Tag: #DelhiHighCourt

-Report by Tannu Dahiya

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday while hearing the petition rejected the application made for compassionate appointment in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Umesh Kumar.

Facts:

The facts of the case are, the respondent is the son of the late Bishan lal, a safaiwala, who died in 2008 while serving the petitioner. The Board of Officers while considering the request of the respondent recommended the grant of compassionate appointment. As per the recommendations he was to be appointed as safaiwala in Group D. He was informed that his name was under consideration and was asked to reply if he was willing to do the same. There were five vacant posts for safaiwala. He submitted his willingness.

Now in his plea before the tribunal, in 2019, the respondent claimed that he was informed that his application is rejected and he will not be considered again for the appointment. Now the respondent claimed that his family was in a good condition as per the screening of the Board officers. Further, he secured 66 marks while the cut-off was 78 marks and hence his application was rejected. Reference was also given that according to the Department of Personnel and Training, the maximum period for which his consideration can be considered is up to 3 years after the Board of officers verify it. If after three years his appointment cannot be considered then the case will be closed. The tribunal in its decision said that it was on the recommendations of the Board officers that his appointment was considered and it was acknowledged after due consideration of the financial condition of the applicant’s family. Hence the petitioners were asked to grant the respondent a compassionate appointment within three months.
The petitioner filed a review petition of the above order which was cancelled by referring to the Supreme Court judgement given in the case of the State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr. (2008) (3) AISLJ209.

Petitioner’s contentions:

Mr Jaswinder Singh, Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the order said that there are certain limits which are to be followed while granting compassionate appointments. He also stated the fact that the respondent had secured fewer marks than the cut-off. According to him, the tribunal failed to understand that the Board of Officers proceedings held in 2009 were basic preliminary proceedings and not the final proceedings that the court had wrongly presumed. Also, the financial conditions of the respondent have changed and there could be more deserving cases than him. The position of the respondent is much lower than the last selectee and the number of vacancies being limited there is no chance of appointment.

Respondent’s contentions:

The learned counsel for the respondent justified that the decision of the tribunal was correct as there is no reason for the petitioner for denying the order. There had to be action taken since the family lost its earning member. Hence she seeks dismissal of the petition.

Judgement:

The issue arises whether the tribunal’s decision is justified in ordering the Board of officers to appoint the respondent. The court accepted that it was the Zonal Board who has the authority to appoint and such a process is followed in every case. Also, there is a difference of 12 marks between the last selectee and the respondent. It also said that the process due to which the respondent was not selected and the reason of the petitioner have been overlooked by the tribunal. It has been fourteen years already and the wife of the deceased and the family has been receiving a family pension. The tribunal has clearly mistaken in giving the impugned order. Hence the writ petition is allowed.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Y0xS0G

CITATION: W. P(C) 32/2018

-Report by Saloni Agarwal

The Delhi High Court in Bhupinder Singh & Anr. Vs LT Governor decided whether the PIL filed is justified or not and looked into the fund’s misappropriation issue.

Facts:

The Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee and GHPS Society had mismanaged and misappropriated the funds and illegally removed the fund by conspiring with the members. They also run educational institutions the funds of which was also exploited by the member of the institute. The office members were involved in this misdeed. 

Appellant’s Contention:

The plaintiff had filed a PIL to have a yearly audit of the entire accounts of the committee and society and provide appropriate guidance to the same due to the misappropriation of funds. It also asked to adhere to the appropriate sections of the DSG Act and a direction to conduct a Special Audit should be given.

Respondent’s Contention:

The only question which arose was that is the PIL filed by the appellant was acceptable and can this be heard in the Delhi High Court. The respondent also filled in small affidavits during the same. 

Judgment:

The court said that the matter of misappropriation of the fund was already decided. The right to act on the PIL was with the district court and not with them. It also said that the PIL was not acceptable firstly because there are a given law, process,and procedures by the Chartered Accountants of India to carry out the audit function so deviation from it makes no point and secondly the Comptroller and Auditor General of India cannot voluntarily carry out an audit on its own when the laws exist for the same. The PIL was dismissed.

