகவும் தேனி மகளிர் போலீசில் புகார் செய்தார்.

தேனி போலீசார் வழக்கு பதிவு செய்துள்ளனர்.


wife (22 years) files dowry case. husband in cooler. marred 2010, arrested 2013 ! there is beautiful madras HC judgement by Honourable Justice Ragupathy (delivered circa 2008 ) that says ALL dowry allegations where wife is alive should be preferred for mediation !! nothing seems to be followed in practice; husbands are regularly arrested and sent to jail

News in Tamil and brief notes

  • meena aged 22 hails from nallama naayakan patti near EriyEdu , vadamadurai
  • she was married to aiyappan of sengottaipatti in 2010
  • Gifts were given during marriage
  • it is alleged that husband and family sought dowry and tortured the young daughter in law
  • there was a threat the aiyappan (husband) may get married again
  • wife complained at police station and husband has been arrested
  • case filed against others in husband’s family

வரதட்சணை புகார் கணவர் கைது

பதிவு செய்த நாள் : ஜூன் 05,2013,01:12 IST

வடமதுரை:எரியோடு அருகே நல்லமநாயக்கன்பட்டியை சேர்ந்த பழனிச்சாமி மகள் மீனா, 22. இவருக்கும், செங்கோட்டைபட்டி அய்யப்பனுக்கும் 2010ல் திருமணம் நடந்தது. 5 பவுன் நகை, சீர்வரிசை பொருட்கள் தரப்பட்டது.
மேலும் 10 பவுன் நகை, 50 ஆயிரம் ரூபாய் வரதட்சணை கேட்டு, கணவர் குடும்பத்தினர் மீனாவை துன்புறுத்தி வீட்டைவிட்டு வெளியேற்றினர்.

இந்நிலையில் அய்யப்பன் வேறு திருமணம் செய்வதாகவும், அதற்காக, விவாகரத்து கேட்டு மிரட்டல் விடுத்துள்ளார். வடமதுரை மகளிர் போலீசார், மீனாவின் கணவர் அய்யப்பன்,29, மாமியார் சிலம்பாயி, 58, உறவினர் ராம்தாய்,70, ஆகியோர் மீது வழக்கு பதிவு செய்தனர். அய்யப்பன் கைதானார்.