Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
Virinder Singh @ Garra - Appellant
Versus
State (govt. of N.C.T. of delhi) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 570 of 2001
Decided On : 14-08-2002
A. Limitation Act, 1963, Section 1(2)- Constitution of India, 1950, Article 371A(1)(a)(iii) - Naga Hills Jhumland Regulation, 1946, Section 3 - Applicability of Limitation Act - Suit for declaration of title and possession contending that respondents took possession unlawfully- Suit decreed but on remand by appellate court, suit dismissed on the ground of limitation and some other grounds- Contention that Act of 1963 was not applicable to the state of Nagaland and, suit could not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and that the suit would be governed by section 3 of Regulation of1946, not accepted- The Limitation Act has been made applicable to administration of civil justice which does not involve decision according to Naga customary law- Justice is not required to render decision according to Naga customary law- Section 3 of the regulation provides prescription for acquisition of right in a property and not period of limitation for bringing any action in civil court- Appeal dismissed.[Paras 5 and 6]
B. Limitation Act, 1963 Section 30 (a) - Limitation Act 1908- Though Indian Limitation Act, 1908 was not applicable in the state of Nagaland which was repealed by the Limitation Act, 1963, therefore, it may be taken that the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes shorter period of limitation for bringing a suit- Section 30(a) is attracted in a case for having prescribed a shorter period than what was available earlier when no period of limitation was prescribed at all- Since suit filed after prescribed period of seven, it was barred by limitation.[Para 7]
ORDER :
The accused-appellant has been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code un-section 27 of Arms Act. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three years under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and to undergo RI for four years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further RI for six months under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that the relationship between the deceased Raj Kapoor and the appellant, Varinder Singh alias Garra was some what strained. On 25.5.1991, the deceased, Raj Kapoor accompanied by his father, Pratap Singh, PW-5 had gone to village Najafgarh. For the purpose of returning to their won village Galibpur they boarded a DTC bus from Najafgarh at about 9.00 p.m. In the bus the deceased, Raj Kapoor and surinder Singh, PW-1 were sitting side by side on one seat. Pratap Singh, PW-5 was seated on a seat behind. the accused appellant was sitting on a seat ahead of the deceased. The deceased and Surinder Singh, PW-1 were taking to each other loudly which was objected to by the accused-appellant. This led to heated verbal exchange between the accused and the deceased. Some passengers in the bus intervened. At about 9.25 p.m. bus reached village Gumanhera. the gear box of the bus developed some trouble which led to the bus being stopped. The driver left the bus in search of a telephone in a nearby village where from he could communicate the failure of bus to DTC office. The passengers commenced alighting off the bus. The deceased and the accused also got down. It appears that they again indulged into some heated exchangee. The notice attracted the attention of Pratap Singh who was still inside the bus. He heard the cries of his son shouting for help. He quickly got down from the bus and saw the accused-appellant inflicting knife blows on the person of his son Raj Kapoor. Raj Kapoor fell down bleeding profusely from his wounds. Pratap Singh, Surinder Singh and a few passengers tried to catch hole of the accused, but be succeeded in running away from the place of the incident along with the knife.
3. Partap Singh managed to stop a passer by, who was on a scooter and requested him to inform the nearby police station of the incident which had just taken place. The passer by obliged Pratap Singh by giving information to Nafe Singh, head constable, PW-8 who was on picket duty near village Gumanhear at 9.35 p.m. Nafe Singh in his turn passed on the information to police station, Jafar Pur Kalan. Head constable, Ashok Kumar, Mahinder Singh, ASI, PW-15 accompanied by ASI Khazan Singh and two constables reached the place of occurence. The injured Raj Kapoor was lying unconscious and Pratap Singh, PW-5 was present there. Mahinder Singh removed the injured to Deen Dayal Upadhyan Hospital, Delhi where he was declared as brought dead. Mahinder Singh recorded the statement of Pratap Singh, which was forwarded to the police station and was regarded as first information report of the incident.
4. Post-mortem on the dead body of Raj Kapoor was performed by Dr. L.K. Baruah, PW-20 on 26.5.1991 at about mid-day. The deceased was found to have sustained the following injuries :
2. One incised wound just below the left interior axillary fold placed obliquely of size 1.5 cmx 0.5 cm ?
3. One incised wound on the left angle of the chest placed obliquely of size 3. cm x 1 cm ? This injury was placed 9 cm below the left axillary pit.
4. One incised wound placed vertically just below the left inferior angle of the scapula of size 2 cm x 1 cm x ?
5. One incised wound of size 2 cm x 1 cm x ? was seen 1.5 cm below the injury No. 4 mentioned above. This injury was placed vertically.
6. One incised wound on the left side of the back of chest 6 cm below and lateral to the injury N
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
