The case debated if the Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955, constituted for administration and

management of the Durgah endowment was violative of denominational rights of the Chishtia Soofies -
It was also discussed if the provisions of the Act, 1955, infringed the fundamental rights - It was held
that on the religious denomination it must not be overlooked that the protection of Article 26 of the
Constitution of India could extend only to such religious practices as were essential and integral parts of
the religion and to no others - Further, since in the instant case, the chishti Soofies never had any rights
of the management over the Durgah endowment for the centuries, since it was created, the attack on
Section 4 and 5 of the Act, must fail - Also, it is incorrect to say that Sections 2(d)(v) and 14 of the
impugned Act, infringed Article 19(I)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India.

Thus considered the High Court came to the conclusion that the several sections challenged by the
respondents in their writ petition are ultra vires. It has held that s. 2(b)(v) violates Art. 19(1)(f), s. 5
violates Art. 26, s. 11(f) Arts. 19(1)(g) and 25(1), Sections 11(b) and 13(i) Art. 25, s. 14 Art. 19(1)(f) and
Sections 16 and 18 Art. 14 read with Art. 32. Having found that these section are ultra vires the High
Court has issued an order restraining the appellants from enforcing the said sections. In regard to s. 5 in
particular the High Court has found that the said section is ultra vires inasmuch as it lays down that the
Committee shall consist of Hanafi muslims without further restricting that they shall be of the Chishtia
Order believing in the religious practices and ritual in vogue at the shrine. It may be added that since s. 5
which contains the key provision of the Act has thus been struck down, though in a limited way, the
whole of the Act has in substance been rendered inoperative

The Durgah Committee, Ajmer and Ors. vs. Syed Hussain Ali and Ors. (17.03.1961 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0063/1961

Criminal - Custodial Violence - Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 - Courts below
sentenced Appellant No. 1 and other Appellants for custodial violence - Hence, this Appeal - Whether
prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt - Held, prosecution examined as many as 37
witnesses, and they had proved guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt - There was no reason to
disbelieve PW. 1's evidence - No self respecting woman would come forward in Court to falsely make
humiliating statement against her honour - There was major discrepancy in prosecution case -
Horrendous manner in which PW. 1 was treated by policemen was shocking and atrocious, and called
for no mercy - Postmortem report shown injuries, horrible manner in which deceased in custody was
beaten and killed in police custody - Accused were not charged under Section 302 IPC and Courts below
treated death as suicide - Court below failed in their duty in that connection - As no charge under
Section 302 IPC was framed, Court could not straightaway record conviction under that provision -
Appeal Dismissed.

Criminal - Conviction - Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Additional Sessions Judge convicted
Appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC - Hence, this Appeal - Whether, prosecution
had established guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubts - Held, it was within 'especial knowledge'
of Appellant as to what happened to his wife from time they got off from truck till her body was
discovered by shepherd - In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C , Appellant had not offered any
explanation about death of his wife - He had maintained a studied silence on this point - Section 106 of
Evidence Act, placed a burden on Accused to offer an explanation to Court about those things, which
were within his special knowledge - However Appellant had not discharged said burden - Although there
appeared to be no motive for murder, but lack of motive would not weaken prosecution case, when
chain of circumstances was otherwise complete - Chain of circumstances was not only complete, but it
also points unerringly to guilt of Accused - Circumstances were also incompatible with his innocence -
Hence prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt - Thus conviction and sentence of
Appellant under Section 302 IPC were confirmed - Appeal dismissed. Ratio Decidendi"Lack of motive will
not weaken prosecution case, when chain of circumstances is otherwise complete."

In the case of State of U.P. vs. Satish, MANU/SC/0090/2005 : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 305 (S.C.):
(2005)3 SCC 114, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the factors, which must be satisfied
before a conviction can be recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Firstly the circumstances
from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established,
secondly, those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the
accused; thirdly, the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused
and none else; fourthly, the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and
incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence
should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his
innocence. Hence, while dealing with the present case, we should keep these factors in mind.

Bhag Chand vs. The State of Rajasthan (17.02.2006 - RAJHC) : MANU/RH/0980/2006

For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same stands accordingly
dismissed. The conviction and the sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC are confirmed.

Bhag Chand vs. The State of Rajasthan (17.02.2006 - RAJHC) : MANU/RH/0980/2006