READb FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3KqLGyz

–Report by Tannu Dahiya

The decision of the Delhi High court on Wednesday i.e 15th Feb 2023 came as a big relief to the petitioner in the Yogendra Kumar vs Union of India case.

Facts:

The facts of the case are that the petitioner after seeing the advertisement in Feb 2018, being eligible, applied for the post of Constable/ Driver cum Pump Operator (DCPO) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), in the OBC category. For recruitment, he had to go through various tests like Height bar tests, etc and the final was medical. After examining his eligibility, he was issued admit card and was called for HBT, he cleared the test and was issued admit card for the written test. After clearing all the tests he was selected for the last stage of medical. He got his name on the list which was out and then after clearing medical, he was verbally informed that he has to report to CISF, Bhilai, Chattisgarh. He accordingly visited Bhilai and was informed that the final list is not out yet. Now, he was shocked to see that his name was not on the list which included all the candidates’ names who were medically fit. Following this, he filed a petition naming Vikram Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India. The court directed the respondent to make a new list as it was wrong on their part that the names of a few candidates have been removed without any reasonable cause. Despite the above judgement, the respondent did not comply with the same.

Again the petitioner filed a petition for wilful disobedience of the Judgment dated 24.10.2019. The Union of India had also filed an SPL which was dismissed.

So the judgement dated 24.10.2019 attained its finality. Now the respondents again made a new list of 72 candidates which had the name of the petitioner. However, no offer letter was issued instead he was asked to submit Heavy Motor Vehicle Driving License to be eligible for selection. The petitioner accordingly mailed his Driving Licence on 12.10.2020. After this, a letter informing them that his application has been cancelled was received by him. It was argued that the licence submitted validated him for ‘Trans’ vehicles which were issued for the period 23.05.2019 to 22.11.2019. And the closing date for the application was 19.03.2018, the licence mailed by the petitioner was invalid and could not be considered for his application and, therefore, the selection of the petitioner stood cancelled.

Petitioner’s contentions:

The petitioner claimed that the ‘Trans’ licence is equivalent to Heavy Motor Vehicle or Transport Vehicle”. This licence was valid up to 2016 and was renewed in 2019. The petitioner had a valid Licence to drive. He also asserted that due to some technical errors he couldn’t attach copies of his previous driving licence. He stated various other cases like East Coast Railway vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors. (2010) 7 SCC 678; Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. Vs. Neeraj Kumar & Anr. 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1160; to argue in the context of fundamental rights. It also claimed that the impugned Order dated 15.10.2020 by the respondent is unlawful and wrong.

Respondent’s contentions:

The respondent in its oral and written submissions admitted that the petitioner who appeared for the post of constable was once eligible for the same but due to a mistake in one Question paper and a change in the answer key, his name was cut out. After the orders of the court, they reconsidered the matter and decided to again select the candidate regarding his driving licence but his driving licence is for heavy vehicles and was not valid as it was invalid on the last date of submission. Despite the opportunity given to the petitioner, he failed to produce a valid licence and thus his candidature stands cancelled. It is submitted that the candidate must have possessed a driving licence for all the three categories as mentioned in the advertisement on or before the closing date to apply was 19.03.2018. It was further argued that the petitioner submitted false information which did not fulfil the eligibility criteria as laid down by the notification.

Judgement:

The court after hearing both sides said that the main issue is whether the petitioner’s licence is valid for “Heavy Motor Vehicle or Transport Vehicle” on the last date of submission which is 19.03.2018. For which the court also examined the eligibility criteria which was given in the advertisement. It also stated that there is no controversy on the fact that the licence was for Light Motor Vehicle/Motorcycle with Gear. The licence was renewed in 2019 vide endorsement made in 2016 which means that the licence was valid for submission. To answer the question of whether the licence could be considered for heavy motor vehicles, the court took reference to the Motor Vehicle Act, of 1988. After which it stated that Heavy Transport Vehicle, Medium Transport Vehicles and Light Transport Vehicles all come within the umbrella of Transport Vehicles. In the advertisement, it was stated the candidate must be having a Transport Vehicle licence or Heavy motor vehicle licence. The use of the conjunction “or”makes the candidate’s licence valid for consideration.

