Evidence corroborates the incident

Diksha Sharma — Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:16:00 +0000

Evidence corroborates the incident written by Diksha Sharma student of Government Law College, Mumbai

Rajib Dey vs The State of Tripura

Facts:

A case was lodged against the petitioner for entering the premises of the respondent and snatching a gold chain from the neck of the respondent’s grandson. People living nearby detained the accused and recovered a gold chain from his possession following which the accused was handed over to the police. The trial framed charges against the accused after examining all the prosecution witnesses and was sentenced to one-year rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The accused petitioner aggrieved by the decision filed an appeal to dismiss the judgment set by the trial court.

Issues:

Whether the accused is liable under criminal trespass and extortion?

Legal Provisions:

• Section 384,IPC – Punishment for extortion
• Section 411, IPC – Dishonestly receiving stolen property
• Section 447, IPC – Punishment for criminal trespass

Petitioner’s Contention:

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial court had erred in its decision without verifying the evidence. It was further submitted that the conviction of the accused under either Section 384 or Section 411 did not seem valid because the ingredients of the stated offense are completely different from each other. There is nothing to prove if the gold chain belongs to the respondent’s grandson and had not been produced before the court which implies that allegedly the accused has been framed for the said charges. It was pleaded to acquit the accused.

Respondent’s Contention:

It was submitted by the learned counsel that prosecution witnesses had in their submissions made clear about the presence of the accused and carrying a gold chain in his possession. It was after the hue and cry of the child that attention was drawn spotting the accused at the place of the incident. It was, therefore, pleaded to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner.

Observations of the court:

After going through the contentions presented by both parties, it was observed that no evidence could be laid down to prove if the property received was stolen or even dishonestly received. None of the prosecution witnesses produced before the court were able to confirm as to when, where, and how the accused was detained. A person who has been said to have been found with possession of the stolen property cannot be put under the provision of Section 411 unless it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no strong evidence which corroborates the aforesaid event.

Judgment:

The court delivered a judgment of acquitting the accused due to lack of evidence to prove if he’s guilty and therefore all the charges framed against him are set aside.

The post Evidence corroborates the incident appeared first on LexForti .

Necessity of receipt of payment under Section 447

LexForti Legal News Network — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:23:29 +0000

Necessity of receipt of payment under Section 447 written by Diksha Sharma student of Government Law College, Mumbai

Jagdish Kapila vs Raj Kumar & Anr.

Facts:

Jagdish Kapila, an allottee of a shop from NDMC was charged under Section 447 for trespassing the premises, which was in current possession of the lessee namely Raj Kumar. The complainant framed charges against the petitioner for taking Rs. 50,000/- as rent without providing a receipt and alleged to have trespassed into the shop by breaking the locks. The petitioner sought relief, moving to the high court.

Issues:

• Whether the petitioner has committed criminal trespass?

Legal Provisions:

• Section 200, Indian Penal Code – Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false
• Section 441, Indian Penal Code – Criminal trespass
• Section 447, Indian Penal Code – Punishment for criminal trespass

Appellant’s Contention:

The petitioner submitted that the trial court was mistaken to not have recognized that he is the allottee and possessor of the property being dealt with herein. Also, there is no documentary evidence proving parting of possession by the petitioner to the respondent. He had also filed a complaint against four other shop keepers harassing him to part with the possession of his shop for which he had appealed for the imposition of an injunction.

Respondent’s Contention:

The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that he had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as an advance for rent and possession was handed over by the petitioner to him. Articles such as furniture and chair, belonging to the petitioner, continued to exist there despite a request of removal for the same. Post initiation of fixtures and fittings within the shop, the locks were broken and the petitioner had trespassed into the shop because of which he had filed a complaint under Section 200.

Observations of the court:

After observing the facts of the case, the court was of the view that there was no corroboration for the fact if any discussion took place between the parties regarding possession of the shop or even a receipt of payment of Rs. 50,000/-given as advance. Accordingly, the situation set out cannot be covered under the provision of Section 441, which defines committing an offense by a person on entering someone else’s property with malicious intent. Therefore, charging him under Section 447 would not maintainable and hence, charges filed against the petitioner are not sustainable.

Judgment:

The allegations and charges made against the petitioner are not maintainable, therefore, he is discharged of the same.

The post Necessity of receipt of payment under Section 447 appeared first on LexForti .

Section 447 IPC Archives - LexForti

Evidence corroborates the incident

Rajib Dey vs The State of Tripura

Facts:

Issues:

Legal Provisions:

Petitioner’s Contention:

Respondent’s Contention:

Observations of the court:

Judgment:

Necessity of receipt of payment under Section 447

Jagdish Kapila vs Raj Kumar & Anr.

Facts:

Issues:

Legal Provisions:

Appellant’s Contention:

Respondent’s Contention:

Observations of the court:

Judgment: