Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

10K

like 0

A.No.636/2012 Page 1 of 7Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that on 23.06.2010 at about 10.30 A.M. at House No.G-57, Gali No.3, Shastri Park, the appellant sexually assaulted 'X' (assumed name) aged four years and also committed carnal intercourse.Police machinery swung into action when intimation about the incident was reported and Daily Diary (DD) No. 29B was recorded at Police Station Usmanpur.The investigation was assigned to SI Amit Malik, who with Const.Subodh went the spot.In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.PW-2/B), she named the appellant and attributed a specific role to him in the crime.In her Court statement as PW-1, she identified the accused to be the perpetrator of the crime.Learned Presiding Officer had put number of questions to the child witness to ascertain if she was able to understand the questions and give rationale answer.After satisfying that 'X' was a competent witness and understood the questions put to her, her statement was recorded.In her Crl.A.No.636/2012 Page 3 of 7 deposition before the Court, she gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances, the appellant had taken her to his house after giving her one rupee.She also disclosed that in the house the appellant sexually assaulted her and also put his penis into her private part, he gave a cheek bite.In the cross-examination, nothing was suggested if the appellant had not taken 'X' to his house. 'X' was categorical to say that the act was done by the accused in the morning time and she was taken for medical examination to the doctor.The appellant did not deny his presence at the relevant time in his house.No ulterior motive was assigned to the child witness to make a false statement.A.No.636/2012 Page 3 of 74. PW-2 (Jainab), X's mother proved the version given to the police at first instance (EX.PW-2/A) without any variation.On 23.06.2010 at about 10 / 11.00 A.M. when she did not find 'X' aged four years, she went to the appellant's room which was bolted from inside.She banged the door and enquired if 'X' was inside the house.At first instance, the appellant denied her presence but when 'X' herself disclosed from inside that she was there, the door was opened.On enquiry, 'X' narrated her ordeal to her mother.The police was informed.PW-2 further disclosed that the appellant and her sister attempted to win her over and to Crl.A.No.636/2012 Page 4 of 7 accept money for not reporting the matter to the police.In the cross- examination, she denied if a sum of `10,000/- was borrowed from the accused and for its non-payment, he was falsely implicated.The testimony of this witness is crucial as she has found both 'X' and the appellant together in the room of the accused soon after the incident.The appellant did not explain as to what had prompted him to take the child to his room without the permission of her parents and what was the necessity to bolt the door from inside and to deny her availability in the house on the asking of her mother.PW-3 (Mohd. Jilani), X's father, has deposed on similar lines.A.No.636/2012 Page 4 of 7Aggrieved by a judgment dated 20.12.2011 in Sessions Case No.254/2010 emanating from FIR No.203/2010 PS New Usmanpur by which the appellant - Abdul Alim was held guilty for committing offence under Sections 354/377 IPC, the instant appeal has been preferred by him By an order dated 21.12.2011, the appellant was awarded RI for two years with fine ` 5,000/- under Section 354 IPC and RI for ten years with fine `10,000/- under Section 377 IPC.A.No.636/2012 Page 1 of 7After recording statements of the victim's mother (Ex.PW-2/A), he lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.The accused was arrested and medically examined.Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for committing offences under Sections 376 read with Section 511 IPC and 377 IPC.The appellant was charged for committing offences under Sections 377 and 376 (2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC.However, subsequent to the recording of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the charge was amended and the appellant was charged under Sections 377 and 376 (2)(f) IPC.He abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication.The prosecution examined ten witnesses to establish the appellant's guilt.A.No.636/2012 Page 2 of 7 In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and alleged that he was falsely implicated due to non-payment of `10,000/- advanced to X's father.He examined DW-1 (Gulshan), his wife in defence.After appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 376 (2)(f) and 376 (2)(f)/511 IPC.The trial, however, resulted in his conviction under Section 377/354 IPC.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appeal has been preferred.It is relevant to note that State did not challenge appellant's acquittal under Section 376 IPC.A.No.636/2012 Page 2 of 7I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.Her testimony remained unchallenged on material facts.5. 'X' was medically examined vide MLC (Ex.PW-9/A) at around 11.00 P.M. The alleged history records that the 'X' was sexually assaulted by a tenant in the same building and she was found in his room.There was no occasion for the 'X's parents to concoct a false story of her presence inside the room of the accused.Appellant's involvement had surfaced immediately after the crime and there was no delay in reporting the incident to the police.Minor contradictions, improvements in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are inconsequential as they do not affect the core of the prosecution case and absolve the appellant of the crime. 'X' and her Crl.A.No.636/2012 Page 5 of 7 parents had no prior animosity with the appellant to falsely rope him in this ghastly crime.They had no reasons to level serious allegations of unnatural offence for alleged non-payment of ` 10,000/-.They were not expected to bring her child / daughter in disrepute and play with her life.Unless an offence has really been committed, an unmarried little girl and her parents would be extremely reluctant to make such allegations which are likely to reflect on her chastity.No evidence has surfaced if any amount of ` 10,000/- was ever paid by the accused or his wife if so when and by what mode, and for its non-payment, the accused was implicated.The defence deserves outright rejection.There are no sound reasons to disbelieve 'X', an innocent child who was unaware of the consequences of the act of the accused.The accused who lived in the neighbourhood took advantage of the innocence of the child and allured her in his room on the pretext to give her some cash.A.No.636/2012 Page 5 of 7The impugned judgment based upon fair appraisal of the evidence deserves no interference.Considering the gravity of the offence whereby a child aged four years was ravished, Sentence Order needs no modification except that the default sentence for non-payment of fine `10,000/- shall be Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days in all.A.No.636/2012 Page 6 of 7A.No.636/2012 Page 6 of 7The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order.A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 09, 2015 / tr Crl.A.No.636/2012 Page 7 of 7A.No.636/2012 Page 7 of 7

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

/307 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the same was transferred to the Court of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 9th Fast Track Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) for trial, when on behalf of the petitioners an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved for discharge as 2 far as the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned.However, the Learned Judge rejected the said application.Now, the petitioners' invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure moved this criminal revision for quashing of the same.Now, having regards to the charge-sheet materials, I find it is the case of the prosecution, that on September 10, 2006 at about 21.50 hours in front of 49/5, Circular Garden Road, Kolkata - 23, a free fighting was ensued between two group of miscreants and having receipt of such information, when Sub-Inspector of Police S. K. Ghosh attached to the South Port Police Station, accompanied by his force arrived there and tried to disperse the mob, the petitioners attacked the police party and started throwing brickbats.At that time, the accused Manoj Gupta, the petitioner no. 1 instigated the mob by saying "Yei hai Ghosh Babu isko Mar Dalo", when someone from the mob hurled a brickbat towards the said Sub-Inspector of police, which hits on his shoulder causing grievous injury on his person.However, having gone through the materials contained in the Case Diary produced before this Court on May 3, 2010, i.e. on the first date of hearing, this Court found the witness Matalub Khan and Md. Sohrab Alam stated nothing as against the present petitioners.However, the Sub-Inspector Sanat Kumar Ghosh in his statement alleged that while he arrived at the spot with force and tried to disperse the mob, the mob led by Manoj attacked him and Manoj instigated the mob by saying "Yei hai Ghosh Babu isko sala Mar Dalo'.Immediately, the witness was hit with a stone/brickbat on his collar bone and 3 suffered severe injuries and was removed to the Kolkata Police Hospital with fracture on his collar bone.But upon perusal of the injury report of the injured Police Officer, recorded at the Kolkata Police Hospital, on September 11, 2006, which is the part of the first Case Diary, this Court found that the attending doctor Asish Kumar Bhadra referred the injured to the S.S.K.M. Hospital for urgent X-ray for detecting if any fracture has been suffered by him or not.It further appeared from the said injury report that there was a specific note by the self-same doctor to the effect that at S.S.K.M. Hospital X-ray was done which showed fracture on left clavicle region and the patient was admitted at the Officers Ward of the Orthopedic Department of Kolkata Police Hospital.However, it appears from the contents of the said Case Diary the injured police officer on the very next day, i.e., on September 12, 2006 at 8.10 P.M. took admission at a private nursing home, Maple Nursing Home (P) Ltd. and was discharged from there on September 14, 2006 at 8 P.M. It further appears from the aforesaid injury report, the history of assault, according to the statement of the injured police officer, that while he was on duty for controlling a violent mob, at that time someone from a balcony of first floor building threw a brick, which hit on his shoulder.Thus, the statement of the injured police officer to the police and to the attending doctor at Kolkata Police Hospital, as to how he sustained injuries appears to be not same.Since in the said Case Diary there was no medical papers as regards to the treatment meted out to the injured Sub-Inspector Sanat Kumar Ghosh at S.S.K.M. Hospital, which was the purported foundation of injury report issued by 4 the Kolkata Police Hospital, this matter was again brought in the list although earlier the same was made C.A.V. and the learned advocate of the State was apprised of the same.When on his prayer the order of C.A.V. was recalled and the matter was listed for further hearing.The matter was again taken up for hearing on May 21, 2010, on that day the Investigating Officer was personally present in Court and produced a supplementary Case Diary but the same was not the part of the charge-sheeted materials.It may be noted on the day when the first Case Diary was produced the said Sub-Inspector was also personally present in Court.The supplementary Case Diary now produced before this Court, contained the medical papers issued by the S.S.K.M. Hospital as regards to the treatment given to the Sub-Inspector Sanat Kumar Ghosh on September 11, 2006 on being referred by Kolkata Police Hospital as well as the treatment sheets of the injured at Kolkata Police Hospital until 6 P.M. on September 12, 2006, when he was discharged on risk bond.It appears from the said medical papers that on September 11, 2006 at 1.30 A.M. the injured was attended at S.S.K.M. Hospital and he was advised for X-ray of left clavicle and left shoulder joint A.P. lateral.It further appears at about 1.50 A.M. after X-ray the injured was again examined by the same attending doctor at S.S.K.M. Hospital and the doctor noted in the injury report "patient has bruises over left clavicular region.No fracture detected" and the patient was released and advised to attend the out door patient department.In the subsequent Case Diary a few X-ray plates were found but without any endorsement of any hospital as regards to the identity of 5 injured or the place where such X-ray was done and without any seizure list as regards to the same.Both the doctors of S.S.K.M. Hospital and Kolkata Police Hospital were not examined by the Investigating Officer for the reasons best known to him.On the face of the aforesaid materials on record it is beyond comprehension, when according to the findings of the attending doctor of the S.S.K.M. Hospital, after X-ray, no fracture was detected except some bruises on the left clavicle region with an advice to attend Hospital out door as to how Dr. Asish Kumar Bhadra at Kolkata Police Hospital recorded that the X-ray done at S.S.K.M. Hospital showed fracture of left clavicle.Thus, it prima facie appears what have been recorded in the injury report of the patient Sanat Kumar Ghosh at Kolkata Police Hospital by his attending doctor Asish Kumar Bhadra that there was a fracture on left clavicle as per the X-ray done by the S.S.K.M. Hospital is incorrect and in all likely to fabricate false evidence.It may not be out of place to note the Investigating Officer of the case submitted charge-sheet under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code without seizure of injury report of the injured police officer at S.S.K.M. Hospital, although produced subsequently in a supplementary Case Diary and without examining both of the doctors at S.S.K.M. Hospital and at Kolkata Police Hospital.The withholding of the said medical papers which goes against the prosecution case that the injured police officer suffered fracture, although available and non- examination of the said doctors, as submitted by the Counsel of the party, raised serious doubts about the bona fide of the Investigating Officer of the case.Now, having regards to the totality of the evidentiary materials on record, more particularly the injury report of the injured police officer issued by the S.S.K.M. Hospital, there is no scope for submission of charge-sheet under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners nor the Learned Additional Sessions Judge was at all justified in rejecting the petitioners' prayer for discharge as regards to the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.The order impugned is set aside.This criminal revision stands allowed.Since, rest of the offences for which charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners are all triable by any Magistrate, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 9th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) is now directed to send down the records to the Court of the concerned Magistrate from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.Now, before parting with this Judgement, I feel that in this case an order must be made for an enquiry as to why the concerned doctor of the Kolkata Police Hospital made such incorrect note as aforesaid in the injury report of the concerned police officer and at whose behest and interest for which the petitioner was charge-sheeted and was going to be tried for a serious offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for which imprisonment for life has been prescribed, on the allegation of causing an injury in the nature of fracture of clavicle region.In this case the investigation was also done in a very perfunctory way, if not motivatedly.The injury report of S.S.K.M. Hospital as well as the bed 7 head ticket of the Kolkata Police Hospital were not seized by the police before filing of the charge-sheet and until this Court called for the same.At the same time the Investigating Officer seized and filed with the charge-sheet all the treatment documents of a private Nursing Home where the said police officer was purportedly treated after he left the Kolkata Police Hospital on a risk bond on the very next day of his admission.The Investigating Officer also has not examined both the doctors treated the injured police officer at Kolkata Police Hospital and at S.S.K.M. Hospital.In course of enquiry the opportunity of hearing must be given to the concerned persons in their defence.This order be communicated to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Kolkata through the Learned Registrar General, High Court, Kolkata.He is further directed to take the charge of the Case Diaries and to hand over the same to the concerned Additional Commissioner of Police directly in a sealed cover.Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgement to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. ) 8

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The appellant has been filed this appeal under Section 14- A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, Harda in AST Case No.48/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 344, 506-B of the I.P.C. and Section 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; whereby, the application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for enlarging the applicant on bail, was dismissed.The case of the prosecution against the appellant in short is that prosecutrix, who was more than 16 years and below the age of 17 years went along with applicant Rubab Khan.Co-accused Manish helped both of them.The father of the prosecutrix lodged the missing report of the prosecutrix.When prosecutrix was recovered then she lodged a report against the appellant alleging therein that appellant repeatedly committed sex with her.Counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.Both are having love affairs.The prosecutrix went along with the appellant on her own volition.During the inquiry of the missing report, co-accused Manish was held by the police and find out the address of the prosecutrix and she was recovered; therefore, it has been prayed to release the applicant on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.It is directed that the appellant Rubab Khan shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE b Digitally signed by BIJU Date: 2020.01.21 11:37:09 +05'30'