Therefore, the respondents were directed to look at the matter again and start the process of selection within 8 weeks from the date of the decision.

READ FULL JUDGEMNT: https://bit.ly/3lJrgpV

Citation: W.P(C) 8983/2020 & CM APPL. 28998/2020

–Report by Shreya Gupta

In the recent case of SURAJ MALIK Versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI, the bail was sought under section 439 of CrPC, 1973. The applicant was arrested under Sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner, in this case, is Suraj Malik and the respondent is the state govt. of NCT of Delhi.

FACTS:

Shefali Malik the deceased was admitted to the hospital on account of burn injuries by her neighbour. It was revealed to the police that she was married for less than 7 years to her husband who had a 4-year-old son from his previous marriage on account of which F.I.R. was registered. The statement the patient was taken in which she admitted that she burned herself because she did not want to live as her mother-in-law used to taunt her for dowry and harasses her. She also claimed that her husband used to abuse her and that her sister-in-law was innocent. The F.I.R. was filed under Sections 498/306/34 of the IPC was registered and an investigation was taken up.

PETIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

The advocate of the applicant stated that the statement given by the father of the deceased varied completely from the dying declaration of the deceased. He alleged that statement was given by the father only to add section 304B to the F.I.R. since earlier it was registered only under section 306 of the IPC. He stated that there was no abetment to suicide. He also added that the deceased in the hospital asked the applicant to stay with her. He stated that since the chargesheet is already filed there is no useful purpose in making him stay under custody. He supported his arguments with previous judgements of i. Ranjeet Singh v. State, 2005 (2) J.C.C. 905 ii. Kamal @ Kailash Joshi v. State, 2007 I.A.D. (Delhi) 31 iii. Nitin Kumar v. State, 2015 IVAD (Delhi) 109 iv. Deepak v. State, 120 (2005) D.L.T 146.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The father of the deceased alleged that she was harassed and demanded a dowry. He alleged that the applicant and the mother-in-law burnt his daughter to death. He alleged that her daughter was asked for Rs. 25 lakhs out of which he already gave Rs. 10 lakhs in demand of it. He also alleged that her daughter was pregnant but they got her aborted because Suraj malik already had a son from his previous marriage. He also alleged that she was maltreated when she got pregnant for the second time. The advocate mentioned that it is stated in the dying declaration that she was harassed and abused by her husband and mother-in-law.

JUDGEMENT:

The court stated that “Perusal of the aforesaid dying declaration made by the deceased reflects that the deceased was not happy at her matrimonial home, more specifically, with her relationship with her mother-in-law, but at the same time the fact that she did not make any allegation with respect to demand of dowry made by the present applicant cannot be lost sight of.” The court further passed his application for bail provided with some terms and conditions and a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and a surety.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40YO59g

Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001062

–Report by Saloni Agarwal

The Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs M/S Sweka PowerTechEngineers Pvt. Ltd settled the dispute between them by awarding the rightfully demanded claims of the respondent.

Facts:

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi hired Sweka PowerTech Engineers Pvt Ltd for providing street lights and ancillary work in different areas of the Karol Bagh Zone. The work ordered was to be completed within six months. There was a delay in the work and until the deadline, only 41% of the work was done. The PowerTech company had also taken money for the completion of the work but the work was pending. The work was assumed to be related to Common Wealth Games and the delay caused a huge loss to the Corporation. The work was supposed to be completed by 15.01.2011. The work order had lost its worth due to delay as time was an important factor in the case. The main ground of the case was the Common Wealth Games but the game ended much before the completion date of work.

Appellant’s Contention:

The plaintiff claimed that it incurred a huge loss due to the delay in work and not even a single street was illuminated. The appellant also said that the respondent had claimed payment falsely which is wrong. It also claimed that it had the right to have a check on the working of the respondent according to the order. Due to a delay in work, the appellant was forced to cancel the contract as it could not ensure more loss. It was said that because of the respondent, it became necessary to file an arbitration case and incur its cost.

