Posts

Showing posts from 2022

Reading books & watching videos in 2022

Image
Learning is the true meaning of life. Human being is a lifelong learner whether through personal experiences or through the experiences of others. One may prefer 1st choice of learning and another may opt for 2nd option but every person around is sum total of 1st + 2nd method, which may be blend of two in differing combinations. Language since time immemorial has been a source to us for indirect learning about others. Our forefathers were expert storytellers and then came writing. Earlier writing on parchment or papers and then with printing machine human experience have changed with passage of time. Oral tradition of story telling got support from written / printed material, which can be used by posterity without much change which was not possible in oral tradition. At the advent of 21st century, digital age knocked our door. This has brought many new things which one may consider positive or negative. People talk about digital age that now human is suffering from information overload

CHANDRAPAL VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Image
 CHANDRAPAL VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2015 CHANDRAPAL …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH …RESPONDENT(S) (EARLIER M.P.)  J U D G M E N T BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 1812 of 1998. 2. As per the case of prosecution, the deceased Kumari Brindabai was the daughter of Bhagirathi Kumhar who belonged to the caste Kumhar. The deceased Kanhaiya Siddar was the resident of village Panjhar and belonged to the caste Siddar (Gaur). There was a love affair going on 1 between Kumari Brindabai and Kanhaiya Siddar, which the said Bhagirathi and his brother Chandrapal did not approve. On 02.12.1994, both Kumari Brinda and Kanhaiya went missing. A search was made, however,

Mamta & Anr vs The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

Image
Mamta & Anr vs The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No 878 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 2971 of 2022) Mamta & Anr .... Appellant(s) Versus The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr ....Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 Leave granted. 2 This appeal arises from an order dated 2 March 2022 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No 196 of 2022. 3 The second respondent is facing trial in connection with FIR No 894 of 2014 dated 18 November 2014 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District East Delhi. Following the submission of the charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal 2 Procedure 19731 , charges have been framed. Eleven prosecution

P R Adikesavan vs The Registrar General, High Court of Respondents Madras Case

Image
P R Adikesavan vs The Registrar General, High Court of Respondents Madras Case Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले Crl.A.847/2022 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No 847 of 2022 P R Adikesavan Appellant Versus The Registrar General, High Court of Respondents Madras and Another J U D G M E N T Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 The appeal arises from the judgment dated 25 March 2022 of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court convicting appellant under Section 2(c)(iii) read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and sentencing him two weeks of simple imprisonment. Crl.A.847/2022 2 2 Insolvency proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909. On 12 March 2021, a Single Judge of the Madras High Court issued a non-bailable warrant seeking the presence of the appellant on 26 March 2021. On 31 March 2021, when a team of the

AARAV JAIN VS BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. CASE

Image
AARAV JAIN VS BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. CASE Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4242 OF 2022@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 10776 OF 2021) AARAV JAIN ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.  ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4243 OF 2022@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 11089 OF 2021) SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4244 OF 2022@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 15809 OF 2021) SUMIT KUMAR ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) 1 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4246 OF 2022@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 15819 OF 2021) MAYANK KUMAR PANDEY @ MAYANK & ANR ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4245 OF 2022@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 16198 OF 2

SABITRI SAMANTARAY VS STATE OF ODISHA

Image
SABITRI SAMANTARAY VS STATE OF ODISHA Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 988 OF 2017 SABITRI SAMANTARAY … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA … RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 860 OF 2022 (arising out of S.L.P (CRL.) No. 3881 OF 2017) BIDYADHAR PRAHARAJ … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA … RESPONDENT JUDGMENT KRISHNA MURARI, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3881 of 2017. 2. Present appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 08.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Odisha at Cuttack in Criminal Appeal 1 No. 202 of 2015. The Appellants herein, namely Sabitri Samantaray and Bidyadhar Praharaj are wife and husband respectively. The two have been arrayed as accused no. 2 and accused no. 1 in FIR No. 120 of 2008. The Appellants herein along with their daughter (accused no. 3) had been charged with offences under Sections 302, 201

MANOJ & ORS VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH CASE

Image
MANOJ & ORS VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH CASE Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 248-250 OF 2015 MANOJ & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. The present judgment will dispose of three appeals1  preferred by three accused persons. They were convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) (3 counts) imposed with death penalty by the judgment and orders of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Indore2 . This was confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore3 . 2. The appellants (Manoj, Rahul @ Govind and Neha Verma, hereafter referred by their names) were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (three counts) for committing the murder, during the course of robbery, of Megha Deshpande, Ashlesha Deshpande and Smt. Rohini Phadke on 19.0