['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The background relevant for present case may first be noted.W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 1 of 16The Supreme Court, in writ petition No.13029/1985 (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India) vide order dated 16.12.1997 had directed that no fresh permit would be granted in respect of auto rickshaw (TSR), except by way of replacement of an existing working TSR with a new one.This was done with a view to reduce pollution levels in Delhi.Consequently, the Motor Licensing Officer (MLO), Burari issued a detailed order prescribing the procedure to be adopted for replacement of old TSRs with new ones.A dealer could sell one TSR against one LOI as issued by the transport authority.Holder of such LOI had the option of purchasing a TSR from any authorized dealer.There were three authorized dealers at that relevant time in Delhi.Dealers had no say in the issuance of W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 2 of 16 LOI.Whenever a customer brought with him LOI, all that the dealer was supposed to do was to receive the amount of TSR and sell the same by delivering the respective TSR, while retaining a photocopy of LOI for the sake of his own records.For registration of such TSR with the transport authority, the purchaser was required to produce the dealers sale invoice, Form No.20, Form No.21, insurance of the vehicle and the permit.After scrutinizing and verifying all these documents, officials of the transport authority [the MLO (AR)] would register the vehicle.W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 2 of 16On certain information received by officials of National Information Centre (for short NIC), investigation was carried out which revealed that 1157 auto rickshaws had multiple registration as on 17.06.1999 i.e. it was a case where two or more than two new TSRs were given permit against one old TSR permit.A vigilance team of the transport authority headed by their Deputy Director (Vig.) visited the Burari Transport Authority and were able to locate 150 such files just by physical search.It was also found that the files were grossly incomplete and were not containing the necessary documents.FIR No.34/99 dated 15.09.1999 was registered at the instance of ACB, Government of NCT of Delhi.A total of only approx.350 files could be located.The rest of the files which were supposed to be available at the office of MLO (AR) Burari, were incomplete and irregularities in registrations of several TSRs were clearly made out.It W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 3 of 16 was found that files/documents were fabricated to justify the existence of additional old auto rickshaws, so as to cover up the said crime.W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 3 of 16The investigation revealed 10 specific cases of multiple registration during the year 1998 & 1999 (details whereof are found in the charge sheet) where, inter alia, Shri Shyam Sunder Dandona, owner of Pal Auto Deals, Paharganj provided new TSR to the prospective buyers as sub-dealer and most of the time he only arranged the old TSR or its papers from the market and got the new TSR registered either themselves or through, mostly, Shri Ashok Khyrana, a tout working in the Transport Authority.Shri Shyam Sunder Dandona got finance approved for the prospective buyers through his nephew.Sanjeev Kumar Dandona, the petitioner herein, Director of M/s Dandona Finance Limited.Shri Sanjeev Dandona, the petitioner was found to have financed almost every TSR of the 10 specific cases investigated through M/s. Dandona Finance Ltd. The petitioner was found to have provided blank, incomplete Form-20 having his signature over the stamp of his firm Dandona Finance Ltd. which led to creation of false files.It was found that the petitioner had an arrangement with M/s PRJ Enterprises for issuance of fake sale certificate (Form-21), which showed his connivance with others for getting maximum benefit through financing the TSRs.The petitioner was found to have signed more than one Form-21 as W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 4 of 16 financier in respect of the same auto rickshow, i.e. DL1RC 7959, which had been found in different files with same registration number.W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 4 of 16Investigation revealed that Sh.Raj Kumar Jain owner of M/s. PRJ Enterprises, Dealer of Bajaj TSR in Delhi has given standing directions to his employees to issue Sale Certificate for new TSRs to the persons / employees sent by Sh.Shyam Sunder Dandona of M/s. Pal Auto Deals and Sh.Sanjeev Dandona of Dandona Finance Ltd. as per the details provided.Almost every file was having Sale Certificate with wrong details leading to formation of fake records.Invoices against purchase were not available for relevant TSR.More than one Form-21 (sale letter) in respect of same vehicle which have been located in different files bearing the same registration number (as part of cover-up operations).As the new permits were banned so in this way he helped himself to get more profits by selling more TSRs in connivance with his sub dealers / financiers.It was also found out that almost every recovered file had wrong/incomplete LOI (Letter of Intent) details, no pencil print of engine or chassis number.Even the copies of cancellation certificates, supposed to be issued to the concerned authorities, were still present in the TSR file.Various sale certificates in form 21 were having wrong details, TSR deposit slips were absent and so were the original TSR W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 5 of 16 permits etc. in most of the TSR files.Most of the cases were, inter alia, done by M/s. Pal Auto Deals, M/s Dandona Finance Ltd. (the proprietary firm of the petitioner herein) and M/s PRJ Enterprises.It was evident that the MLO/Head Clerk/MVI had not maintained any parameters for issuance of such permits.The specific allegations against the petitioner herein, as contained in the charge sheet read as under: W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 6 of 16W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 6 of 16Sanjeev Dandona, Proprietor M/s Dandona Finance Ltd.and that in pursuance of the above criminal conspiracy documents were got forged and then used as genuine in order to justify issuance of new permit and registration certificates, although under the W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 7 of 16 guidelines of Transport Deptt.no fresh permit/RC could be issued in place of one old auto rickshaw more than once and that too when auto rickshaw in question was road worthy and permit/RC holder was himself plying the same in the NCT of Delhi and all of you A-1 to A-8 thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.120-B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC r/w sec 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 and within my cognizance.W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 7 of 16Secondly, All of you misrepresented facts and/or acted in fraudulent manner by your acts of commission or omission (as mentioned in Annexure A), as a result of which Transport Authority of NCT of Delhi was cheated in the matter of issuing of Registration certificate and Permit in the name of various Auto Rickshaw Holders and all of you thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 420 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.And I hereby direct that you all to be tried by this court for the above said charges".PW25 Chander Bhan has stated that files, D-24, D-27, D-28, D-31, D- 34 and D-40 are totally fake files.Authority record shows that some new TSRs were replaced against the old TSRs.According to prosecution A-5 has put his signatures/stamp of company on form-20 showing hypothecation of TSR but with regard signatures of TSR owners.VIPIN SANGHI, J.The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner to seek quashing of the order of charge dated 04.09.2008 and the charge-framing order dated 17.10.2008 passed by Sh.V.K. Maheshwari, Special Judge, Delhi W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 1 of 16 in C.C. No.54/2002 at RC7(A)/2000/DLI/CBI/ACB/ND.The petitioner is one of the co-accused and is allegedly involved in the issuance of more than one TSR permit against one old condemned TSR in violation of the prescribed rules.Trading in permits was also not allowed by the Supreme Court.As a result of the aforesaid direction, Secretary (STA) issued a detailed order dated 02.01.1998 to the concerned officials including Motor Licensing Officer (AR), Burari prescribing procedures for maintenance of accounts of cancellation/registration of TSRs, monthly statement of TSR registrations cancelled or renewed, and format for "Certificate of Cancellation of Registration".W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 5 of 16With the aforesaid allegations, charge sheet dated 15.03.2000 was filed by the CBI:ACB:New Delhi before the competent court.By the impugned order dated 04.09.2008, the learned Special Judge, Delhi held that prima facie case for framing of charge for offence punishable under section 12B read with sections 420/468/471 IPC and offence defined under sections 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out against all the accused.Vide order dated 17.10.2008, the Special Judge, Tis Hazari framed charges against, amongst other accused, the petitioner (accused no.5) herein.a) You affixed stamp of your firm alongwith your signatures on Form 20 which were not having any signature of TSR owners, with a notice to create fake TSR files showing vehicle hypothecation.b) You put your signature alongwith seal of your firm in Form 20 of the files D28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36 and 37 showing hypothecation of the TSRs in question when the signatures of Madan Lal, Ashok Kumar, Gauri Shanker and Bakshish Singh were not available on the concerned papers and hypothecation papers were certified on papers having forged signatures of Madan Lal, Ashok Kumar, Gauri Shanker and Bakshish Singh.(c) You arranged fake sale certificate for creation of false documents for supporting claim for new TSR in place of old."The charges framed qua all the accused reads as follows:"Firstly, that during the year 1998-99 you A-1 Raghukant Bhardwaj, MLO Transport Depta., A-2 Chander Pal Singh, Head Clerk, Transport Dept., Govt. of NCT, A-3 Anoop Singh Dahiya, Motor Vehicle Inspector., Transport Dept. Govt. of NCT, while posted and working as public servants entered into a criminal conspiracy with A-4 Shyam Sunder Dandona, A-5 Sanjeev Kumar Dandona, A-6 Ashok Kumar Khurana, A-7 Raj Kumar Jain and A-8 Arun Kumar Maggo @ Kaloo with an object to cheat the Transport Deptt.Of GNCT of Delhi in the matter of issuing new permits and registration certificates under the Replacement Scheme of the Transport Deptt.in lieu of old Auto Rickshaws either by falsely showing deposit of old Auto Rickshaws (when in fact no such old auto rickshaw was deposited) or by repeatedly issuing, more than once, new permit and RC in lieu of one and the same old auto rickshaw, in violation of the guidelines issued by the Transport Deptt.His arrangement with M/S PRJ Enterprises for fake sale certificate (Form-21) shows his connivance with others.He had signed more than one form-20 as financer, in respect of same auto rickshaw.Auto rickshaw having regd No.DL-IRC-7939 had been found in two files with the same regd number.PW56 Kirpal Singh W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 12 of 16 and PW 57 Vijit Lal Mathur have stated that they had signed Form-20 (Sales Certificate of New TSR) brought and filed by A-4 and A-5 according to the standing instructions of their employer A-8."W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 12 of 16The petitioner has been charged with conspiracy with the other accused in the commission of the offence.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 1350 days infiling the Criminal Revision.Challenging the order of cognizance for the offence under Sections294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC against the offenders.According to the revisionpetitioner,considering the gravity of injury sustained by him and intentionof causing such injury, the trial court ought to have taken cognizance underSection 307 of IPC and not under section 324 of IPC.Hence the presentrevision petition is filed with a delay of 1350 days.The reason stated for such delay is that recently the defactocomplainant has come to know about filing of final report for offence undersections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC instead of 307 of IPC.A petition to alter charge is filed by the defacto complainant inthe month of April 2010 after lapse of two years and the trial court afterperusing the records has rejected the plea vide order dated 21.04.2002.Challenging that order the present revision is filed with a further delay of1350 days.5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.6.Therefore nothing survives in the revision Petition so as to condonethe delay of 1350 days.Hence this Miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.05.1989 passed by the Ist L.C.C., Ghazipur in Criminal Case No. 536 of 1987, under sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, PS Dildarnagar, district Ghazipur convicting and sentencing the revisionists for a period of two months' simple imprisonment, under sections 323/34 IPC and order dated 09.10.1990 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1989 confirming the order and sentence passed by the trial court.Brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.1985 at about 12 O'clock one Ramji was sitting infront of the house of complainant Kamla Kamkar and the said land was sahan land of the complainant.The accused along with one Badri came over there and in furtherance of their common intention started beating Rajmi by lathi, who raised alarm, upon which the complainant Kamla, his father Ram Chandar and his mother came over there to intervene and protect Ramji, whereupon the accused persons also inflicted injuries on Kamla and, also his father Ram Chandar and others.All the accused persons, namely Radhika Kushwaha, Heera Kushwaha and Ram Bilas abused and threatened the complainant.The report was lodged.After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet.Charges were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.After perusal of evidence of the witnesses, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid and passed the aforesaid sentence.Feeling aggrieved the accused persons filed a Criminal Case No. 536 of 1987, which was dismissed.Feeling aggrieved the present revision has been preferred.While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside.The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence.As I have said earlier the occurrence relates to year 1985 and this revision is pending since 1990, I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the conviction and I feel that the conviction should be maintained but the sentence may be modified.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Kamla, Chandrika, Shyamabai and Shaligram have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Marriage of Durgeshwari (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.1 Kamla within seven years of her death.Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondents were involved in subjecting Durgeshwari to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and, ultimately, on 26/10/10, under suspicious circumstances, dead body of Durgeshwari was found hanging in her matrimonial home only.Morgue (Ex.P/15) was recorded at the instance of respondent no.1 and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Trial Court further found that Sukhlal Jharia, father of the deceased, admitted in para 13 of his evidence that he had neither informed the police personnel nor the Naib Tahsildar regarding cruelty for non fulfillment of dowry.Trial Court also held that in the said circumstances, presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was not attracted to the facts of the case.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The prosecution case in a nutshell was that on 26.2.2009, informant Harbansh (P.W.1), the resident of village Suratpur Khushkari, District Kanshi Ram Nagar, moved a written report Ex.Ka.1 scribed by one Itwari Lal at the police station Amapur, District Kanshi Ram Nagar mentioning therein that informant's younger brother Hori Lal, his wife Nattho Devi and son Manoj Kumar were residing in a separate house.On 25.2.2009, there was a marriage ceremony of the daughter of Yograj in the village in which rangshala (musical and dance programme) was also organized.Informant had also gone there.When, at about 12:00 O'clock in the night, he was returning to his home, he heard the shrieks from the house of Hori Lal whereupon he entered in the house and saw that accused Buddhsen @ Raju son of Hori Lal, Amar Singh son of Mihi Lal residents of the same village, Kehari Singh son of Ramjeet, Rakesh son of Kehari resident of Hodalpur, P.S. Soron, Distt.Kashi Ram Nagar, Kanti resident of Virsua, P.S. Dholna, District Kashi Ram Nagar and Kamlesh resident of Madda Nagla, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Etah were assaulting his brother Hori Lal by throttling him on the cot.When the informant asked the accused persons, what are they doing, they hurled abuses and threatened the informant to keep mum otherwise they would not spare him, as they had not spared his brother's family.The informant and other persons reached near Hori Lal and saw that Hori Lal was done to death.Smt. Nattho Devi wife of Hori Lal was also done to death and her dead body was lying on the roof of the house.Manoj Kumar, son of deceased Hori Lal was missing also.The incident was witnessed by the informant and the village people in the light of petromax lantern.They thought that Manoj would have fled away due to fear to save himself, but next morning the village people told the informant that the accused-persons had taken away Manoj in the night itself towards the bambi.One Devkaran son of Bhojraj came there and told that the dead body of Manoj Kumar was lying in the orchard of Natthu Singh resident of Mihari.When the informant reached there, he saw the dead body of Manoj lying there.He was done to death by crushing his head.It was also mentioned in the report that accused Budhsen alias Raju had taken loan due to which the deceased Hori Lal had sold his two bighas agricultural land to repay the loan.Now accused Budhsen alias Raju wanted some more land so the panchayat was convened in this regard.Deceased Hori Lal when refused to give more land, accused Budhsen alias Raju threatened and uttered the following words "Ke Ped he nahi rahega toh pakshi kahan baitheygay".As a consequence, the accused Budhsen later on with the help of his relatives (father-in-law, mausa and friends) committed the murder of his father Hori Lal, mother Nattho Devi and brother Manoj Kumar.It was also mentioned in the written report that the dead bodies were lying on the spot and villagers were present there.Since there was no mode of transportation in the night and also he was so frightened and terrorized that he could not lodge the first information report at night.Investigation of the case was entrusted to P.W.4 S.I. Sri Ram Singh Pal, the then Incharge of the police station Amapur in whose presence the Chick FIR was lodged.He copied the chick F.I.R. and the G.D. entry in the case diary.Information regarding the incident was transmitted through the R.T. Set to the higher authorities and the neighbouring police stations.Investigating officer (P.W.4) visited the village Amapur, where the incident had taken place, along with the police force in the government jeep keeping with them the chick F.I.R, G.D. and other papers for preparation of the inquest report etc. The informant had also accompanied them.The corpse of the deceased Hori Lal was lying inside the house on a cot and the corpse of the deceased Smt. Nattho Devi was lying in the room of the first floor.Dead body of the deceased Manoj Kumar was found lying in the mango orchard of Natthu Singh one and a half kilometers away from the village.S.S.I. Ram Shankar Mishra was instructed by the C.O., Sahawar to conduct the inquest proceedings on the body of the deceased Manoj Kumar.Investigating officer Sri Ram Singh Pal (P.W.4) prepared the inquest report (Ex.Ka-7) of the deceased Hori Lal.Photo lash, challan lash, letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O., sample seal were also prepared keeping the dead body in a sealed cloth.He also prepared the inquest report (Ex.Ka.-8) of the deceased Smt. Nattho Devi and kept the dead body in a sealed cloth and also prepared the sample seal, photo lash, challan lash, letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O.Dead bodies were dispatched for postmortem and a letter to the C.M.O. (Ex. Ka.-15) was also sent by the investigating officer to perform the postmortem in the night itself.Inquest report (Ex.Ka.-26) of the dead body of the deceased Manoj Kumar was prepared by S.I. Jai Prakash Pathak (P.W.7).Other police papers were also prepared keeping the dead body in a sealed cloth and also preparing the sample seal.Dead body of the deceased Manoj Kumar was also dispatched for postmortem.Blood stained pieces of the concrete floor were also taken by the investigating officer preparing the memo and keeping the same in sealed containers.Pieces of the bangles found on the spot were also taken by the investigating officer and the same were kept in a separate sealed containers by preparing the sample seal.Memo Ex.Ka.-2 was also prepared in this regard.One petromax lantern found at the place of occurrence was taken into possession by the investigating officer and memo Ex.Ka.-3 was prepared giving it in the custody of the informant.Investigating officer also visited the place, where the dead body of the deceased Manoj Kumar was found lying, and prepared the site plan Ex.He also took a pair of slippers belonging to the deceased Manoj Kumar found near the dead body.Investigating officer had also taken into possession a blood stained brick from the spot.Blood stained earth and simple earth were also taken from the place of occurrence and memo was prepared keeping the articles (materials) in sealed containers.Sample seal was also prepared.The memos prepared by the investigating officer were Exs.Witnesses were also interrogated by the investigating officer at the place of occurrence.He also made attempts to arrest the accused persons at different places.The memos and other papers prepared during the investigation were copied in the case diary in the light of gas lantern.He also visited the district headquarters, Etah to ensure that permission for performing the postmortem be obtained in the night itself and thereafter he returned to the concerned police station.On 27.2.2009 also, he made efforts for arrest of the accused-persons and accused namely Budhsen alias Raju, Amar Singh and Rakesh were arrested from the tubewell of Amar Singh at 5:45 A.M. Arrest memo was also prepared at the place of occurrence and other formalities were fulfilled.Accused persons were kept in the HAWALAT of the police station concerned.After fulfilling the formalities, they were interrogated by the investigating officer.He also went to the village to maintain the law and order situation at the time of funeral of the dead bodies.He interrogated the scribe of the written report and the witnesses of inquest and also ensured the arrest of the rest of the accused-persons.Later on, the investigation was completed by S.I. Sukant Sharma (P.W.8), who interrogated the witnesses and ensured the arrest of the rest of the accused-persons and filed the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.-13) on the basis of evidence collected during investigation against all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. He sent the material collected on the spot by the first investigating officer to the Forensic Science Laboratory.The Laboratory Report (Ex.Ka.-31) was also submitted.Post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Nattho Devi was performed on 27.2.2009 at 1:00 A.M. by Dr. Sayeed Mohammad (P.W.5) of District Hospital, Etah.Dead body was brought by C.P.19 Ram Naresh Sharma and C.P.220 Mohd. Aslam belonging to Police Station Amapur, who had also identified the dead body.Deceased was 50 years of age and was of average built.According to doctor, the death was caused due to coma and asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased.Time of death has been shown as about one day (24 hours).Post mortem on the body of the deceased Hori Lal was conducted on 27.2.2009 at 1:30 A.M. by Dr. Sayeed Mohammad (P.W.5) himself.Dead body was brought by the same police personnel C.P.19 Ram Naresh Sharma and C.P.220 Mohd. Aslam, who had also identified the body.According to doctor, cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem throttling.Postmortem on the body of the deceased Manoj Kumar was performed on 27.2.2009 at 2:00 A.M. by the same Dr. Sayeed Mohammad (P.W.5).Dead body of the deceased was brought by C.P.57 Naushad Khan and H.G. 3877 Santosk Kumar of P.S. Kasganj.Deceased was 25 years of age and was average built.Rigor mortis was present in both the extremities.P.W.4 S.I. Ram Singh Pal is the first investigating officer.The inquest reports of the deceased Smt. Nattho Devi and Hori Lal and other papers relating to inquest were prepared by this witness.He also interrogated the witnesses and inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan.P.W.5 Dr. Sayeed Mohammad., who conducted the postmortems on the bodies of the deceased Hori Lal, Nattho Devi and Manoj Kumar.The ante mortem injuries and other details have already been shown in the earlier portion of the judgment.P.W.6 C.P. Dileep Kumar prepared the chick F.I.R. and G.D. (Ex.Ka.21 and Ex.Ka.