Supreme Court Judgments - July 2008

State of Karnataka v Bantara Sudhakara @ Sudha and another 18/7/2008.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 376 - acquittal under -  appeal against - The High Court observed that there was possibility of two years variation and therefore it was to be taken that the victims were more than 16 years of age. The High Court accepted that there was sexual intercourse and rejected the plea of false implication - the High Court's conclusions in this regard are not only fallacious but contrary to the evidence on record.

Shivappa Mallappa Pujar and others v Guddappa and others 17/7/2008.
Land - occupancy rights - conferment - the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained simply for two reasons. First, the admission made by the respondent before the Tribunal on the basis of which the application was rejected by the Tribunal was not considered in proper manner. Secondly, after the order was passed by the Land Tribunal, a writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal about seven to eight years thereafter. Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal in favour of the respondent did not at all consider the aforesaid admission from the respondent and also did not consider whether sufficient explanation was given for delay in filing the writ petition - impugned judgment set aside — matter sent back for re-hearing.

Harijan Mangri Siddakka & others v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & another 16/7/2008.
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1928 - section 30(1) - appeal under - disposed by learned single Judge - order challenged in appeal - there is practically no discussion on the factual scenario as to whether there was any connection between the death and the use of the vehicle. It would depend upon the factual scenario in each case and there cannot be any strait jacket formula to be applied - the expression "use" in the Statute is with reference to "use of the motor vehicle". Whether there was a use of the motor vehicle has to be factually analyzed.- Leave granted

Shashi Mohan Appellant versus State of M.P. 15/7/2008.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 read with section 34 - conviction under - under the provisions of Section 34 IPC the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in Section 34, when an accused is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone..- Leave granted

Bharat Parikh v C.B.I. and another 14/7/2008
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - sections 207 and 238 - whether having framed charges against an accused, a Magistrate has the jurisdiction in law to recall such order on the ground that the prosecution had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - Leave granted

Pankaj Kumar v State of Maharashtra and others 11/7/2008.
Constitution of India -Article 227 read with section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - petition under - seeking quashing of the chargesheet and the consequential proceedings initiated against them in Special Case No.3 of 1991 pending in the court of Special Judge, Latur - the scope and ambit of powers of the High Court under Section 482, CrPC or Article 227 of the Constitution has been enunciated and reiterated by this Court in a series of decisions and several circumstances under which the High Court can exercise jurisdiction in quashing proceedings have been enumerated - though the powers possessed by the High Courts under the said provisions are very wide but these should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice.- Leave granted

Satish Sitole v Ganga 10/7/2008.
Hindu Marriage Act - section 13(1)(1a)(1b) - appellant filed matrimonial case - on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(1a)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage. Despite holding that the respondent had proved his case on grounds of cruelty and desertion, the trial court did not grant a decree - for divorce, but thought it appropriate to pass a decree of judicial separation instead - whether a marriage which is otherwise dead emotionally and practically should be continued for name sake.

Seema v Ashwani Kumar 9/7/2008.
Marriages - compulsory registration - directions were given to the States and the Union Territories in the matter of framing necessary statutes regarding compulsory registration of marriages - different States and Union Territories have placed on record details of the compliance made - let all the States and Union Territories who have not given specific details, file affidavits within four months from today.

Balwant Singh Narwal and others v State of Haryana and others 8/7/2008.
Seniority - the appellants, appointed as Principals between 1995 and 2000 (either by direct recruitment or promotion) are aggrieved by the seniority given to respondents 4 to 16 appointed as Principals on 26.5.2000, with retrospective effect from 2.6.1994 -  the State Government was justified in giving them only notional seniority and placing them immediately below the other 16 candidates selected in the common merit list (published on 1.10.1993) and appointed on 2.6.1994. Respondents 4 to 16 have been given retrospective seniority not from the date of their selection as wrongly assumed by appellants, but from 2.6.1994 when other selected candidates in their merit list were appointed - no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court and these appeals are accordingly dismissed.

Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh 7/7/2008.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 - conviction under - an extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made