Essential ingredients for proving offence Under SC and ST Atrocities Act

Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. In the present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the appellant committed the offence alleged against him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Indian Penal Code is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter, we think, both the trial court and the High Court missed the essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial court as well as by the High Court ought to be set aside.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Crl.A. No. 2048 of 1996

Decided On: 24.02.2000

Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Rajendra Babu and S.S.M. Quadri, JJ.

Citation: (2000) 3 SCC 557 : AIR 2000 SC 1876,

Print Page

Whether employee acting beyond one's authority is guilty of misconduct liable for disciplinary enquiry?

Loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. In the case of a bank, every officer/employee is supposed to act within the limits of his authority. If each officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear. The functioning of the Bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. No organisation, more particularly, a bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations.

In the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong

(Before Ajay Kumar Mittal, C.J. and H.S. Thangkhiew, J.)

Shri Gautam Dhar  v.  State Bank of India and Others

Writ Appeal No. 59 of 2017

In

WP(C) No. 191 of 2014

Decided on June 11, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Megh 105 : 2019 Lab IC 2650

Print Page

Whether gift deed can registered after death of donor?

14. Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines “Gift” in the following words:—

“122. “Gift” defined.—“Gift” is the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.

Acceptance when to be made.—Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving.”

15. If the deed of gift satisfies the requirement of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 17 of the Registration Act, there is no scope to say that the said deed of gift is invalid. During the trial of the suit the deed of gift in question was marked as exhibit-“Ga”. It is found from the said exhibit that it was executed on 5th January, 1994. The recital of the deed states that the donees were grand-sons (sons of one of the daughters) of the donor. It is not disputed that before her death the donor used to reside in the house of the donees. They used to look after the donor during her old age. Precisely due to such reason, Jagomaya Dasi transferred the suit property in favour of the appellants by executing a deed of gift on 5th January, 1994. Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act stipulates that a deed of immovable property can be made only for transferring the right, title and interest by the donor to the donee by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and must be attested by at least two witnesses. The pre-existing right, title and interest of donor thereby stand divested in the donee only when the gift deed is duly registered and thereafter the donor would lose title to the property, provided the donee had accepted the property gifted over under the instrument.

18. The respondents have raised serious doubt over the authenticity of the said deed of gift because of the fact that it was registered after the death of the donor. However, well established is the law that it is not necessary for the validity of a deed of gift that it should be registered by the donor himself. In Bhabotosh v. Soleiman reported in 33 Cal 584, a Hindu man executed a deed of gift in favour of his wife and died, and the deed was subsequently registered at the instance of the widow-donee. Validity of the deed of gift was challenged on the ground that it was registered subsequent to the death of the donor. This Court held that subsequent registration of a deed of gift after the death of the donor at the instance of the donee did not offend the provisions of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. The post-mortem registration of a deed of gift by the legal representative of the donor has the same effect as its registration by the donor himself during his lifetime.

In the High Court of Calcutta

(Before Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

Dinabandhu Mondal  v. Laxmi Rani Mondal 

SA 596 of 2008

Decided on June 17, 2019, 

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 1118 : AIR 2019 Cal 232

Print Page

Whether offence of murder is made out if single blow was inflicted?

 Now so far as the main reason given by the High Court while converting the conviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code i.e. it was a case of a single blow is concerned, it is required to be noted that the deceased had died because of single injury caused on his head by the Accused by an axe. The aforesaid can hardly be a ground to convert the conviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.

6.3 In the case of Arun Raj (Supra) this Court observed and held that there is no fixed Rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted, Section 302 would not be attracted. It is observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that nature of weapon used and vital part of the body where blow was struck, prove beyond reasonable doubt the intention of the Accused to cause death of deceased. It is further observed and held by this Court that once these ingredients are proved, it is irrelevant whether there was a single blow struck or multiple blows.

8. Another reason given by the High Court is that there was no repeated injury. Aforesaid can hardly be a ground to convert the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. A single blow on the vital part of the body like head and that too by deadly weapon-axe and used with force which proved to be fatal, was sufficient to hold that it was a case of murder within the definition of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 645 of 2019 

Decided On: 10.04.2019

The State of Rajasthan Vs.  Kanhaiya Lal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Citation: (2019) 5 SCC 639

Print Page