Respondent’s Contention:

The respondent claimed the amount fixed for completion of work along with interest and to return the security money which was deducted. It also asked for the loss amount due to the reduction of the work and cost of arbitration. The respondent’s claim that the work was not related to the Commonwealth Games was upheld. The claim of the amount by the respondent was not arbitrary and was according to the contract.

Judgement:

The High Court said that the Arbitrator’s findings were challenged because of advancement in evidence and no actual fault was there. The court awarded the respondent the claimed amount for the completion of work as the calculation was done with reasoning. The court agreed with the Arbitrator’s decision to refund the security amount. The court also asked to pay for the arbitration cost incurred by the respondent.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3K9VFIo

–Report by Sanya Luthra

The case Keshaw sanyasi gawo shewasharam vs Govt of NCT, New Delhi and Anr was filed by the petitioner as the result of a public notice issued by the Welfares Department which directs the petitioner to empty the slum area in which he is running a Gaushala for 15 years.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The petitioner-Keshaw Sanyasi Gawo Shewasharam is running a Gaushala or a cow shelter for 15 years and it is a registered trust according to him and then on 23rd Jan an eviction notice is being issued by the Public Welfare Department where they are asking to empty the slum area where the cow shelter is situated within fifteen days of the notice.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

It was said by the petitioner that he is running the cow shelter for 15 years, electricity is installed by him and even an Aadhar card has been issued concerning the said premises only. As he is staying there for 15 years he demands the legal right for the same, also he mentions that impugned notices have been issued without any show cause notice or without providing any hearing to the petitioner.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS:

It was said by the defendant that the petitioner Jhuggi doesn’t comes under the notified clusters which are 675 and 82 in number and they also rely on the court’s order to demolish the jhuggi and now they are of opinion that unless the jhuggi clusters are not duly notified, stay on demolition would not be feasible.

JUDGMENT:

The court held that the petitioner cannot be granted relief and also said that the clusters that are not identified by the DUSIB would not be open for rehabilitation also asked the respondent to give an alternate place to the petitioner within a week and to also give some time to the petitioner to shift to another place while cows to be moved to alternate cow shelter.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3K2jv8P

–Report by Arun Bhattacharya

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday 8^th of February 2023 in the matter of THE STATE versus SACHIN SINGH & ORS reiterated the stand taken by the Additional Sessions Judge’s observation that “Mere vague allegations that accused tried to commit rape upon her does not ipso facto attract the penal provision of offence u/Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC.”

FACTS

The present matter invoked revisional jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court whereby an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge was in question. The order dealt with chargesagainst a brother-in-law and father-in-law, who had allegedly committed attempts to rape. The complainant had alleged that the brother-in-law had gotten hold of the complainant in an attempt to commit rape, while in another instance the father-in-law had forcefully entered the complainant’s room to rape her. Although the complainant tried to raise these issues with her husband and mother-in-law, all such attempts were suppressed forcefully with the only reason provided by them being that the brother-in-law happens to be a police official. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint to the Commissioner of Police and accordingly registered an FIR against her in-laws. They were also made parties to the initial chargesheet filed in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini which was later transferred to the Court of Sessions. 

SESSIONS COURT’S ORDER

The Court of Sessions initially discharged the brother-in-law and the father-in-law under Sections 356 (Punishment of Rape) and 511 (Punishment for attempting to Commit Offences Punishable with imprisonment for life or another imprisonment) but framed separate charges of 498 (enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman), 406 (Punishment for criminal breach of trust), 354(Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 34 (Common intention). The court’s primary focus whilst discharging the two respondents was that the mere fact of the brother-in-law getting hold of her hand and the father-in-law barging into her room late at night does not suffice to prove a case of rape. These allegations of the complainant involved attempts but no specific action was committed which may indicate a clear intention of rape. This order has been challenged in today’s petition.  