-22 respectively).He also prepared the ravangi G.D. of the investigating officer S.I. Ram Singh Pal and the G.D. (Ex.Ka.-23) relating to deposit of the material collected from the place of occurrence by the investigating officer S.I. Ram Singh Pal.This witness also prepared G.D. relating to the entry of the accused in the HAWALAT (bars) as Ex.P.W.7 S.I. Jai Prakash Pathak, who prepared the inquest report of the deceased Manoj Kumar.He received the information on R.T. Set at the Kotwali Police Station, Kasganj and proceeded to the place of occurrence where the dead body of the deceased Manoj Kumar was lying.Offence is said to have been committed in the intervening night of 25/26.2.2009 at about 12:00 hours.Thus, the F.I.R. was lodged after a gap of 9½ hours.P.W.1 Harbansh, the real brother of the deceased Hori Lal, has mentioned in the written report the reason for delay in lodging the F.I.R. First reason was that there was no means of transport in the night and secondly, due to fear and terror of the appellants, he could not go to lodge the F.I.R. During the course of examination, the same facts were stated by P.W.1 Harbansh.It was also submitted that Rajendra Singh was residing at Noida at the time of occurrence.It appears improbable that he reached 26.2.2009 morning at the place of occurrence.To analyze this fact, we have minutely perused the chick F.I.R., G.D., and other police papers prepared along with the inquest report.The said categories are as follows :Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII, J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII, J)All the four aforesaid connected criminal (capital) appeals have been filed by the accused appellants Amar Singh, Kamlesh, Kehari Singh, Rakesh, Kanti and Budhsen alias Raju against the judgement and order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashi Ram Nagar in Sessions Trial No.138 of 2009 (State Vs.Budhsen alias Raju and others) pertaining to crime no. 46 of 2009 under Sections 147, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station Amapur, District Kashi Ram Nagar whereby all the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced to death punishment under Section 302 IPC and further to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC.Concerned Court through the learned Sessions Judge, Kashi Ram Nagar had also sent a Reference No.1 of 2011 under section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the death sentence, which is also connected with the aforesaid criminal (capital) appeals.Since all the aforesaid four connected criminal (capital) appeals arise out of the same judgment and order passed in sessions trial no.138 of 2009 and have been heard together, therefore, they are being decided along with the reference by a common judgment.When the informant loudly raised an alarm, the local people of the mohalla arrived on the spot and chased them, as a result accused persons fled away.On the basis of the written report (Ex.Ka.-1), Chick F.I.R. (Ex.Ka.-21) was registered on 26.2.2009 at 9:30 A.M. as a case crime no. 46 of 2009 under Sections 147, 149, 302 IPC at Police Station Amapur, District Kashi Ram Nagar.Rigor mortis was present in both the extremities.Eyes were closed.Mouth was semi-opened.Bleeding from right side ear was found.Postmortem report Ex.Ka-18 was prepared.On external examination, following ante mortem injuries were found by the doctor on the person of the deceased :(i) Contused swelling 4 cm.x 3 cm.on left side frontal part of head and forehead.Clotted blood was present underneath scalp.(ii) Complete ligature mark 25 cm.x 2 to 3 cm.on upper and middle part of neck.Left comua of hyoid bone fractured.Rigor mortis was passing off from upper extremities and present in lower extremities.Deceased was 55 years of age and was thin.Postmortem report Ex.Ka-19 was prepared.On external examination, following ante mortem injuries were found by the doctor :(i) Abrasion 3 cm.x 3 cm.on right side neck and 2.5 cm.x 2 cm.on left side neck.On middle part of neck, on cut section underneath tissue congested.Both comua of hyoid bone fractured.Duration of death was about one day (24 hours).Bleeding found present in the right ear.Dried and clotted blood was present on the face.Stomach was found full of semi solid food contents.Postmortem report Ex.Ka-20 was prepared.On external examination, following ante mortem injuries were found by the doctor :(i) Lacerated wound 2 cm.X 1 cm.X bone deep on left side back of head, underlying bone was fractured.(ii) Lacerated wound 3 cm.X 1 cm.X bone deep on right side head, 7 cm.above pinna of ear.(iii) Lacerated wound 2 cm.X 1 cm.X bone deep on right side head, 8 cm.behind injury no.(ii).Underlying bone fractured.Time since death was about one day (24 hours).Cause of death was coma as a result of ante mortem head injuries.Cognizance was taken by the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter and the case, being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, was committed for trial.Accused persons appeared before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kashi Ram Nagar where the case was transferred for trial.Charges under Sections 147 and 302 read with 149 IPC were framed against the accused-persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial.In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses.P.W.1 Harbansh, who is the informant of the case and the brother of the deceased, claimed himself to be the eyewitness of the murder of deceased Hori Lal.P.W.2 Suraj Pal Singh, who also claimed himself to be the eyewitness of the murder of the deceased Hori Lal.The inquest report (Ex.Ka.26) was prepared by this witness on the direction of concerned C.O. Other police papers relating to the inquest report Ex.Ka.27, 28, 29 & 30 were also prepared by this witness.P.W.8 S.I. Sukant Sharma, the subsequent investigating officer, who completed the investigation after interrogating the witnesses, submitted the charge-sheet Ex.Ka.-30 against all the accused persons.He also proved the examination report of Forensic Science Laboratory as Ex.P.W.9 C.P. 57 Naushad Khan, who carried the dead body of the deceased Manoj Kumar for postmortem along with police papers and P.W.10 C.P.19 Ram Naresh Sharma, who carried the dead bodies of the deceased Nattho Devi and Hori Lal along with the police papers in sealed condition.After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused appellants were recorded.Appellant Budhsen alias Raju had stated the prosecution story to be false.As per this appellant, first information report was lodged on the basis of false facts.He has specifically stated that P.W.1 Harbansh, P.W.2 Suraj Pal Singh and P.W.3 Rajveer have made false statements before the Court.P.W.4 Ram Singh Pal, the I.O. has made perfunctory investigation and has not proved the police papers in an acceptable manner.Other prosecution witnesses have also made false statements and the first information report was lodged belatedly.Statements of the prosecution witnesses are against the fact mentioned in the inquest report.Subsequently I.O. P.W.8 Sukant Sharma has submitted the charge-sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence and has made false statement before the Court.Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is also based on false facts.Witnesses have deposed before the Court due to enmity.He specifically stated that the informant was trying to usurp the land belonging to deceased Hori Lal, therefore, on the basis of false facts, implicated the appellant in this case.Accused appellant Amar Singh has also stated more or less the same facts as has been stated by Budhsen.He stated that prosecution witnesses are relatives.Specific pleading was taken by this appellant that he is handicapped.Informant wanted to grab the land of this appellant, therefore, falsely implicated him in this case.Accused appellant Kehari Singh has also made more or less the same statement and claimed himself to be innocent.Accused appellant Rakesh, who claimed himself to be innocent, has stated more or less the same facts as has been stated by accused-appellant Budhsen.He has specifically stated that he was arrested from his house.Accused appellant Kanti also stated the same facts.He has specifically stated the he was present the whole night on the date and time of the incident in the mandap ceremony of his cousin brother's son in his village.Photography of the ceremony was also done.P.W.2 Suraj Pal was not present at the time of occurrence and he was present at his service place.Accused appellant Kamlesh, stating the same facts as has been stated by other accused appellants, has specifically stated that the informant wanted to usurp the land, therefore with the aid of witnesses, he (informant) had committed the present offence and falsely implicated him in this matter.Accused appellants in their defence have examined D.W.1 Aneg Singh, who claimed himself to be the cousin of accused appellant Kanti.He is the witness of the alibi of the accused appellant Kanti.D.W.2 Radhey Shyam is the senior clerk posted in the irrigation department at Etah.He produced the attendance register showing the presence of P.W. 2 at his service place.D.W.3 Gajendra Singh claimed himself to be the family member of D.W.1 Aneg Singh, who performed photography in the said mandap ceremony.D.W.4 Vijay Pal Singh is also the witness of the plea of alibi of the accused appellant Kanti.D.W.5 Kanti, the accused appellant has also examined himself before the Court to prove the plea of alibi.After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment and order, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as above and sent the reference for confirmation of the death sentence.Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order, the accused appellants have also preferred the aforesaid criminal capital appeals.We have heard Sri Rahul Mishra, Sri Harish Chandra Tiwari (Amicus Curiae), Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh and Sri Jai Narain, learned counsel for the appellants in the leading case as well as in the connected cases and Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned Government Advocate and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and have also gone through the entire record.Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the prosecution was not able to bring home the guilt of the appellants from the evidence, but the trial Court has illegally convicted and sentenced the appellants.Incident took place in the night.P.W.2 Harbansh is a chance witness and was residing at a distance of 500 meters from the place of occurrence, there was no occasion for him to remain present at the place of occurrence.He was aged about 75 years.It is an improbable story that he would have gone to see the musical and dance programme in the night.P.W.2 Suraj Pal is also a chance witness.He was not present on the spot.He served in the irrigation department at District Headquarters, Etah.Attendance register proved by the defence witnesses clearly indicates that he was present at his place of posting on the date and time of incident.Motive attributed to the accused appellants was also not established by the prosecution.P.W.3 Rajveer has not disclosed this fact immediately that he had seen the deceased Manoj Kumar along with the accused persons in the night itself.This fact was stated for the first time in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. only to connect the death of the deceased Manoj Kumar with the present crime.Conduct of P.W.1 and P.W.2 does not inspire confidence of the Court.They are not reliable witnesses.There are major contradictions on the material point in their statements.None had witnessed the incident regarding the death of the deceased Nattho Devi.The most material witnesses Dev Karan, Suresh and Shiv Shanker were not examined by the prosecution, therefore, presumption against the prosecution would be drawn that if they were examined, they would have not supported the prosecution case.Medical evidence also does not support the prosecution version.In the first information report, nothing was mentioned about causing the death of the deceased Hori Lal by pressing the sticks / danda over his neck.The Doctor, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased Hori Lal, has clearly opined that injuries found on the neck of the deceased Hori Lal could not be caused by sticks / danda.The last seen evidence is also not reliable as it is not supported by any other independent evidence.There is delayed interrogation of the witnesses and no plausible explanation has been offered.The first information report was also lodged belatedly and it is ante timed document.Rajendra Singh, who could explain the time of the incident, was also not examined by the prosecution.It appears improbable that Rajendra Singh reached in the morning of 26.2.2009 itself from Noida to the place of occurrence.All the witnesses are relatives and interested witnesses.The shrieks made from the house of the deceased could not be heard from the place where the musical and dance programme was going on.Shrieks made from the house of the deceased Hori Lal could also be heard from the house of Suresh, there were many people in the house of Suresh, but they could not hear the hue and cry raised from the house of the deceased.It was also submitted that the conduct of Suresh appears unnatural that the door of the house of the deceased was open, but he entered in the house of the deceased through the roof of his house.It was further submitted that appellant Kanti was not present on the spot as is clear from the defence evidence.He was present in his village and participated in the mandap ceremony.Specific role of the appellants were not assigned by the prosecution witnesses, despite the fact that they claimed themselves to be the eyewitness.There are major contradictions in the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 on material point.Time mentioned in the inquest report of the deceased Manoj Kumar also indicates that the first information report was not in existence at the time mentioned in the chick F.I.R. Appellant Amar Singh is a handicapped person.He could not participate in the crime.Learned Government Advocate submitted that F.I.R. was lodged at the earliest possible time.Delay has been properly explained in the written report itself.Father, mother and one of the sons were murdered.No blood relative, except the informant P.W.1 Harbansh, the brother of the deceased, P.W.2 Suraj Pal Singh, who were residing at some distance from the place of occurrence, were present.Rajendra Singh, who was the younger son of the deceased Hori Lal was informed at night itself.He reached the village in the morning.One of the sons of the deceased Hori Lal was involved in the crime, therefore, delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be taken to be fatal to the prosecution case.Presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the place of occurrence is natural and probable.They reached the place of occurrence while accused appellants were committing the murder of the deceased Hori Lal.Facts and circumstances of the case clearly establish that accused appellants have committed the murder of Smt. Nattho Devi before committing the murder of Hori Lal.There is no major contradiction on material point in the statements of these two witnesses.Dead body of the deceased Manoj Kumar was found lying in the garden about one and a half kilometers away from his house.Although, name of P.W.3 Rajveer as witness of the last seen evidence was not mentioned in the F.I.R., but at the earliest point of time he disclosed these facts to the investigating officer and other witnesses.Motive attributed to the appellants was fully established from the prosecution evidence.Accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju had extended threat in the panchayat to eliminate the deceased for not agreeing to sell the land to discharge the debt owed by the appellant Budhsen alias Raju.This fact is fully established from the prosecution evidence.There was no occasion to falsely implicate the accused appellants in the present matter.Suggestions given by the accused appellants to the prosecution witnesses are mere suggestions.There is no supporting evidence to establish the plea taken by the accused appellants.The doors of the house of the deceased were open, this is not an improbable fact.One of the appellant is the son of the deceased Hori Lal and Nattho Devi.It might be possible that deceased would have opened the door at the request of the accused appellants.It also appears probable because the offence took place in the night at about 12:00 hours and the assailants were the relatives of the deceased.Medical evidence fully supported the prosecution version.It was the rarest of the rare case as the three persons were done to death by their blood relatives.Before proceeding to deal with the submission raised by the parties and issues involved in this matter, we would refer to the findings and observations recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgment.(I)Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has observed that motive attributed to the accused appellants was established from the prosecution evidence.A panchayat had convened and accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju had extended threat to eliminate the deceased for not agreeing to sell the agricultural land to discharge the debt liability.(II)P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal Singh were present on the spot at the time of occurrence.They had seen the accused appellants committing the murder of the deceased Hori Lal.(III)Smt.Nattho Devi was done to death by the accused appellants prior to committing the murder of Hori Lal.(IV)Accused appellants had also taken away the deceased Manoj Kumar with them and committed his murder in the orchard where his dead body was found.(V)Medical evidence fully supported the prosecution case.Non-examination of Dev Karan, Suresh, Shiv Shanker and Rajendra is not fatal to the prosecution case.(VI)All the accused appellants had formed unlawful assembly to commit the present offence and they gathered at the place of occurrence and committed the present offence in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly.(VIII)Participation of all the accused appellants in committing the present offence was fully established from the prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt.(IX) Evidence adduced by the accused appellants in their defence was not believable.(X) P.W.2 Suraj Pal Singh was well present at the time of the occurrence and also remained present on 26.2.2009, as is clear from the inquest report etc. (XI)Shrieks raised from the house of the deceased could easily be heard from the place where P.W.1 and other witnesses were present.(XII)Prosecution evidence is clear and consistent on the point of availability of petromax at the place of occurrence.Witnesses had recognized the accused appellants in the light of petromax lantern.(i) B. Kumar alias Jayakumar alias Left KR.alias S.Kumar Vs.(ii)Purushottam Dashrath Borate and Another Vs.(iii) Shabnam Vs.(iv)Deepak Rai Vs.(v) Ram Naresh Vs.(vi) State of U.P. Vs.(vii) Machhi Singh Vs.(viii) Bachan Singh Vs.38. Discussion :In the instant matter, offence is said to have been committed in the intervening night of 25/26.2.2009 at about 12:00 hours at two different places.Firstly, at the residence of the deceased Hori Lal where Hori Lal and his wife Nattho Devi were murdered and secondly, in the orchard of one Natthu Singh situated at a distance of about 1½ kms.from the house of the deceased Hori Lal where his son Manoj Kumar was murdered.Deceased Hori Lal had three sons.One is the accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju, second was Manoj Kumar (deceased) and third one is Rajendra Singh, who was residing at Noida at the time of the incident.P.W.1 Harbansh is the brother of the deceased Hori Lal, who was admittedly residing at about 500 meters away from the place of incident.P.W.2 Suraj Pal was also residing at a distance of about 500 meters from the place of occurrence.Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 are neighbours.Thus, both of them come under the category of chance witnesses.P.W.3 Rajveer is the son of P.W.1 Harbansh.It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that when P.W.1 Harbansh reached the spot, he saw the accused appellants committing the murder of Hori Lal (deceased).It means, he is the only eyewitness of the murder of Hori Lal.It is also clear from the evidence that none had seen the accused appellants committing the murder of Smt. Nattho Devi.Similarly, there is only last seen evidence against the murder of the deceased Manoj Kumar.Prosecution had not examined Dev Karan, who gave the information about the dead body of Manoj Kumar lying in the orchard.Suresh and Shiv Shanker, who were accompanying P.W.2, were also not examined by the prosecution.P.W.2 Suraj Pal is the employee of Irrigation Department and was posted at Etah district at that time.Defence has also not disputed the musical and dance programme organized in the night of the incident on the occasion of the marriage ceremony of the daughter of one Yog Raj.Prosecution witnesses have also admitted that the accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju was residing separately at Kasganj from his father deceased Hori Lal at the time of occurrence.Accused appellant Kanti is the maternal uncle (Mausa) of the accused-appellant Budhsen alias Raju and is the husband of the sister of the deceased Smt. Nattho Devi.Some of the accused appellants are also relatives of the deceased, as has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses themselves.It is also an admitted case of prosecution that there were only 07 bighas of land in the name of deceased Hori Lal.Thus, in the light of above factual situation, the Court proceeds first of all to analyze the motive attributed against the accused appellants to commit the present offence.The first information report was lodged by P.W.1 on 26.2.2009 at 9:30 A.M. It was mentioned in it that accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju had taken loan earlier and to repay the same, deceased Hori Lal, the father of the accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju, had sold two bighas of land.Again accused appellant Budhsen wanted to sell more land to discharge his debts to which Hori Lal refused, whereupon a panchayat was held in which the accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju had threatened and uttered the following words "Ke ped he nahi rahega toh pakshi kahan baitheygay" and this was the reason why the accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju with the aid of his mausa (maternal uncle) and other acquaintances had committed the murder of Hori Lal, Nattho Devi and Manoj Kumar.P.W.1 Harbansh, who is the informant in this case, has supported this fact before the Court.Although, he has not specified the place of panchayat, where it was held, but has admitted taking part in the panchayat.He also stated before the Court that accused-appellant Budhsen alias Raju wanted to sell some more land, but deceased Hori Lal refused to oblige him, therefore, Bhemsen alias Raju had threatened in the panchayat uttering "Ke ped he nahi rahega toh pakshi kahan baitheygay".It was the submission of the learned counsel for the accused appellants that the real son Rajendra Singh was not examined by the prosecution, who could speak the truth about the panchayat and the motive attributed to the accused appellants.It was further argued that the prosecution witnesses themselves wanted to purchase the agricultural land belonging to the deceased Hori Lal.Therefore, they committed the murder of the deceased and falsely implicated the appellants in this case.If the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused appellants are analyzed with the evidence available on record, it is evident that accused appellants have not challenged this fact in the cross-examination.Although, in the statements under sections 313 Cr.P.C., they have denied this fact.Looking to this situation that taking of loan by the accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju and in lieu thereof selling of two bighas of land by the deceased Hori Lal to repay the loan has not been challenged and the defence has also not challenged the convening of the panchayat, then we are of the view that motive part attributed against the accused appellants was established from the prosecution evidence.Before proceeding to deal with other issues, we would discuss the existence of the first information report at the time mentioned in the chick.In the present matter, F.I.R. was lodged on 26.2.2009 at 9:30 A.M. Distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was about 10 kms.He stated before the Court that the written report was scribed by one Itwari Lal on his dictation and thereafter it was read to him before he signed it.In the cross-examination, he admitted that he reached the concerned police station at about 8:00 A.M. in the morning of 26.2.2009 and it took an hour to prepare the written report at the concerned police station.G.D. Entry prepared at the time of preparation of Chick (Ex.Ka.