Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P.
The appellant has been convicted under s.302 IPC to which he has appealed. Bitter feeling existed between Manna and his son Ram Bharosey since long. The prosecution witness 1 thinks that Ram Bharosey certainly has his hands in his father’s murder. There is ample evidence that the relations between the appellant and his father were not cordial, that there were frequent quarrels between them resulting in partition, and that difference continues even thereafter. The evidence was accepted by the courts below as furnishing a motive for the crime. Reference to Ram’s conduct and to any communication made by him to his wife is not inadmissible under s.122. The testimony of PW 2 does not fall within inadmissibility of s.122, as it has reference to acts and conduct of the appellant and not to any communication made by him to his wife. Accordingly confirm with conviction under s.302 IPC.
State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh
The question of privilege raised under s.123 it is not part of Court’s jurisdiction to decide whether the disclosure of the given document would lead to any injury to public interest, that is a matter for the Head of the Department to consider and decide. No doubt the litigant whose claim may not succeed as a result of the non-production of the relevant and material document may feel aggrieved by the result, and the Court, in reaching the said decision, may feel dissatisfied; but that will not affect the validity of the basic principle that public good and interest must override considerations of private good and private interest. Therefore, in opinion of the court the conclusion appears inescapable that the documents in question are protected under s.123, and if the Head of the Department does not give permission for their production, the Court cannot compel the appellant to produce them.