PROSECUTION’S CONTENTION

The learned APP submitted that the learned Sessions court was not intended to satisfy itself on the graveness of evidence produced but merely on prima facie allegations of the complainant and he confined himself to the fact that the complainant had made specific allegations regarding her father-in-law and brother in the law regarding an attempt to commit rape on different occasions.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel for the respondents’ primarily focused on the fact that no specific allegations were made against the father-in-law and brother-in-law and no such proof was also submitted on record. He also highlighted the fact that no action was committed in compliance with the definition provided under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code and this would suffice as a reason for discharging the same. To point out the same the counsel had referred to the judgment of Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), IV (2006)  CCR 115 (SC).

DELHI HIGH COURT’S JUDGEMENT

The honourable high court pointing out that the revisional power under Section 397 of CrPC is very narrow which only allows it to satisfy itself to check the legality and correctness of an impugned order, reiterated the stance taken by the Court of Sessions and accordingly dismissed the revision petition.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40EQy8S

CITATION: 2023/DHC/000883

–Report by Shreya Gupta

The petitioner in this case of LAL VEDANT NATH SHAH DEO v STATE (NCT OF DELHI) was Lal Vedant Nath Shah Deo and the respondent was the State. The petitioner filed the application for bail under section 439 of CrPC.

FACTS:

The sub-inspector Gajendra Singh found Raghav Mandal a 23-year-old student of Amity University with 334 grams of charas. He disclosed about the co-accused Himanshu Singh and Lal Vedant Nath Shah Deo who was also arrested. Lal Vedant was arrested under a non-bailable warrant. Raghav further disclosed that he used to get paid Rs. 500 to 1000 for every delivery. Their phones were checked and details of the Paytm account where they used to receive the payments were taken out. The Paytm account details showed that Himanshu Singh had credited a total sum of Rs. 4,70,390 and Rs. 28,03,561.11 to Lal Vedant. The petitioner was charged with section 82 of the CrPC and section 201 of the IPC.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

The advocate of the petitioner contends that no incriminating material was obtained from the petitioner on the raid in his house and that his name was earlier not mentioned in the FIR. He states that the rigours of section 37 are not applicable. He stated that section 35 and 54 of the NDPS act is not applicable since there was no conscious and intelligible possession. He stated that only on the basis of the disclosures by the co-accused the petitioner can’t be denied bail. He stated that mere phone calls among the accused and Paytm transactions can’t be the means to deny bail since the accused were college friends.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The advocate contended that a total sum of Rs. 4,70,390 and Rs. 28,03,561.11 was credited to Lal Vedant. He contended that the petitioner tried to run away and was so charged with section 82 of the CrPC and section 201 of IPC for trying to disappear the evidence.

JUDGEMENT:

The court stated that the rigours of section 37 of the NDPS act are not applicable if the cannabis quantity is less than 1 kg and the quantity found in this case is only 334 grams. It further stated that since there is no evidence to show that the transaction between them took place for the recovery therefore it concludes that they were not involved in any other offence under the NDPS act except the buying and selling of drugs. The court stated that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody and therefore the application for bail was passed on some terms and conditions and on the furnishing of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000. The Hon’ble Supreme Court to conclude referred to the Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2012.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT:

CITATION: 2023/DHC/000885

–Report by Umang Kanwat

Arbitration is the out-of-court resolution of a dispute by one or more (odd number) individuals chosen by both parties to serve as arbitrators. Any type of arbitration, regardless of its nature, has been legally recognised in India by placing it under the purview of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The arbitral award has the same legal force and effect as a judicial order or judgement. The present case of Union of India v Pushkar Paint Industries talks about the power or ability of the arbitrator.

Facts:

In the present case of Union of India v Pushkar Paint Industries, the Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate has been terminated under the current petition, which had been submitted under Section 14 of the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amended) Act. The Indian Army’s Ordnance Department, which is a division of the Ministry of Defence, was the petitioner in this case and the respondent in the arbitration procedures. Due to the respondent’s failure to produce the advance sample by the deadline specified in the contract, the petitioner suffered significant losses and was forced to revoke the previously approved Supply Order.

Petitioner’s Contentions:

The petitioner stated that the learned Arbitrator began pressuring the petitioner’s conducting officer to assist him in receiving the maximum amount as his fee, but the conducting officer retorted that it was beyond his purview. Furthermore, it ed claimed that the proceedings were not concluded by the learned Tribunal within the allotted year. The petitioner believed that the learned Arbitrator was biased towards the respondent/claimant and was operating in their favour.

He argued that the learned Sole Arbitrator failed to determine the case’s final fee because he continued to oppose the petitioner’s schedule of fee payment and insisted on paying under the Fourth Schedule of the Act. Allegedly the learned Arbitrator’s actions do not reflect well on the Office and instead, he was vehemently opposing the petitioner to further his interests. By bringing false accusations, he had attempted to harm the Conducting Officer’s career. He was not accurately capturing the events. In reality, he never documented the events as they happened but instead created fictitious orders later on according to his whims and fancies.

Therefore, a request was made that the learned Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate is terminated and replaced by the appointment of another Arbitrator.

Respondent’s Contentions

The petitioner’s claims that the arbitrator was demanding a high charge were unjustifiable in that he had been acting on his whims without ever getting the respondent’s permission to agree to any such fee structure. No agreement would be possible without the other party’s approval.
According to the Act, which does not make a distinction between Government and private parties and is equally applicable to both, the petitioner was not an exception.

It is submitted that the petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.

JUDGEMENT

The petitioner’s assertion was unfounded. It was plain that the petitioner was bringing frivolous objections, which are clearly against the statute’s requirements, to evade its obligation to pay the arbitrator’s fees. In the current instance, there is no evidence to suggest that the learned Arbitrator ever agreed to the petitioner’s proposed fee schedule, nor at any stage did he ever admit to it. According to the court, this claim made by the petitioner had no support. The petitioner in this matter, in the view of the court, was unable to show any of the grounds listed in Sections 14 or 15 of the Act. The current petition was determined to be without merit and dismissed with the remark that the learned Arbitrator may continue the arbitration and publish the Award following the Rules.

Conclusion

The dedication of the Indian government to turning India become a hub for arbitration and other ADR mechanisms is demonstrated by the several revisions made to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to meet the demands of the constantly changing international business community. India can only strengthen its position as the global leader in rapid and effective dispute resolution by continuous adjustments based on lessons learned from the relevant commercial jurisdictions throughout the world and proper execution of those learnings concerning arbitration.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3I7Pp2p

CITATION: 2003/DHC/000894

-Report by Saloni Agarwal

The Delhi High Court in Arun Chauhan v State case convicted the accused of the murder of his wife and his son’s tuition teacher on the account of having an extramarital affair.

Facts:

The appellant was convicted of the murder of Akash. The appellant took the deceased to an under-construction site and stabbed him with a knife. The deceased was the tuition teacher of the appellant’s son and he had a feeling that his wife was having an extramarital affair with the teacher. He murdered the man on 15th November 2014. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine by the trial court in 2019. In this case, the appellant has challenged the order passed by the trial court. The major injuries sustained by the deceased were enough to cause death. The body of the deceased was found later by someone and after verification, he was identified. The appellant was arrested. He was charged under Section 302 IPC i.e., murder. The appellant also murdered his wife but he admitted that crime.

Appellant’s Contention:

The plaintiff’s claim was that there was not enough evidence to prove him guilty of such a heinous crime. He further claimed that there was no existing rivalry between them and his kids used to visit the deceased home to take tuition. The reason given for the murder was vague. It was that the court had made a wrong decision based on insufficient proof and reasons. It was further asked that the appellant should be left free. The plaintiff also killed his wife on the same day and accepted the crime.

Respondent’s Contention:

The State claimed that the chain of events are sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the appellant. The witness gave their testimony and all statements lead to the fact that after suspecting the extramarital relationship the appellant planned to kill both.

Judgement:

The Judges after hearing all the witnesses came to the conclusion that the reason for the murder is clear as the appellant first killed his wife and later that same day the deceased. The evidence was also sufficient as testified by the witnesses. The knife was also recovered and the blood stains on the appellant’s clothes were sufficient to hold him liable. The injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient to cause death. The murder was hence proved without reasonable doubt. The court refused the challenge and held the appellant guilty of the murder of his wife and the deceased.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3x7vnyM