-21) indicates that P.W.2 Suraj Pal and Rajendra Singh also accompanied him.It is the submission of the learned counsel for the accused appellants that written report (Ex.Ka.-1) was prepared with the consultation of the police after preparing the inquest report.Rajendra Singh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal both were not present at that time.It is evident that the police officials, who prepared the inquest report of the deceased Manoj Kumar, have shown different time in the column of information received at police station of the inquest report, but it is also evident that inquest report of the deceased Manoj Kumar was prepared by the police of Kotwali, Kasganj.First information report was lodged at Police Station Amapur.Inquest report of the deceased Hori Lal and Nattho Devi were prepared by the police of P.S. Amapur.Information at the police station Kotwali, Kasganj was given through R.T. Set.Since the dead body of the deceased was lying within the jurisdiction of Kotwali, Kasganj, therefore, the police of Kotwali, Kasganj proceeded to prepare the inquest report on the direction of the higher authorities.It appears that due to this reason the time mentioned in the column was 11:00 A.M. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused appellants is not acceptable.Three persons of a family were done to death and one of the sons of the deceased was himself involved in the incident.Other surviving son was residing at Noida at the time of occurrence.Informant (P.W.1) is the brother of the deceased.Offence was committed at midnight.Therefore, the reasons assigned in the first information report and stated by P.W.1 Harbansh before the Court are plausible and believable.In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the informant proceeded to lodge the first information report in the morning of 26.2.2009, we are of the view that there was sufficient ground for the same and it was explained by the prosecution.The explanation / reason offered by the prosecution is proper and satisfactory.Non-examination of Rajendra Singh will not render the explanation offered by the prosecution unbelievable or unsatisfactory, specially when there is a clear evidence that Rajendra Singh reached the spot in the morning of 26.2.2009 and had also accompanied the informant to the police station concerned.If Rajendra Singh did not lodge the first information report himself, it is also not fatal to the prosecution as he was not an eyewitness of the incident.He was the witness of inquest.Inquest reports have been proved by the prosecution from other evidence in accordance with law.Presence of P.W.2 Suraj Pal is also proved at the concerned police station at the time of lodging of F.I.R. vide G.D. Entry.Thus, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the accused appellants regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not acceptable.As far as consultation with the police in preparing the chick F.I.R. is concerned, P.W.1 Harbansh has clearly and consistently stated before the Court that he got prepared the written report from one Itwari Lal on his oral dictation.If the written report (Ex.Ka.-1) was prepared at the police station concerned, it will not be presumed that it was prepared after consultation with the police.The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused appellants is not based on any cogent and reliable evidence.In the present matter, prosecution case rests upon the testimony of P.W.1 Harbansh, P.W.2 Suraj Pal and P.W.3 Rajveer.Other witnesses examined by the prosecution are either formal witnesses or they are the witnesses of inquest, recovery or of postmortem.The conduct of the witnesses to go and watch the musical & dance programme in the village at night of the occasion of the marriage ceremony of the daughter of one Yog Raj is not unnatural or improbable.Generally, people in villages watch such type of programmes irrespective of their age, caste or creed.Admittedly, P.W.1 was aged about 75 years, but he was able to walk and to do his work.Thus on this basis, the fact that he had gone to watch the programme cannot be disbelieved.As per this witness, when he while returning from the programme, heard the shrieks from the house of Hori Lal as he came close to it.The path chosen by this witness lies in-front of the house of the deceased Hori Lal and also goes towards the house of this witness.The conduct of this witness cannot be termed as unnatural.Although, he is the chance witness, but presence of this witness at the time of occurrence is probable and believable as he is the resident of the same village.So far as the presence of P.W.2 Suraj Pal, P.W.3 Rajveer and other witnesses are concerned, P.W.1 Harbansh has admitted that when he raised an alarm, P.W.2 Suraj Pal , P.W.3 Rajveer, Suresh and Shiv Shankar reached there and they also saw the incident.Prosecution has not examined Suresh and Shiv Shankar.To disbelieve the presence of P.W.2 Suraj Pal, the accused appellants had examined the clerk of the concerned Department.It is the submission of the learned counsel that on the date and time of incident, P.W.2 Suraj Pal was present in his office discharging his official duty.At this stage, the statement of the concerned witnesses and the attendance register proved by the said witnesses were also referred to.It is true that defence witness had stated that in the attendance register, the presence of P.W.2 Suraj Pal was marked on 24, 25 & 26.2.2009, but at the same time he also stated that a leave application from the evening of 24.2.2009 for 25 & 26.2.2009 had been moved by P.W.2 Suraj Pal, which was accepted by the Head of the Institution.Learned counsel for the accused appellants referring to this situation has argued that the leave application was moved later on only to ensure the presence of P.W.2 at the place of occurrence.Document proved by the defence witness clearly indicates that P.W.2 Suraj Pal was not present on the date, time and place of the occurrence.We have closely analyzed the prosecution and defence evidence in light of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.P.W.2 Suraj Pal was the witness in all the three inquests.Similarly, P.W.2 Suraj Pal had accompanied P.W.1 Harbansh to lodge the F.I.R. at the concerned police station.Presence of P.W.2 also finds support from the evidence of P.W.1 Harbansh.It is unbelievable fact that he was present at his office in the morning of 26.2.2009 and at the same time he participated in the inquest proceedings and had gone to lodge the F.I.R. accompanying P.W.1 in the morning of 26.2.2009 itself.Therefore, the presence of P.W.2 Suraj Pal in both the places at the same point of time cannot be accepted.Inquest report and other police papers clearly establish that P.W.2 Suraj Pal was present on the date and time of the occurrence in the village itself.He was the witness of panchayat also.He had also gone to watch the programme.It is possible that they were returning for their home at that relevant time.Since they were returning from the same path, which lies in front of the house of the deceased Hori Lal, therefore, alarm raised by P.W.1 Harbansh could easily be heard by them from the lane.Thus, the presence of P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal cannot be doubted on this score.There are some contradictions in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding the presence of P.W.1 Harbansh at the time when P.W.2 Suraj Pal reached in front of the house of the deceased Hori Lal and also on this point whether Rajveer had accompanied them at that time or not, but on this ground the fact that both these witnesses had reached on the spot at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted, specially when the defence has not denied the music & dance programme (rangshala) was organized at the marriage.To analyze the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding non-mentioning of use of lathi in commission of the offence in the F.I.R. and opinion expressed by P.W.5 regarding use of lathi, we have again minutely perused the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W5 Dr. Sayeed Mohd. As per the prosecution case, when P.W.1 Harbansh reached the place of occurrence, he saw that the accused appellants were pressing the neck of the deceased Hori Lal.This incident was witnessed by him in the light of petromax.Six persons were said to have been pressing the neck of the deceased.Certainly, the prosecution witnesses were present at some distance at that time.It might be possible that exactly what sort of method was adopted by the accused appellants in committing the murder of the deceased Hori Lal, could not be clearly seen or perceived.54. P.W.5 Dr. Sayeed Mohd. has not clearly denied that death of the deceased Hori Lal was not the result of throttling.This fact that danda was used in committing the murder of the deceased Hori Lal, was stated for the first time before the Court, but only on this basis the presence of P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal on the spot at the time of occurrence cannot be disbelieved or their testimony cannot be discarded.The opinion expressed by doctor is a mere opinion.The doctor has not clearly opined that the deceased was not done to death by throttling.Sometime witnesses make exaggerated statements but that cannot be the basis to discard the testimony of those witnesses otherwise credit-worthy.In view of the above, it is clear that the deceased Hori Lal was done to death by throttling.When P.W.1 and P.W.2 reached the spot, they saw the accused appellants pressing the neck of the deceased Hori Lal.On their raising an alarm, the accused appellants ran away from the back door of the house of the deceased Hori Lal.When they reached near Hori Lal, they found him dead.They also searched for Nattho Devi wife of Hori Lal and found her lying in a dead condition in the room of the first floor of the house of Hori Lal.Attention of the Court was also drawn by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that Suresh, who was the neighbour of the deceased Hori Lal, also accompanied P.W.2 Suraj Pal.He is also said to have reached there along with P.W.2 Suraj Pal.The door of the house of the deceased Hori Lal was opened, but he did not enter in the house of the deceased Hori Lal from that door, instead of that he preferred to enter the house by jumping from the roof of the house of the deceased Hori Lal.Contention raised in this context by the learned counsel for the accused appellants was also scrutinized by us.Suresh was not examined by the prosecution.What was in his mind, only he can explain.It might be possible that he would have thought that the accused persons could escape through the roof of his house.Learned counsel have also raised contention that by non-examination of Suresh by the prosecution, an adverse inference against the prosecution should be drawn as he might not have supported the prosecution case.Here it is noteworthy that non-examination of Suresh does not create any doubt regarding the presence of P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal on the date, time and place of occurrence.Generally, people do not want to come forward to give evidence.The present case is a peculiar one in which one of the sons of the deceased Hori Lal was involved and against whom allegation is that he along with the other accused appellants had eliminated his father, mother and younger brother.In criminal jurisprudence, witnesses are divided in three categories, namely, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and lastly neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.In the case of first two categories the Court do not feel any difficulty but in the case of third category of witness corroboration from some other evidence would be required.The statement of P.W.1 Harbansh regarding the presence of P.W.3 Rajveer Singh at the scene of occurrence is not supported by the evidence of P.W.3 itself.Similarly, statement of P.W.2 Suraj Pal on the above point is also not supported from the evidence of P.W.3 Rajveer.Some other points, like the use of danda in committing the present offence is also not supported from the medical evidence.Therefore, in our considered view, P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal cannot be placed in the category of wholly reliable witnesses.Since both these witnesses are the relatives of the deceased persons and they reside at a distance of 500 meters away from the place of occurrence and they claimed their presence on the spot due to the reason that they were returning home after watching the music and dance programme, therefore, we scrutinized their version / testimony along with the medical evidence.Since there is no direct evidence regarding the murder of Smt. Nattho Devi and Manoj Kumar, therefore, expecting from the prosecution to adduce the evidence regarding the manner of the incident in committing the murder of Smt. Nattho Devi and Manoj Kumar is not warranted in the present matter, but it is established that both the deceased were done to death at the time, as has been stated by the prosecution witnesses.As far as the opinion expressed by P.W.5 Dr. Sayeed Mohd. regarding the death of the deceased Hori Lal is concerned, the use of lathi in committing the murder of the deceased by pressing his neck has been denied, but medical evidence does not fully belie that the deceased Hori Lal was not done to death by throttling.On this aspect, we have discussed in the earlier portion of the judgment in detail, therefore, we do not find any necessity for detailed discussion at this stage on this point.In the instant case, analyzing the direct evidence regarding the murder of the deceased Hori Lal minutely, we are of the view that it cannot be held that medical evidence is in conflict with the oral evidence, rather medical evidence supported the ocular testimony.So far as the relations of P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal with the deceased persons are concerned, nothing has come out in the cross-examination to hold that these witnesses have made false statements to implicate the accused appellants in this case.P.W.2 is the real brother of the deceased Hori Lal, he will not falsely implicate an innocent person leaving the real culprit to go unpunished.Accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju is the real nephew of this witness.Thus, the point raised by the learned counsel in this respect is also not acceptable.Interestingly, in the instant case, P.W.3 Rajveer was not interrogated by the first investigating officer, but was interrogated by the subsequent investigating officer after a gap of 20 days.He claimed that he had told about the last seen evidence to the witnesses at the night of incident itself.Two self-contradictory facts cannot be taken as true simultaneously.Three types of presumptions (inferences) could be made in this case regarding the evidence of P.W.3 Rajveer.Firstly, either he was present along with P.W.2 Suraj Pal at the time of occurrence ; or secondly, he had gone to ease himself in the night at about 12:30 A.M. and had seen the accused appellants taking away the deceased Manoj Kumar with them; and or thirdly, neither he was present at the place of occurrence accompanying P.W.2 Suraj Pal nor he had seen the accused appellants taking away the deceased Manoj Kumar with them.If the entire statement made by this witness is scrutinized to ascertain the truthfulness, it emerges out that he is not a reliable witness.The observation also finds support with the fact that nothing was mentioned about P.W.3 Rajveer on the point of last seen evidence in the chick F.I.R. nor in any other police papers prepared at that time.Satisfactory or plausible explanation regarding delayed interrogation of this witness by the investigating officer was also not put forth by the prosecution to the conscience of the Court.Thus, the testimony of P.W.3 Rajveer is not safe to be relied upon.Prosecution was only able to establish that the deceased Manoj Kumar was done to death at the night of 25/26.2.2009 between 12:00 to 1:00 A.M. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence available on record to connect the accused appellants with the death of the deceased Manoj Kumar, except the motive part attributed against them.So far as the lapses committed by the investigating officer is concerned, the testimony of P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal regarding murder of Hori Lal, which is supported by the medical evidence, cannot be discarded.Lapses said to have been made on the part of the investigating officer do not go to the root of the case and does not carry much weight.So far as the suggestions put to the witnesses by the defence regarding false implication of the accused appellants are concerned, which are too trivial, and cannot form the basis of false implication of the accused appellants in this case.Apart to this, the suggestions put by the accused appellants were also not proved by any cogent or clinching evidence.Non-examination of any other independent witness to support the prosecution case do not demolish the prosecution version.Looking to the nature of the offence, manner in which the present offence was committed and the time and place of occurrence, if any independent witness has not come forward to support the prosecution case, no adverse inference would be drawn against the prosecution.Offence was committed at midnight in the house of the deceased Hori Lal.Prosecution evidence itself indicates that prior to arrival of P.W.1 Harbansh at the house of deceased Hori Lal, no one was present in the lane and in the house except the accused and the deceased persons.Whether family members of the witness Suresh, whose house was adjacent to the house of the deceased, were actually present in their house at the time of occurrence and whether they were sleeping at that time or were awake, was not the matter essentially to be proved by the prosecution.Keeping in view the time of the occurrence, there was every possibility that either they were sleeping at that time or they had gone to watch the programme.Specific plea has been taken on behalf of the accused appellant Kanti that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the time alleged in the F.I.R. He has not only examined himself, but also D.W.1 Aneg Singh, D.W.3 Gajendra and D.W.4 Vijay Pal Singh.From the close scrutiny of the statements of these defence witnesses, definitely it cannot be held that accused appellants Kanti was present on the date and time of the occurrence in village Virsua.On minutely analyzing the statements of these witnesses, it emerge that mandap ceremony had started at noon itself.Photography would also have been lasted maximum till 9:00 or 10:00 P.M. in the night.Photo camera was not a digital camera.Whether photographs, as stated by the defence witnesses, were actually clicked on the date and time stated by the defence witnesses or not, there is no cogent and creditable evidence produced by the defence.Therefore, trial Court has rightly disbelieved the plea of alibi taken by the accused appellant Kanti.So far as the relation of this accused appellant with the deceased persons is concerned, there is direct evidence of P.W.1 Harbansh that accused appellant Kanti took part in committing the present offence.He also participated in the panchayat held earlier to solve the dispute regarding agricultural land between the deceased Hori Lal and accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju.No cogent evidence or any other fact was elaborated by the accused appellant to establish that there was any motive for the witnesses to implicate accused appellant falsely.In the absence of any such type of evidence, the plea taken by the accused appellant regarding the alibi and false implication of the accused appellant Kanti is also not acceptable.Therefore, there is no need for fresh discussion.Since in the present matter, three persons were said to have been done to death and all the three deceased persons belong to the same family and they were father, mother and son, therefore, we have also gone through the evidence to re-appreciate the role specified to the accused appellants and the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. to ensure that whether all the incriminating facts come in the evidence against the accused appellants have been placed before them to explain or not.On close scrutiny of the statement of P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal, we come to the conclusion that prosecution did not specify the role of the accused appellants.The allegation is that when P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal reached the spot, they saw that all the accused persons were pressing the neck of the deceased Hori Lal.From a perusal of the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., it also reveals that all the incriminating facts and evidence in the matter were put / placed before the accused appellants to explain.Nothing was argued on behalf of the accused appellants in this regard.Trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order, was of the opinion that the deceased Hori Lal, Nattho Devi and Manoj Kumar were done to death by the accused appellants in the manner stated by the witnesses on the date, time and place as mentioned in their statements.On the basis of discussion made here-in-above, we are of the view that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused appellants with the death of Nattho Devi and Manoj Kumar, except the motive part.Convening of the panchayat and selling of two bighas of land by the deceased Hori Lal to repay the loan taken by accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju were not challenged by the defence / accused appellants.The time of death of the deceased Hori Lal, Nattho Devi and Manoj Kumar indicates that all the deceased persons were done to death in a preplanned manner.If for the sake of argument murder of the deceased Manoj Kumar be not connected with the accused appellants, then also there is a direct evidence against the accused appellants in committing the murder of the deceased Hori Lal.When the witnesses reached the house of the deceased Hori Lal and raised alarm, the accused appellants fled away from the back door of the house of the deceased Hori Lal.On search being made, witnesses found Nattho Devi lying dead in the room at the first floor of the house.No other person, except the accused and the witnesses were present at that time in the house.Therefore, it can be safely presumed that Nattho Devi was also murdered by the same accused appellants, who were responsible for the murder of the deceased Hori Lal.Thus, trial Court finding that accused appellants have committed the murder of Hori Lal and Nattho Devi is not against the law and evidence and no interference on this finding is required by this Court.As far as presence of petromax on the spot where the deceased Hori Lal was done to death is concerned, it is not unnatural or improbable.Using of the petromax as a source of light is a common practice.It appears that due to a typing mistake, section 302 read with section 149 IPC was not typed and on this score, the trial Court finding regarding guilt of the accused appellants cannot be interfered with.Accused appellants were six in numbers.It is established that they committed the murder of Hori Lal and Nattho Devi.Attending circumstances itself establish that they had formed an unlawful assembly.Common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit the present offence and in furtherance of this common object, being the member of unlawful assembly, all the accused appellants committed the present offence.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Let record of the lower Court be requisitioned.Also heard on I.A. No.59/2016 which is an application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for suspension of jail sentence of the sole appellant- Karanlal S/o Shri Mangilal.The present appellant has suffered conviction and jail sentence, which are as under:Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application (IA No.59/2016) is allowed.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rs.Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellant shall be released on bail for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 27.04.2016 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed, by the Registry of this Court, in this behalf.Certified copy, as per Rules.(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Arun/-

['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

She was married to A-2, Anup Singh on July 6, 1992 inaccordance with the Hindu rites and rituals.After few days ofher marriage, when Renu Bala visited the house of herparents, she complained as to how accused persons weretreating her with cruelty by putting demands for refrigeratorand scooter as dowry.It was alleged that on January 5, 1993,Kamla Devi, mother of Renu Bala came to know from TilakRaj, her brother-in-law that Renu Bala was admitted in a 2 hospital at Gagret.The policewent to the spot, prepared inquest report and rough spot mapof the place where dead body of Renu Bala was found.TheInvestigating officer also took into possession vomit of RenuBala and the clothes worn by her at the time of vomiting priorto her death.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.In this appeal challenge is to the judgment of a learnedSingle Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court holdingeach of the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the`IPC') while setting aside the conviction and the sentenceimposed in respect of Section 306 IPC.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The appellants-accused were tried for offencespunishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC.AccusedNo.1 Balwant Singh was father-in-law, accused No.4-KantaDevi was mother-in-law, accused No.3-Ravinder Singh wasbrother-in-law and accused No.2-Anup Singh was husband ofRenu Bala (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased').Thedeceased was daughter of one Gurdayal Singh and KamlaDevi.She, therefore, along with Tilak Raj went tothe hospital, but Renu Bala was not there, and they came toknow that Renu Bala was taken to Patohar Kalan, the villagewhere the accused were staying.Both of them then went tothe residence of the accused and found Renu Bala lying deadin verandah of the house of the accused and none of theaccused was there.Kamla Devi suspected foul play that herdaughter Renu Bala was either killed or was compelled tocommit suicide by consuming poison on account of theirunlawful demand of dowry by the accused and by treating herwith cruelty.She, therefore, lodged a report with the policeEx.PW-3/A under Section 154 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (in short the `Code') at Police Station, Una,which was registered as formal F.I.R. vide Ex.Two letters, which were produced by Devinder 3 Singh, were also taken in possession.Postmortem wasconducted by Dr. Vijay Kumar Raizda, which revealed thatRenu Bala was having pregnancy of fourteen to sixteen weeks.He reserved his opinion regarding cause of death till receipt ofreport of Chemical Analyser.After receiving the report, Dr.Gurcharan Singh opined that cause of death was peripheralcirculatory failure due to aluminum phosphide which wassufficient cause of death in natural course of events.Furtherinvestigation was conducted by ASI, Jarnail Singh, whoobtained two letters produced by Gurdyal Singh, father ofdeceased Renu Bala.After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the Stateas well as learned defence counsel, a charge was framedagainst the accused for the offences punishable underSections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of the IPC and they wereasked as to whether they plead guilty.4 The accused did not plead guilty to the charge andclaimed to be tried.In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 16witnesses.After the prosecution evidence was closedstatements of the accused persons were recorded in terms ofthe Section 313 of the Code.Six witnesses were examined toestablish their innocence.From the suggestions put duringcross examination the accused persons tried to make out acase that deceased was suffering from epilepsy and frustratedby her life she committed suicide.The trial court as notedabove held the accused persons guilty of offences punishableunder Section 498A and 306 IPC while directing acquittal ofthe charge in terms of Section 304-B IPC.In appeal afterreferring to the evidence High Court came to hold that theoffence under Section 306 is not made out.The letters Exh.PW-5/A 5 and PW-5/C show that there was no demand of dowry butthere was improper treatment.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

30.07.13 Item No. 48 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 48And In the matter of: Sushama Mondal Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Bitasok Banerjee For the Petitioner Mr. Subrata Roy For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Rampurhat Police Station Case No. 76 of 2013 dated 31.03.2013 under sections 498A/302/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the victim.The husband and the father-in-law of the victim are both enlarged on bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

By this application for grant of leave to file appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., Counsel for the applicant-State has prayed for grant of leave to appeal.She submitted that there was an ample evidence on record regarding the implication of the accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC.There were two children born out of the said wedlock.However, the couple used to often quarrel because the wife wanted to live in Ujjain near her parents.Whereas they were living in the village at Majhania, Distt.Shujalpur and Counsel submitted that in impugned para-10 there was statement by PW1 Monika Trivedi 2 that on the date of the incident on the earlier part of the day, she has seen the husband and wife were quarreling.Thereafter the husband/present accused respondent Durgesh had left for his work and Counsel submitted that this important piece of evidence has been ignored by the trial Court.In impugned para 15 Mahesh Kumar Ray has also corroborated this piece of evidence and Counsel submitted that the impugned order of acquittal be set aside and the matter be remanded for a fresh trial.Counsel for the respondent-husband, per contra, has candidly stated that the domestic quarrel used to generally take place between the husband and wife.The son has categorically stated that it was the wife who was acting in a manner which is not conducive to sympathy since she was asking the husband to sell off the agricultural land which was his only source of living and shift to the city of Ujjain near her parents which was not possible under the circumstances.There is no other incriminating evidence on record to implicate the accused/respondent.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

PW-3 (son of deceased) in his examination in chief deposed as under:"On 04.04.2004, I was coming from Ajmeri gate and going towards Minto Road to supply ice.At about 04:00 PM, we reached Kamla Market, bus stand and a truck TATA 709 bearing registration number HR 38C 2513 came from the back side.The truck driver was driving in rash and negligent manner by driving at high speed and hit ourrickshaw.My father was pulling the rickshaw.He fell down on the road and the front rightside wheel of the truck crushed the legs of my father.Police came at spot as PS was nearby and took my father to LNJP hospital.He was arrived at that time.Police prepared site plan at my instance.Photographers were called who took photographs of the spot."95/2018 Page 7 of 14During cross examination, PW-3 deposed as under:"It is correct that the rickshaw which was pulled by my father was not broken.Three ice bricks (sillies) were loaded in rickshaw at that time.I did not sustain injuries.I was sitting in rickshaw.The said rickshaw was not overturned.The offending truck was not stopped after hitting the rickshaw.It is correct that my statement is not recorded at the spot.The accused did not go to the hospital...."PW-13 Retired SI Lal Chand (Investigating Officer) during his examination in chief deposed as under:"On 04.04.2004, I was posted at PS Kamla Market as SI.On that day, alongwith Ct.Vinod reached at spot i.e. JLN Marg near Bus Stand Kamla Market, Delhi.One truck no. HP 38C 2513 and cycle thailey were found in accidental condition at the spot.I left Ct.Vinod at spot and I reached at JPN Hospital as it came to know that injured has already been taken to the hospital.I collected the MLC of injured Ram Varan, who was declared unfit of statement.One eyewitness of the accident CRL.LP.95/2018 Page 8 of 14 also met me at the hospital.I came at spot alongwith eyewitness Sunil Kumar and driver Ram Chand.I handed over the rukka to Ct.Vinod for registration of FIR.I inspected the site at the instane of complainant Sunil Kumar and prepared site plan Ex. PW13/B, bearing my signature at point A. I seized the truck and cycle thailey vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 2/B and C, bearing my signature at point C respectively.I got clicked the photographs of spot vide photographs already collectively Ex. P12....".95/2018 Page 8 of 14During cross examination the witness deposed as under:"The accused Ram chand was the driver on the offending truck at the time of incident.I do not remember whether any damage was caused to cycle thailey by the offending truck due to accident or not.As per my investigation, the offending truck had hit the cycle thailey and injured from behind......"18. PW-2 (Ct. Vinod Kumar) during his examination in chief deposed as under-"On 04.04.2004, I was posted at PS Kamla Market as constable.SI Lal Chand received DD no. 17-A regarding an accident at JLN Marg bus stand, Kamla Market.I alongwith SI Lal Chand went to the spot, where crowd had gathered.Some person from the crowd told me that an accident has occurred and the injured has been taken to JPN hospital.IO left me at spot and went to the hospital.IO came back at the spot and prepared tehrir and handed over to me for registration of CRL.LP.95/2018 Page 9 of 14 case.I went to PS Kamla market and got the case registered.HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL"The case of prosecution against the accused Ran Chand is that on 04.04.2004 at about 4pm at JLN Marg, near Bus Stand, Kamla Market, Delhi, CRL.LP.95/2018 Page 1 of 14 within the jurisdiction of PS Kamla Market, he was found driving Ashok Lee Land Truck 709 bearing registration no HR-38C-2513 (hereinafter as 'offending vehicle') in a rash or negligent manner and while so driving dashed against a rickshaw thela being driven by deceased Ram Baran Yadav and caused his death."95/2018 Page 1 of 14After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed.The accused was charged with offence under Sections 279/304A of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for Statecontended that the impugned judgment dated 02.11.2017 was based on conjectures and surmises and the same deserves to be set aside.Learned counsel for the State further contended that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the statement of the eye witness PW-3/Sunil Kumar in correct perspective.95/2018 Page 2 of 14I have heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.I handed over the original tehrir and copy of FIR to IO.IO called the photographer who took photographs of the spot...."95/2018 Page 9 of 14During cross examination, PW-2 (Ct. Vinod Kumar) deposed as under:"...it is correct that the rickshaw and truck were found in accidental condition when we reached at the spot.I do not remember the time when the photographer arrived at the spot.Public persons were present when we reached at the spot.Prior to proceed to the hospital, IO did not record the statement of any public persons at the spot.When the photographs were got clicked, complainant Sunil Kumar was not present at the spot.Rukka was prepared at the spot.At that time, Sunil Kumar was not present at the spot.IO had obtained the signatures of Sunil Kumar on the rukka/complaint in the hospital.IO handed over me the rukka at about 5:40 PM.It is correct that when IO handed over me the rukka complainant was not present.It is correct complainant did not come to the spot at my presence...."From the perusal of the above testimonies, the presence of PW-3 (Son of the victim and eyewitness) at the spot, at the time of commission of crime, appears to be doubtful.PW-3 (Son of the victim and eyewitness) deposed in his examination in chief that 'At about 04:00 PM, we reached Kamla Market, bus stand and a truck TATA 709 bearing registration number HR 38C 2513 came from CRL.LP.95/2018 Page 10 of 14 the back side.The truck driver was driving in rash and negligent manner by driving at high speed and hit our rickshaw' during cross examination, PW-3 deposed that 'Three ice bricks (sillies) were loaded in rickshaw at that time.I did not sustain injuries.I was sitting in rickshaw.The said rickshaw was not overturned.The offending truck was not stopped after hitting the rickshaw'.The case of the prosecution is that PW-3 was sitting on the thela with his deceased father and at the time of accident he saved himself by jumping from the rickshaw appears to be improbable, as it has emerged on record that there was no arrangement to seat for two persons in the Rickshaw coupled with the statement of other prosecution witnesses that no damage was caused to the thela pulled by the deceased.95/2018 Page 10 of 14Further, PW-3 (Son of the victim and eyewitness) deposed in his examination in chief that'Photographers were called who took photographs of the spot' to the contrary, in his cross examination, PW-3 deposed that 'I do not remember whether the photographs of the spot were got clicked in my presence or not.'Similarly, PW-2 (Ct. Vinod Kumar) with regard to photographs, in his cross examination deposed that, 'When the photographs were got clicked, complainant Sunil Kumar was not present.'Further, PW-3 (son of the deceased) in his cross examination deposed that'The accused did not went to the hospital.' to the contrary PW-13 (Investigating Officer) in his examination in chief deposed that'One eye-witness of the accident namely Sunil Kumar and driver of truck also met me at hospital.' CRL.LP.95/2018 Page 11 of 1495/2018 Page 11 of 14Further, PW-13 (Investigating Officer) in his cross examination mentioned that, 'I came at spot along with eyewitness Sunil Kumar and driver Ram Chand.I handed over rukka to Ct.Vinod for registration of FIR.'To the contrary, PW-2 (Ct. Vinod Kumar) in his cross examination had stated that, 'Rukka was prepared at spot.At that time, Sunil Kumar was not present.'All these witnesses have a different and inconsistent stand in their testimonies which creates a doubt about the presence of PW-3 (Son of the victim and eyewitness) at the spot.Mukta Rani.She deposed as under:"...on that day, I conducted the post-mortem on dead body of deceased Ram Baran Yadav, s/o Sh.All the injuries were ante-mortem, fresh and could be possible in a road traffic accident..."Thus, in the opinion of the doctor the injuries on the person of the deceased could not be possible in a road accident.The prosecution also failed to examine public persons who were present at the time of accident.The rukka and the arrest memo also cannot be relied CRL.LP.95/2018 Page 12 of 14In the present case, on a cumulative reading and appreciation of the entire evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the evidence on record have been held to be unworthy of acceptance because the same is found to be replete with infirmities.There are considerable inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, which consequently makes the version of the prosecution fabricated and unreliable.The prosecution has failed to disclose the true genesis of the crime and establish the charges against the accused punishable under Section279/304A IPC.It is settled law that while deciding a leave to appeal petition filed by the State, in case two views are possible, the High Court must not grant leave, if the trial court has taken one of the plausible views, in contrast there to in an appeal filed against acquittal.The learned trial court CRL.LP.95/2018 Page 13 of 14 has taken a holistic view in the matter and carefully analyzed the evidence of all the witnesses.95/2018 Page 13 of 14SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J APRIL 10, 2019//afa CRL.LP.

