Criminal Law

Criminal Law III – 1999
Time : Three Hours
Maximum Marks : 200

Answer any five questions.  At least one question from each part must be attempted.  All questions carry equal marks.

Part-A

Q.1.  Sh. Prem Singh intended to kill Gurbachan Singh on whose life Prem Singh had invested large amount in insurance without the knowledge of Gurbachan Singh.  In order to obtain sums for which he (Gurbachan) was insured, Sh. Prem Singh administered to Gurbachan sweetmeat (Halva) mixed with arsenic and mercury in soluble form.  Gurbachan ate some portion of the sweetmeat and left the rest on the dining table in the house of Prem Singh, where other relations of Prem Singh too were invited.  Two young children aged 7 and 8 years respectively of Prem Singh's sister, who were incidentally there,  took the sweetmeat left on the table without the knowledge of Prem Singh and ate it.  Both these children died while Gurbachan Singh suffered excesive vomiting due to poisonous sweetmeat.  Prem Singh has been charged of murder of two innocent children, he pleads that he never intended to kill them and they took the sweetmeat without his knowledge. 
Being a judge in this case, discuss the liability of Prem Singh and the provision of law.  Give reasons to support your answer.
Q.2.  Deepati a Brahmin girl aged 17-3/4 years was acquainted with Suresh a non-Brahmin doctor of 22 years age.  This acquaintance developed into an intimate friendship and both of them decided to marry each other after Deepti attains the age of majority.  Deepti's father having come to know about it tried his level best to dissuade Deepti from keeping any relations with Suresh.  Having been assured with every possible help by Suresh, Deepti turned a deaf ear to her father's advice and continued her relationship with Suresh.  Deepti's father was annoyed at her behaviour and shouted at her telling her very rudely that either she must sever all her relations with Suresh or he would strangle her while asleep.  During the night on that day, she (Deepti) stealthily left the house and went to Suresh who provided her the accommodation, food and other necessaries in his house.  Suresh is being prosecuted for kidnapping Deepti.  Decide giving due consideration to the probable arguments of the prosecution and the defence.
Q.3.   A and B, the managing director and technical director respectively of Jagdish Cotton Textile Phagwara were entrusted by the textile commissioner of Delhi with 26,000 mts.  of cloth for dying and printing.  However, they failed to return 13,000 mts. of cloth back to the commissioner lying with company on Govt. account.  On a search of the factory on 1.1.1996 the balance of the cloth remaining to be delivered by the company was not found.  The plea taken by A & B was that the said cloth (13,000) mts. were eaten up by white ants and moths and has been thrown away as rubbish.  The Textile Commissioner of Delhi has moved the Court alleging both A & B guilty of criminal misappropriation with common intention.
Mr.  A contends that he has left Phagwara in December, 1995 and since then has not attended the office at Phagwara, so should not be lield liable under Section 34 and subsequently under Section 409 of IPC along with B.
Decide the liability of A.  Is he jointly liable with B by sharing common intention?  Give reason along with cases to support your contention.
Q.4.  Rakesh saw that Ali a pillion rider on Umesh's motor bicycle dropped his purse while Umesh negotiated with a speed breaker.  Rakesh took the purse with the intention of restoring it to Ali.  However, on reaching home Rakesh was told by his wife that it was their wedding anniversary on that day and he should buy for her a new saree and a mangal sutra.  Rakesh spent the whole money contained in the purse of Ali for purchasing saree and mangal sutra for his wife, telling her that on receipt of his salary on the first of the following month he will restore Ali's purse and money to him.  Rakesh did so.
Q.5.  G, was a notorious dacoit.  Once he committed robbery on the high-way resulting in death of a lady.  He was later on apprehended by the police but no eye witness was available against him.
While G was in police custody he was taken up by a magistrate who did not disclose his identity for a stroll and asked a number of questions about robbery.  When they came back, the magistrate recorded them in the form of confessional statement, signed and sent it to the trial judge.  The trial judge convicted G robbery and dacoity on the strength of the statement sent by the magistrate.
G appealed alleging that the confessional statement recorded by the magistrate in the manner aforementioned was not admissible, therefore, his conviction must be quashed.
Decide whether plea taken by G is correct keeping in view the requirements of recording confession by the magistrate as per the relevant provisions of Criminal procedure Code 1973?  Would it matter, if the magistrate disclosed his identity to G, when he took him for a stroll?
Q.6.  A and C were good friends.  During their friendship C developed intimacy with B, sister of A.  One day A saw B and C sitting together close to each other in a park and C was taking liberty with her (b).
A lost his tamper and stabbed C, twice in his abdomen with the knife which A carried in his pocket.
C was admitted to hospital and was reported improving.  Meanwhile A, was tried for causing grievour hurt to C and was convicted.
Soon after A's conviction which had become final C's condition deteriorated and he died of stab wounds.  A was put to trial again for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Can the trial validly proceed in terms of Section 300 of Criminal Procedure code?  Or can A succeed in taking the defence of double jeopardy to protect himself from subsequent trial?
Q.7.  (a)  S, an ex-minister, alleges that he has been falsely implicated in a case of receiving kickbacks from a foreign telecom company.  S, apprehending his arrest moves an application for anticipatory bail.
Determine the court having jurisdiction to grant such bail and the grounds on which such bail can be claimed.
(a)     P is arrested for damaging a place of worship and for offering indignity to a human corpse.  P applies for bail.
Can he get bail in both the offences?  State the factors which the court will consider while granting bail to P.

Part-C

Q.8.  Discuss the provisions of Indian Evidence Act under which following facts are relevant:-
(i)    The fact that B was seen coming out of the house of A distressed and sobbing soon after her alleged rape by A.
(ii)    Mr. A was charged with murder of B in Calcutta.  A shows his railway ticket and hotel bills in his name of a Mumbai Hotel one day earlier than the day of incident.
(iii)    In a trial of rape of Kamla, the fact that on the night of rape, the police had received a distress telephonic call from a woman in which just before abrupt disconnection, she could only say "save me or I will be ravished"
(iv)    Shortly before Ram was pick-pockted in the part, he showed a bundle of notes to his friend in the part.
Q.9.  A is accused of murdering his aunt B along with C and D.  The murders were committed at three different places of the village with a Kirpan.  After committing the murder A went to the police station himself and lodged an FIR and signed the same.  In the FIR A said that he murdered his aunt B, over some property dispute.  Next day police recovered dead bodies of B, C and D along with Kirpan.  With the help of the accused A, who said that he has kept the Kripan with which he killed B, C and D in a nearby Nallah.  There is no eye witness or any other evidence to prosecute Mr. A. Medical report confirmed that wounds on bodies of B, C and D were with some sharp- edged weapon.
Can the statement of A be treated to be confession relevant and admissible to prosecute Mr. A keeping in mind that A was in police custody at the time he made such statement?
Q.10.  Sunita who was married to "Y" in October, 1992 was divorced in February, 1993 because some problem arose in the family.  Sunita married again with K in April, 1993, a businessman in Ludhiana.  Sunita gave birth to a female child in July, 1993 (3 months after the she married with K).  Mr. K denies to be the father of the newly born baby alleging that Sunita has begotten her while she was the wife of "Y" in 1992.  Decide whether Mr. K will succeed in his plea and getting newly born baby declared as illegitimate.  Mr. K also requests that his blood may be tested along with the blood of the newly born child to prove that she (newly born) is illegitimate.  Advise Mr. K about the extent of success of his case.