['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The female is at the age of more than 18 years and if it is counted by the Aadhar Card then more than 16 years.In fact she candidly admits that on the morning of October 1st, she herself telephoned to the appellant to meet her in his car at a certain place, went up to that place and finding him waiting in the car got into that car of her own accord.No doubt, she says that she did not tell the appellant where to go and that it was the appellant himself who drove the car to Guindy and then to Mylapore and other places.Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.By means of writ petition, a challenge has been made to the First Information Report No. 0539 of 2019, registered on 03.06.2019 with Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh for the offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC & Section 7/8 POCSO Act.The perusal of the first information report does not show any allegation that petitioner enticed minor below 18 years.In absence of such allegation, the case would not fall under Section 363 IPC.Reference of Section 366 IPC has also been given.In view of above, the first information report deserves to be quashed.The said date of birth is not correctly recorded in the high school examination certificate.[W.P. No. 3519 (MB) of 2015] decided vide order dated 23.07.2015 has been given.

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

allowed debajyoti CRM No.8517 of 2018 In re : Captain Mallick ..... Petitioner.Mr. Mukunda Lal Sarkar, Mr. Apalok Basu ..... For the Petitioner.Mr. Avishek Sinha ..... For the State.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Hanskhali Police Station Case No.332 of 2018 dated 18-09- 2018 under Sections 448/323/326/354B/506/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner submits that following a long-standing civil dispute between the petitioner and the complainant, the present complaint has been lodged on false grounds.The State produces the case diary and refers to the injury reports.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.( Suvra Ghosh, J. ) ( Sanjib Banerjee, J. )

['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

And In the matter of:- Jahangir Sk.448/325/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code has come to this court for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.)

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The deceased in this case was one Mr.P.W.1 and accused are brothers.The deceased, P.W.1 and the second accused were born to the first wife of their father and the first accused was born to the second wife and their father.After their father had gone for second marriage, the deceased and P.W.1 were residing separately.The second accused was in the house of their relative.The first accused was with his father, i.e. with the second wife of the deceased.For a long time, P.W.1 and the deceased were cultivating 2 < acres of land which was owned by the joint family.The accused 1 and 2 were cultivating 1 3/4 acres of land which also belonged to the joint family.5. P.W.15 took up the case for investigation.He also prepared a Rough Sketch showing the place of occurrence.Then, he recovered the blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.She gave opinion that the death was due to the shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries.P.W.15 examined a few more witnesses and then handed over the case diary to his successor.On 06.10.2010 at 10.30 a.m., he arrested the second accused at Nenjamadai Village in the presence of P.W.11 and another witness.At that time, the second accused was wearing a lungi.P.W.16 recovered the same from the second accused.He made voluntary disclosure and stated that he had hidden the aruval in the bank of a tank.Accordingly, he took the police and the witness to the said place and produced the aruval.On returning to the police station, P.W.16 forwarded the second accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the Material Objects also to the Court.On 09.10.2010 at 3.30 p.m., he arrested the first accused in the presence of P.W.12 and another witness.On such arrest, the first accused disclosed the place where he had hidden the aruval.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witness to the said place and produced the aruval.P.W.16 recovered the same under the Mahazar.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.52 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore.They stood charged for offences under Sections 449, 302, 307 and 506(ii) IPC.By judgment dated 30.09.2011, the trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302, 324 r/w 34 and 449 IPC and acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC.The trial Court sentenced both the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 449 IPC.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellants are before this Court with this appeal.The accused were demanding for actual partition of the joint family properties.Since all of them were not married at that time, the deceased and P.W.1 told them that the joint family properties could be partitioned after marriage was celebrated for all.But, the accused were not satisfied with the said explanation.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.On 03.10.2010, at about 8.30 p.m., P.W.1 and the deceased were in their house watching Television.At that time, these two accused came in a motor cycle and parked it in front of the house and trespassed into the house of the deceased.On so entering into the house, the first accused attacked the deceased with aruval near his right ear and back of his head.The second accused cut the deceased on the middle of his head.P.W.1 intervened.The second accused cut P.W.1 with aruval on his right hand.Then, both the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.P.W.1 immediately gave a phone call to 108 ambulance and then proceeded to the police station to make a complaint.P.W.14, who was the then Sub Inspector of Police of Udumalapet Police Station, reduced the oral complaint of P.W.1 into writing at 10.30 p.m. on 03.10.2010 at the police station.P.W.1 affixed his Left Thumb Impression on the same.On the said complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.5175 of 2010 under Sections 302, 307 and 506(ii) IPC.He also recovered the motor cycle [M.O.1], which was parked in front of the house of the deceased.He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post-mortem. P.W.6 - Dr.Jothi Mani conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 04.10.2010 at 12.10 p.m. She found the following injuries:External injuries:(1) Cut injury measuring 15 x 10 cm extending deep to the brain, over right occipital bone, behind right ear, exposing brain matter.(2) Cut injury measuring about 5 x 3 cm extending deep to the brain present just below the injury No.2 exposing the brain matter.(3) Small cut injury centre of parietal region 1 x 1cm.(4) Lacerated wound 3 x 2 cm right shoulder.(5) Lacerated wound 3 x 2 x 1 cm left thigh."P7 is the Post-mortem Certificate.On returning to the police station, he forwarded the first accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the Material Objects also to the Court.On request, the Material Objects were sent for chemical analysis.It revealed that there were blood stains on the Material Objects, including the aruval recovered from the accused.On completing the investigation, P.W.16 laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the above charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 24 documents were exhibited, besides 21 Material Objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.P.Ws.3 and 4 have spoken about the Observation Mahazar, the Rough Sketch and the recovery of Material Objects from the place of occurrence.P.W.5 has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the place of occurrence.P.W.6 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted by him and the final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.7 has stated that, on 04.10.2010 at 3.15 a.m. P.W.1 was brought to the police station for treatment.According to this witness, the injuries were simple in nature.P.W.8- Dr.Kavitha has stated that, on 06.10.2010 at 7.30 p.m., she examined the second accused on being produced by the police after arrest.She noticed a healed cut injury measuring 3.5 x 0.3 x 0.3 cm on the left thumb.P.W.9 has spoken about the chemical examination done on the Material Objects.P.W.10 has turned hostile.He has not supported the prosecution case in any manner.P.W.11 has spoken about the arrest of the second accused and consequential recovery of aruval on the disclosure statement made by him.P.W.12 has stated about the arrest of the first accused and the disclosure statement made by him as well as the consequential recovery of aruval at his instance.P.W.14 has spoken about the registration of the case.P.Ws.15 and 16 have spoken about the investigation done respectively and the Final Report submitted.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor they did mark any documents in their favour.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.In this case, P.Ws.1 and 2 have claimed that they witnessed the entire occurrence.P.W.1 is an injured eye witness.Therefore, his presence in the place of occurrence cannot be doubted.P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that, he and the deceased alone were there in their house at the time of occurrence.Where there is no mention about the presence of P.W.2 by P.W.1, it has to be examined whether P.W.2 would have been present at the time of occurrence.P.W.2 has stated that he was also inside the house of the deceased watching Television along with the deceased.As we have already pointed out, P.W.1 has stated that he alone was present along with the deceased and they were watching Television.The trial Court has concluded that, P.W.2 would not have seen the occurrence at all.In the said conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, we do not find any infirmity warranting interference.It is settled law that, if the evidence of a solitary witness inspires the confidence of Court, then even without expecting any corroboration from any other independent source, the Court can act upon the same.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of VADIVELU THEVAR vs STATE OF MADRAS (1957 AIR 614, 1957 SCR 981), has held that, if a solitary eye witness is partly believable and partly unbelievable, then his evidence cannot be the foundation for conviction, unless it draws corroboration from any other independent source.First of all, according to him, immediately after the occurrence at 8.30 p.m., he went to the police station and made a complaint at 8.45 p.m. But ,P.W.1 has stated that, the complaint was obtained only at 10.30 p.m. Ex.P1 is the complaint which came into being at 10.30 p.m. If that be so, there is no explanation as to what had happened to the complaint which was made at the earliest point of time at 8.45 p.m. P.W.1 is an illiterate person.He has only affixed his Left Thumb Impression.After all, the police station and the house of the learned Magistrate are in the very same town within a short distance.At that time, he had told the Doctor that he was attacked by a single known person, whereas, according to the prosecution case, two accused participated in the crime.Though his attention was drawn to the said statement made in the Accident Register, he did not give any explanation as to why he told the Doctor that only one person participated in the occurrence.This also creates doubt.The motor cycle [M.O.1] was seized from the place of occurrence, but, there was no investigation as to whom the motor cycle belonged to.The owner of the motor cycle was also not examined.Had he been examined, some light would have been thrown as to whether these two accused came in the motor cycle to the place of occurrence or not.Though the presence of P.W.1 cannot be doubted, his veracity is doubtful.Going by the very strong motive on account of the property dispute between the two families, the possibility of roping in of the entire family of the accused cannot be ruled out.On one side, the deceased and P.W.1 were residing as one family, whereas these two accused were residing separately.The dispute was in respect of the ancestral property.Therefore, the possibility of P.W.1 to rope in both the accused to wreak vengeance cannot be ruled out at any rate.In our considered view, it is too difficult to act solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.1 alone.Therefore, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This petition has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 26.07.2013 in C.A.No.7 of 2013 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur, confirming the judgment dated 22.01.2013 in S.T.C.No.5816 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.On 21.02.2010, around 7.45 p.m., a motor accident took place in Uralpatti, in connection with which, on the complaint lodged by Ramakrishnan, the respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.124 of 2010 and after completing the investigation, filed final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, which was taken on file as STC No.5816 of 2010 and process was issued to the accused.On the appearance of the accused, charges for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 (2 counts) IPC were framed against him.When questioned, he pleaded 'not guilty'.To prove the case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked 8 documents.The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and he denied the same.On the side of the accused, no witness was examined nor was any document marked.Amongst the witnesses examined by the prosecution, two were doctors, viz., Dr.Roy Wilson Amsraj [P.W.8] and Dr.Madhu Periyasami [P.W.9] who had given treatment to the two victims immediately after the incident.The police arrested the accused on 23.02.2010 and he was released on bail on the same day.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment dated 22.01.2013, convicted the accused for the said offences and sentenced him to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 279-A IPC and three months Rigorous Imprisonment for each counthttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 for the offence under Section 338 IPC.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused filed Crl.A.No.7 of 2013, which was heard by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, who has dismissed the same on 26.07.2013, challenging which, the accused has filed the present revision petition.6. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent - State.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused had driven the offending tractor in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the injuries to Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1] and Kalimuthu [P.W.2].He further contended that Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1] being a volunteer in the police force, he has sustained injuries somewhere and has filed a bogus motor complaint.He further contended that from the nature of the injuries suffered by Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1], it cannot be stated that he was hit by the trailer driven by the accused.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) refuted the contentions.This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.[a] Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1], in his evidence, has stated that he is a P.E.T.Master in Srinivasa School and that he also serves as Traffic Warden during peak hours to regulate traffic; on 21.02.2010, he, along with his friend Kalimuthu [P.W.2], had gone to attend the marriage of their friend in his bike TN-41-V-2637; he was driving the motor cycle and near Kommum Road, a tractor came on the other side of the road and when it swerved to the right, the rod in the tractor hit against his knees resulting in his leg getting split and both being thrown on the ground with their two wheeler; the tractor went about 15 feet away and stopped; on seeing this, the local people gathered and the driver of the tractor ran away; the locals called 108 ambulance and sent both of them to the Government Hospital, Udumalpet for first aid and from there, Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1] was taken to Ganga Hospital in Coimbatore, where the doctors declared that his right leg cannot be rejoined; the next day, the police came to the hospital and recorded his statement; he has also given the number of the tractor, viz., TN-41-2905, both in his evidence as well in the complaint, which formed the basis for registration of the FIR.In the cross-http://www.judis.nic.in 5 examination, he was questioned about the route which he had taken to reach Udumalpet, for which, he has given necessary answers.When he was asked as to whether there was a trailer in the tractor, he stated in the affirmative, however, stated that he did not know what were the goods found inside the trailer.In fact, in the cross-examination, he has stated that since the tractor had come over the road, the hind portion hit them.He also admitted in the cross-examination that his vehicle was not covered by insurance.Ultimately, it was suggested to him that since he being a Traffic Warden, he has managed to lodge a false complaint against the accused and that the alleged vehicle was not involved in the offence.[b] Similar is the evidence of Kalimuthu [P.W.2] who was a pillion rider and he also sustained injuries and was taken to the Government Hospital by ambulance, where he underwent treatment.In his cross-examination, it has been suggested that Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1] had driven the two wheeler very rashly and on account of that, the accident had taken place.Since the vehicle of Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1] was not covered by insurance, a false complaint has been filed against the accused for compensation, which suggestion to Kalimuthu [P.W.2] was denied.The Motor Vehicle Inspector has clearly stated that the accident had not taken place on account of any mechanical failure in the two vehicles.From the evidence of the two doctors, it is apparent that Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1] lost hishttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 leg and he had to be fitted with Jaipur foot and therefore, the injuries suffered by him are grievous in nature.This Court is unable to countenance the submission of the learned counsel of the accused that a false case has been foisted on the accused for the sake of compensation.The fact remains that after the accident, the tractor was found abandoned in the road and based on that, the identity of the accused has been fixed.This has not been denied by the accused.22.11.2018 gmshttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 To 1 The Inspector of Police Komaralingam Police Station Tiruppur District 2 The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur 3 The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet.R.C.No.977 of 2013 22.11.2018http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard on the question of admission.The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.This is an application under Section 389 of CrPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.2 Ratan Singh.The appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 326/149, 147 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 750/- with default imprisonment respectively.It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant No.2 that although his name is mentioned in the FIR but the injured Than Singh (P.W.1) has specifically stated that the appellant No.1 Havaldar Singh and appellant No.2 Ratan Singh had assaulted by means of lathis.The Trial Court by order dated 11.1.2017 had partially allowed the said application and the offence under Sections 323, 34, 506 Part II and 294 of IPC were permitted to be compounded and the appellant was acquitted for the said offences.Since, the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC was not compoundable, therefore, the said application was rejected.Thus, it is submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for a period of approximately 4 months.The application is opposed by the counsel for the State.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to deposit of fine, it is directed that the remaining jail sentence of the appellant No.2 Ratan Singh shall remain suspended and he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.The appellant shall appear before the office of this Court on 30.08.2017 and on subsequent dates given by the Office for appearance till the disposal of the present appeal.Certified copy as per rules.

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged at the instance of the complainant alleging defalcation of approximately Rs. 64 Lacs in the matter of handling certain shares that were entrusted to the petitioner No. 1, who is the Managing Director of Unicon Securities Pvt. Ltd., which is stated to be a company dealing with the trading of shares on behalf of various clients.In other words, the company had been entrusted with shares by the complainant and his wife as their broker/agent.It is stated that the approximate value of the shares of the complainants at the time of the alleged offence was about Rs. 64 Lacs.The said amount is stated to have been paid in full.In addition, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, which he has received during the lunch break today on the telephone, states that his client is also willing to pay a further sum of Rs. 3 Lacs towards costs in the matter.Counsel for the complainant submits that the matter has been amicably settled and that his client has received the aforesaid amount of Rs.64 Lacs in full and final settlement of his claims and also the claims of his wife in the matter.He further states that the complainant has injured his backbone, and is therefore, totally bedridden and has been unable to come to the Court today.This petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 67/2012 registered at Police Station Connaught Place under Sections 409/420/120B IPC, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, allegedly on the ground that the matter has been settled.After investigation, the chargesheet is stated to have been filed on 30.05.2012, and the matter is at a pre-charge stage before the trial court.A CRL.M.C. 3550/2014 Page 1 of 7 copy of the deed of settlement setting down the terms upon which the matter has been resolved between the parties has also been annexed to this petition.Proof of deposit of costs be filed within one week thereafter with the Registry with another copy to the Investigating Officer.CRL.M.C. 3550/2014 Page 6 of 7Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 67/2012 registered at Police Station Connaught Place under Sections 409/420/120B IPC, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition, along with the accompanying application, stands disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

It is directed that the applicant Sitaram, shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The applicant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in the event of breach of condition of bail, the trial Court will be competent to take coercive action against the applicant.C.C. as per rules.Case diary perused.This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.142/2019, registered at Police Station Moondi, District Khandwa, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354-A of IPC and sections 7, 8 of POCSO Act.The allegation of prosecution is that on 17.5.2019 at about 8:00 pm, when prosecutrix, aged about 14 years was going from her old house to new house situated at Ward No.1 village Goundbedi, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Moondi, District Khandwa, applicant had intercepted her and taken her to the house of Ramya Nihal.It is alleged that the maternal Uncle of prosecutrix reached there and on seeing him, the applicant fled from the spot.The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her maternal Uncle Ram Gopal and mother Pramila.Thereafter the report of the incident was lodged.On that basis aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant.The trial will take a long time to conclude.It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned counsel for State has opposed the application for bail.The High Court of Madhya Pradesh M.Cr.C.No.24636/2019 (Sitaram Vs.State of M.P. ) 2 Allegation of taking hold of the hands of prosecutrix is against the applicant.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and duration of his custody, I find this to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.Accordingly, this application is allowed.This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The Petitioners/A-1 and A-2 have focussed the instant Criminal RevisionCase as against the order dated 27.10.2015 in Crl.R.C.No.4 of 2015 passed bythe Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur in reversing the order passed bythe learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur in Crl.M.P.No.8640 of 2014 inC.C.No.836 of 2007 dated 11.02.2015 in dismissing the petition.The Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, while passing theimpugned order on 27.10.2015 in Crl.R.C.No.4 of 2015 filed by therespondent/revision petitioner/complainant, at paragraph No.7, had observedthe following:?This is a case u/s 406 I.P.C. The specific case of the prosecution isthat the accused had misappropriated the Provident Fund and Medical Fund deducted from the salary of the de facto complainant and all these can beproved only through documentary evidence."and consequently, allowed the Criminal Revision Petition, by setting asidethe order dated 11.02.2015, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,Karur in Crl.M.P.No.8640 of 2014 in C.C.No.836 of 2007 and allowed themiscellaneous petition.Earlier, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Karur inCrl.M.P.No.8640 of 2014 in C.C.No.836 of 2007 on 11.02.2015, filed by therespondent/petitioner/complainant, seeking permission to permit the defactocomplainant, P.W.1 to be re-examined and to allow the documents filed alongwith the petition to be marked through him, had dismissed the petition byobserving that ' a reading of Section 311 Cr.P.C shows that it only permitsthe Court to recall the witnesses for the just decision of the case and notfor filing additional documents and opined that filing of documents underSection 311 Cr.P.C was not maintainable' and ultimately dismissed thepetition.Being aggrieved against the order dated 27.10.2015 in Crl.R.C.No.4of 2015 passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, the RevisionPetitioners/A-1 and A-2 have projected the present Revision case before thisCourt primarily contending that the ingredients of Section 311 of Cr.P.C doesnot contemplate the recall of witness for the purpose of marking newdocuments.P.C is not to drag on the proceedings endlessly and in fact, the saidsection does not confer a right to prosecution to harass the RevisionPetitioners/accused by filing petitions.According to the Learned counsel for the Petitioners, the LearnedPrincipal Sessions Judge, Karur, had failed to note that of marking of'Additional Documents' will amount to fresh trial and that the petition inCrl.Lastly, the Learned counsel for the Petitioners projects an argumentthat Crl.The revision petitioners had filed a counter to Crl.Be that as it may, in view of the fact that therespondent/petitioner/complainant had sought for permission of the trialCourt to permit the defacto complainant/P.W.1 to be re-examined and to markthe documents mentioned in the list namely serial Nos.1 to 19 (annexed alongwith the petition) and also this Court, on going through the impugned orderof the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, dated 27.10.2015 in Crl.R.C.No.4 of2015 in allowing the said Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the orderof the trial Court in Crl.Consequently, this Criminal Revision Case fails.Resultantly, the order dated 27.10.2015 in Crl.R.C.No.4 of 2015 passed by theLearned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, in reversing the order dated11.02.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.8640 of 2014, in C.C.No.836 of 2007, passed by theLearned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur is affirmed by this Court, for thereasons assigned in this Criminal Revision Case.It is made clear that thedismissal of the present Criminal Revision Case will not preclude thepetitioners/accused to take all factual and legal pleas before the trialcourt, at the time of marking of documents, of course, in the manner known tolaw and in accordance with law.Consequently, connected M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Karur.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Karur.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Prayer in Crl.The accused is Ex.Another letter namely Ex.P3 dated 07.03.2001 purported to have been sent by the accused in the complaint is also stated to have contained similar defamatory remarks against the complainant school authorities.It is urged by the complainant that these letters contained words of defamatory in nature which would lower the reputation of the school in the eyes of the authorities and the public and that it is an actionable wrong.5 [B] As far as document Ex.Geoffery K.Francis .. Respondent in Crl.A.Nos.840 & 841 of 2004/ Petitioner in Crl.RC Nos.153 & 154 of 2007 Prayer in Crl.A.Nos.840 & 841 of 2004 : Appeal filed under section 378 Cr.P.C., against the order of acquittal dated 14.06.2004 passed in C.C.Nos.9370 of 2001 & 7469 of 2002 by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrates' Court, Egmore, Chennai.For Appellant : Mr.N.D.Bahety For Respondent : Mr.Adrian D. Rozario COMMON JUDGMENT The following are the allegations contained in the complaint laid by the complainant, namely School Association (in C.C.No.7469 of 2002) 1 [A] The complainant is an Association registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and governing body running, managing and administrating the schools and properties of the trust of Doveton Institution at Ritherdon Road, Vepery, Chennai  600 007 and that these schools and institutions are one of the premier, renown, reputed and respected schools and institutions of the City of Chennai and especially in the area of Vepe ry in Chennai, that the accused is the Ex.M.L.A. (nominated) of Tamil Nadu, the President of the Friends-In-Need Society in No.29, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai  600 003, the President-in-Chief of The Anglo-Indian Association of Southern India and alleged Member of the State Board of Anglo Indian Education, Member of the Senate of the Madras University and a Self-styled recognized educationist of 27 years standing, that the accused is in no way connected with the complainant and is also not a member of its Association.1[B] Right from 1997 onwards the accused has, besides others been deliberately defaming the complainant by lodging one complaint after another against the complainant, especially regarding the collection of massive donations, amassing of unaccounted money, misappropriation, corruption of its Board members, various irregularities, etc., that as against these false and fraudulent accusations, the complainant has already filed C.S.No.375 of 2001 in the High Court of Madras for declaration and injunction, and also C.C.No.9370 of 2011 for defamation, etc. on the file of the Learned II Metropolitan Magistrates' Court at Egmore, Chennai, both of which are still pending, that in spite of the pendency of these legal proceedings, the accused has once again defamed the complainant by his letter dt.22.11.2001 written to the Inspector of Anglo-Indian Schools with copies thereof marked to various other statutory authorities and others including the complainant, inter alia once again defamatorily falsely alleging and accusing that the complainant is unauthorisedly collecting funds, compelling students to donate, etc. which even to the knowledge of the accused are totally false, without ay basis or supported by any iota of proof or substance, that this has been resorted to by the accused without any official authority or authorisation whatsoever from any Board or Committee, and also without any locus standi whatsoever, that as a result of this, the accused has been put to gross harm, damage and humiliation thereby per se defamng the complainant and causing damage and disrepute to its fair name and reputation not only with the Government bodies and authorities but also in and with the parents and the public at large, with the MLA and others enquiring into the matter, though finding no basis and substance in the said complaint of the accused, that the accused has for the second time once again committed the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC per se defaming the complainant Section 503 of criminal intimidation and Section 505(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes, etc. and hence, the complaint is filed.Following are the allegations contained in the complaint laid by the complainant, namely School Association (in C.C.No.9370 of 2002) -2[A] Apart from the allegations contained in the complainant laid by the complainant in C.C.No.7469 of 2002, it is also alleged that the complaints have been lodged with the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Director of School Education, the Inspector of Anglo-Indian Schools, the Income Tax Department, the Registrar of Societies to and with the press, public platforms, nominated Anglo-Indian Member of Parliament, nominated Anglo-Indian MLA of Tamil Nadu, etc., though after due inquiry, personal inspection and verification of the records of the complainant, by the orders of the Court, that all these allegations and accusations have been proved to be false, fraudulent, futile and naught.2[B] Considering the fact that the accused was a reputed and honoured representative of the Anglo-Indian community, the complainant had not taken any steps or measures against the accused earlier, other than issuing notices through its Advocate, that bolden by the earlier inaction of the complainant over the said false, frivolous and futile complainants earlier filed, the accused though without any locus standi whatsoever with gross impunity, continuing to defame the complainant falsely accusing it of collecting massive donations, amassing unaccounted money, misappropriation and misapplication of funds and resources, various irregularities, etc. thereby per se defaming the complainant and causing damage and disrepute to its fair name and reputation, that first on 07.11.2000 and then again on 16.11.2000, the Headmaster of the complainant's Boys School had written letters to the mother and natural guardian of Mr.Sheik Wasim a student studying in STD VIA calling upon her to pay the balance of the donation payable towards the admission of the said child, that inadvertent use of the word donation became the cause of a complaint dt.23.1.2001 filed by the Member of Parliament with the Inspector of Anglo-Indian Schools, Chennai who by its letter dt.25.1.2001 called for an explanation from the complainant and to which an explanation dt.29.1.2001 was also given, and where after a personal inspection was also made by the said inspector, who found that no donations had been actually and factually collected by the complainant, that the use of the said word by the Headmaster was only out of inadvertence whereas the balance amount payable was only towards the building fees and not towards donation, that in as much as the fees for Anglo-Indian children is being reimbursed by the Government and in order not to be caught as cheating the Government, the complainant by its letter dt.30.1.2001 called upon Mrs.Louisa Fayaz to submit her marriage certificate and the copy of which was also submitted by her, that the finding from the said marriage certificate that the said Mrs.Louisa Fayaz had actually converted to Islam and had also changed her name to Suraiya Fayaz and had ceased to even be a Christian much less an Anglo-Indian, the complainant by its letter dt.09.02.2001 called upon her to give her explanation thereto as to why her son should not be removed from the rolls of the school for having made a false representation for the sake of getting admission, that the said Louisa Fayaz by her letters dt.05.02.2001 and 06.02.2001 pleaded of her having been misguided by the accused and the Member of Parliament and called upon the Christian charity and benevolence of the complainant for the continuation of the studies of her son in the school, that surprisingly a reply dt.12.2.2001 was received by the complainant from the accused, besides others once again not only interfering with the internal management and affairs of the complainant further defaming the complainant of collecting massive donations, amassing unaccounted money, misappropriation and misapplication of funds and resources, various and numerous irregularities, etc. inspite of the fact that the accused had no locus standi, that to this a reply dt.17.2.2001 was given by the complainant, and to which a rejoinder dt.07.03.2001 was again given by the accused, once again not only per se defaming the complainant of collecting massive donations but also calling and accusing the complainant's advocate as being one who ".... hold the school to ransom through his devious and vicious techniques just to milk the school and to continue to drink the blood of the Anglo-Indian community by applying devious tactics..." and being "a third rate lawyer", that the accused has committed the offence punishable under the IPC Section 500 of per se defaming the complainant, Section 503 of Criminal intimidation and Section 505 (2) statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes, etc. and hence, the complaint is filed.After the complainant's evidence was over, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as regards incriminating materials available against him in complainant's evidence.He denied the complicity to the offences.He did not examine any witness not had he marked any documents.After analysing the evidence on record, the learned II Metropolitan.Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai found the accused not guilty under Sections 505 (2) IPC.As far as the charges against the accused under Sections 503 and 505 (2) IPC are concerned, it is held that there are no materials to show that the accused committed the offences of intimidation and the mischief done by the accused has no value at all and he was acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. As far as the charge against the accused under Section 500 IPC, the accused was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in each of the cases.The accused preferred C.A.Nos.283 and 284 of 2004 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.The learned Appellate Judge, after considering the materials, confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeals.Hence, the accused has preferred the revision in Crl.A.Nos.840 & 841 of 2004 before this court.Since all the matters are interconnected, this common judgment is rendered.The points for consideration which has arisen in this case are -[2] Whether the acquittal of the accused under Section 503 IPC is proper in both complaints ?Point 1 :-5[A] The complainant School is one among the premier, renowned, reputed and respected schools and institutions of the City of Chennai.MLA (nominated) of Tamil Nadu who is also holding the position as the President of The Friends-In-Need Society, Chennai, President-in-Chief of The Anglo-Indian Association of Southern India, Chennai and alleged Member of the State Board of Anglo-Indian Education, Member of the Senate of the Madras University as well.The letter emanated from the accused on 12.02.2001 marked as Ex.P2 in which the accused has questioned the attitude of the School Authority to collect donation / fees from the students which is reportedly not authorised.It is the contention of the complainant that this letter contains defamatory remarks against the school.Hence, it could be easily understood that Ex.P4 postal cover should have contained the original letter of Ex.The appellant also filed affidavit in support of his applications.The xerox copy of Ex.This point is answered as indicated.

['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

P.W. 1, Bibhuti Mahato, is the defacto complainant in the instant case.He is the husband of P.W. 4, the victim.He stated that he was not present at the time of incident.Upon returning he heard the incident.He helped victims to be taken to the hospital in his bullock cart.He also accompanied them.They took the cart first to the police station at Simlapal and thereafter as directed by the police officer to Pubic Health Centre.They reported the incident to the Officer-in-Charge.He stated that S. I. of police went to the village on that day and seized bows and arrows from the house of the appellant no.1, Satish Mahato.He signed on the seizure list.In cross-examination, he stated that there was 'salish' in the village.He could not recollect whether that document was handed over to the Investigating Officer.P. W. 10, Dr. Bikash Chandra Roy, was the Medical Officer who treated the victims at Bankura Medical College.All the patients were admitted in the surgical ward of the hospital.It is about 10 cubits away from his house.P. W. 14, Ajit Kumar Ray, is the Ward Master of Bankura Medical College.He stated that on 4.6.1995, the Investigating Officer seized three arrows from the office of Bankura Medical College under the seizure list.He also stated that he examined the victim, Gitarani Mahato and found the following injuries:1) One arrow injury on the lower part of the left arm through and that the arrow was found to have perforated that portion of the arm of the patient completely.2) An arrow injury in the left buttock size of the injury not noted.The arrow was found penetrated surgical operation had to be found said two places to extricate the arrows.Arrow extracted from the victim was sent to the office of the Ward Master.He also found the following injuries on the victim, Mithila Mahato:According to him, injuries were simple in nature.He stated that the injury no.1 was caused by sharp cutting weapon and might have been caused by the blade of an arrow.P. W. 16, Tarun Ghatak, is the Investigating Officer of the case.He took up investigation of the instant case.He visited the place of occurrence.He did not, however, draw sketch map of the place of occurrence.He recorded the statements of witnesses.He seized incriminating articles including bows, arrows etc. from the house of the accused persons.He collected the injury reports from Simlapal P. H. C. as well as Bankura Medical Centre.He also collected extracted arrows from the office of Bankura Medical Centre Ward Master.Victims narrated that the incident happened for half an hour whereas P. Ws. 3 and 13 it was occurred for 5/7 minutes.It is common knowledge that understanding and appreciation of the time span of an incident varies from person to person.Injured witnesses were not wearing watches and could not be expected to have noticed exactly the time span of their attack.passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Bankura in Session Case No. 7 of October, 1985 (Session Trial No. 3 of January, 1986) convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively, all the sentences to run concurrently.Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that on 01.02.1985 at about 8/9a.m.Snehalata Mahato, P.W. 4, her sister- in-law Gita Rani Mahato, P.W. 5, and mother-in-law Smt. Mithila Mahato, P.W. 6 were transplanting paddy seedlings on a portion of plot no. 100, Kastura Mouza which their family had acquired by purchase.The appellants being armed with bows, arrows, lathis and other weapons attacked them and inflicted serious injuries on each of the three women by shooting arrows and striking lathi blows on them.The incident was reported to the police station by Bibhuti Mahato, P.W. 1, husband of Snehalata Mahato, resulting in registration of first information report being Simlipal P.S. 1/6 dated 01.02.1985 under Section 147/307/149/323/324 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and one Mithila Mahato.Charge sheet was filed against the appellants and Mithila Mahato under the aforesaid sections.The case being a sessions triable one was committed to the Court of Sessions, Bankura and transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Bankura for trial and disposal.Charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 307/149 in respect of the assault upon P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 and under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code respectively for the assault upon P.W. 6 was framed.The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In the course of trial the prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.The defence of the appellants was one of false implication and innocence.It was the specific defence of the appellants that plot no. 100 was under the bargadarship of the appellant, Satish Mahato and the victims had no right to transplant paddy on the said land.In support of such defence, D.W. 1 was examined who exhibited the record of rights in respect of the said plot.In conclusion of trial the learned Trial Judge by judgement and order dated 11.05.1987 convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively, all the sentences to run concurrently.By the self- same judgement the learned Trial Judge acquitted Mithila Mahato.She also submits that the victims had not narrated the names of the appellants before the doctors.She submits that the purported eye witnesses P.Ws 3 and13 could not have been seen to the incident in view of the fact that they were at a far-off distance from the place of occurrence.She further submits that there is confusion as to the time of registration of the first information report as P.W. 1, in his cross-examination, stated that the written complaint was handed over to the police when they had come to the village pursuant to this salish.He along with others had removed the victims to the Simlipal Public Hospital and thereafter Bankura Sammilani Medical College and Hospital.On the way to PHC, they alighted at the police station.Dhirendranath Rana, P.W. 9, scribed the first information report as per his instruction which was lodged at the police station.P.W. 2, Harasundar Satpati, was declared hostile.He however stated that he found that the victims viz. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 were injured by arrows and were lying at the place of occurrence.He could not name the assailants.P.W. 3, Sudhir Kumar Rana, is an eye- witness to the incident.He stated that he saw the incident.While he was returning home, his brother's daughter told him that a number of persons were going towards the field being armed with bows and arrows.Thereafter, the miscreants left the place of occurrence.He also found that bleeding injury on the body of the Mithila but did not find any arrow in her body.He stated that the place was visible from his house.P.W. 4, Snehalata Mahato, is the victim and one of the most vital witnesses of the case.She stated that she was transplanting the paddy in the field.At that time the appellants assembled at the place and started shooting arrows at them.The arrow shot by the appellant no. 1, Satish, struck her in the flesh.P.Ws. 5 and 6 were also struck by arrows.In cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that the arrows came from the side of Bamon para.She stated that there is a village pathway on the West of their house about 40/50 cubits away.She stated Mahantapara was one bigha away from the land where they were working.P.W. 5, Gita Rani Mahato, was also working at the field with Snehalata, P. W. 4 and Mithila, P. W. 6 on the fateful day.They were transplanting paddy.She deposed that the appellants came to the place of occurrence and started shooting arrows at them which penetrated their flesh.Thereafter the appellants ran away.She stated that they were removed to Simlapal Public Health Centre and thereafter to Bankura Medical College.In cross-examination, she stated that between the place of occurrence and the village there are 15/20 big plots of land.There is a 'doba' after those plots near the dwelling house.After the 'doba' there is a village pathway.The house of Sudhir Rana, (P.W.2) and Dhiren Rana (P. W. 9) are situated by the side of their house.She stated that there was a 'salish' in the village over the incident.She was not present at the 'salish' P. W. 6, Mithila Mahato, is another injured victim.She stated that she was hit by arrow as well as by 'lathi' blow.She fell down on the land.She stated that the appellant no.3, Habu, dealt the lathi blow on her.She could only identify Habu.In cross-examination, she stated that land where they were transplanting paddy, Prahlad, Satish and her sons were co- sharers.P. W. 7, Tarapada Mahato, is the husband of Gita Rani Mahato, P. W.He is a post-occurrence witness.He along with P. W. 1 removed the victims to Simlapal P.H.C. in a cart.P. W. 8, Kishori Mahato was tendered for cross-examination.P. W. 9, Dhirendranath Rana, is the scribe of the First Information Report.He has stated that he went to the place of occurrence and found that the victims had been struck by arrows while they were transplanting paddy.He stated that he saw the appellants running away from the place of occurrence with bows and arrows.In cross-examination, he stated that history of assault was noted in the report as clash over a plot of land between two groups of people but he did not note the name of the person who stated it.P. W. 11, Dr. Sanatan Mondal, was the doctor who treated the victims at Simlapal P. H. C. He referred the victims to Bankura Medical College.P. W. 12, Chittaranjan Satpati, was tendered for cross-examination.In cross-examination, he stated that the appellants had disputes with P. W. 1 and P. W. 6 over landed property.P. W. 13, Kamalakanta Mahato, claims to be an eyewitness.He stated that on 1.2.1985 at about 8 to 9 A.M., he was seated by the side of a 'doba' along the village pathway.About four bighas away, victims were transplanting paddy in plot no. 100 of Mouza Kastora.At that time, the appellants being armed with bows, arrows, lathi etc. went to the place of occurrence and started shooting arrows at the victims.As a result, victims, Snehalata and Gita, were struck by arrows.He rushed to the place of occurrence and found the victims were lying there.He was standing by the side of the 'doba'.He proved his signature Ext. 5/1 in the seizure list.P. W. 15, Dr. Satya Ranjan Dey, is the Medical Officer attached to Bankura Medical College.The victims were admitted under him in the Female Surgical Ward of the hospital.He stated as follows :I examined the patient Snehalata Mahato and found that she had the following injury:-1) An arrow inserted in the abdomenal cavity from the left lateral side in the posterior axillary line at tenth inter coastorl space - direction of the arrow having been found to be inward downward and towards the back of the patient.He stated that he operated on Snehalata and extracted the arrow.He filed charge sheet against the accused persons.In cross- examination, he admitted that he did not interrogate the victims or record their statements.D. W. 1, Panchanan Mahato, exhibited the record of rights in respect of Plot no. 100 which was marked as Ext.The evidence of the injured witnesses have been criticised by Ms. Sinha on the score that they were not examined in the course of investigation and deposed for the first time in Court.It appears from the evidence on record particularly the trend of cross-examination, that the defence has not disputed the prosecution case that the victims, namely P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6, had suffered injuries on their persons by arrows as well as assault by hand blunt substance in plot no. 100 of Mouza Kustora on the date and time of occurrence.The defence, however, has strongly disputed the fact that the appellants were not the authors of such injuries.In that regard, Ms. Sinha criticised the evidence of P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6 as unreliable as they had deposed for the first time in court and it has come on record that there was enmity between the families of the victims and that of the appellants over land dispute.She has also argued that P. Ws. 3 and 13, who were in the village at that time, could not have seen the incident from a distance.P. W. 3 was returning to his house which is situated beside the house of P. W. 1 when he heard hue and cry.He saw the appellants going towards the place of occurrence being armed with bows, arrows and lathi etc. Thereafter he saw the appellants shot arrows at the victims and also assault them.It has been argued he could not have seen the incident because there 15/16 plots of agricultural land between the village Mahatopara and the place of occurrence.In cross-examination, P. W. 1 has stated that the place of occurrence was about one bigha away from his house.The house of P. W. 3 is situated besides that of the victims.PW 3 is a most natural witness to the occurrence who saw the incident after noticing that the appellants were proceeding to the paddy field being armed with bows, arrows, lathi, etc. There is nothing on record to establish that he could not have seen the incident from the place where he was standing.He stated that the P.O. was visible from his house.Similarly, P. W. 13 was sitting in the village pathway running opposite the 'Doba' which is situated between the place of occurrence and their village.He has stated that the place of occurrence was about 4/5 bighas from the 'doba' and he witnessed the incident from there.His evidence is unshaken in cross-examination.As the evidence of the injured witnesses have been corroborated by other eyewitnesses namely P. Ws. 3 and 13, I am of the opinion non-examination of the injured witnesses during investigation not to be treated as a fatal flaw in the prosecution case.Ms. Sinha also criticised the evidence of P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6 on the ground that they are clearly inconsistent with one another.She further submitted that P. W. 6 stated that arrows was coming from the side of village Bamonpara and therefore, it is likely that the victims were attacked by the inhabitants of Bamoonpara village.It is their unequivocal evidence that they were transplanting paddy in plot no. 100, Mouza Kustora when the appellants had come in a body armed with bows, arrows and lathi etc. and started shooting arrows at them.P. Ws. 4 and 5 stated that all the appellants were shooting arrows and arrow shot by appellant no. 1, Satish Mahato, hit P. W. 4, Snehalata.P. W. 5, Gitarani, was unable to say arrow shot by whom hit her.She, however, corroborated Snehalata with regard to the fact that all the appellants who were armed and were shooting arrows at them.P. W. 6 is the mother-in-law of P. Ws. 4 and 5 and was aged about 78 years at the time of incident.She narrated only the incident of assault by appellant no.3, Habu, with a lathi on her.In view of the fact that P. W. 6 was an old septuagenarian lady who was suddenly assaulted with a lathi, it is possible that she was unable to narrate the incident in toto.In fact, such lack of clarity in her evidence has a ring of truth about it.It shows that the injured witnesses were not tutorted and narrated the incident to the best of their respective faculties.One must appreciate that the comprehensive capacity of every witness varies particularly having regard to his/her age and the circumstances in which the incident occurred.P. W. 6 being an old lady aged about 77 years who was able to narrate only the incident of assault upon her.She was unable to corroborate P. Ws. 4 and 5 with regard to the assault upon them by the appellants.The variation in her evidence is most natural bearing in mind her ages and diminished comprehensive and recapitulative faculty of P. W. 6 owing to such advanced age.There is also some contradiction regarding the period for which the incident occurred.It is possible that being taken aback by the sudden and brutal attack upon them while they were transplanting paddy, the injured persons who are rural womenfolk felt that the attack persisted for an interminably long period although it may have concluded within a much briefer time span as narrated by the eyewitnesses.Such subjective opinion of the witnesses of the time span of the incident ought not to be taken as a parameter for rejecting the evidence of the injured witnesses, P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6, particularly when the kernel of the incident of assault by arrows and lathi blows upon them by the appellants stands established beyond doubt.Defence suggested that the arrows were shot by inhabitants of Bamonpara was stoutly denied by the appellants.On the other hand, PW 3 stated that the men from Bamonpara assisted them in lifting the injured victims in a cart for transfer to hospital.This squarely millitates against the defence version that the men from Bamonpara had attacked the victims.It is consistent versions of the aforesaid witnesses who had treated the victims that victims had suffered injuries due to shooting of arrows and in respect of Mithila , P. W. 6, due to assault by a hard substance like lathi.Arrows were also extracted from the persons by P. Ws. 4 and 5 and seized in the course of investigation.Accordingly, ocular version of the injured witnesses received corroboration from the medical evidence in the instant case.Coming to the issue of registration of First Information Report, it has been argued that the First Information Report was subsequently lodged when police had come to the place of occurrence after the 'salish'.P. W. 1 had stated that the First Information Report was written by P. W. 9 and was handed over to the Officer-in-Charge at the police station on the way of Simplipal PWC.P. Ws. 7 and 9 have corroborated such version.In course of cross-examination, P. W. 1 however stated that police had come to the village after 'salish' and PW 1 also stated that written complaint was handed over to the police at that time.It was around 9 AM when such complaint was handed over.P. W. 16 stated the complaint was received from P. W. 1 at the police station in the morning around 10-00 A. M. Hence, it is clear the written complaint was handed over to the police around 10 AM at the police station.Version of PW 1 that police received written complaint at village at 9 AM is not probable and must be read in the light of his entire deposition as corroborated by other witnesses.In the light of consistent evidence on record it is evident that the information of the incident was given to the police authorities at 10-00 A. M. while P. Ws. 1, 7 and 9 were carrying the victims in bullock cart towards Simlapal Public Health Centre.Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the First Information Report was lodged at the earliest point of time naming the appellants as assailants in the instant case.It was strenuously argued that the victims did not name their assailants before the doctors at Simlapal P. H. C. or Bankura Medical College.I find from the bed-head ticket of P. W. 4, Snehalata, maintained in ordinary course of business at Bankura Medical College and produced in the course of trial, that the appellant no. 1 Satish, has been named as the person who shot the arrow which struck her.That apart, in the instant case First Information Report was lodged at 10-00 A. M. prior to the victims have admitted at Simlapal P. H. C. In the First Information Report role of the appellants had been clearly delineated.In the light of such fact, the circumstance that the victims did not subsequently name the appellant at the medical centres does not militate against the truthfulness of the prosecution case.Coming to the conviction of the appellants under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the score of assault upon the victim Snehalata, I am of the opinion that the appellants did not attempt to kill her.It has come on evidence that the family members of the appellants as well as the victims are the co-sharers of the plot of land where incident occurred.It was claimed by the appellants that they were 'bargadars' of the land under Prahlad Mahato and record of rights was produced in support of such claim.In this backdrop, it appears that the appellants came to the place of occurrence being variously armed with the intention of assaulting the victims and thereby drive them away from the said plot of land.The appellants did not intend to kill the victims.Nonetheless the injury suffered by P. W. 4, Snehalata, is grievous in nature.It appears that the injury upon the victim, Gitarani Mahato, as has come out on evidence is simple in nature.Accordingly, conviction of the appellants on the score of assault on the victim, Gitarani, P. W. 5, is scaled down to offence punishable under sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Injuring on P. W. 6, Mithila, is also simple in nature and it was caused by lathi alone.On the issue of sentence, I find that the appellant no.1, Satish, has been specifically named by Snehalata as the assailant whose arrow stuck her.The appellant no. 3, Habu, has been identified by PW 6 as to have assaulted her with a lathi blow causing simple injury.With regard to other appellants, there is no clarity in evidence as to whose arrow had hit the victims.However, all the appellants had come in a body and were shooting arrows at the victims.The incident occurred more than two decades ago and the appellants do not have any criminal antecedent.They are also co- sharers of the land and agnates of the victims.Accordingly, I reduce the sentences imposed upon them and direct that appellant no.1 shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more for the offence punishable under section 326 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count for the offences punishable under sections 324/34 and sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively, all sentence to run concurrently.With regard to the appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 I reduce their sentences to rigorous imprisonment for one month to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days more with regard to offence punishable under section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count for the offences punishable under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively, all the sentences to run concurrently.Conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are, accordingly, modified.The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.The bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled and they are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court to serve out the sentence and/or pay the fine as directed, failing which the learned Trial Court shall take appropriate steps for execution of sentence and/or realisation of fine, as aforesaid.I record my appreciation for able assistance rendered by Ms. Sinha, Amicus Curiae, for disposal of the appeal.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) A.R(Court)/PA to J. Bagchi, J.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Niyaz Mohammad is resident of village Miyagaon Karjan, Tq. & Dist.Baroda, Gujarat State.He was driver on Trax Jeep No. GJ-06-AA-4358, belonging to one Vallibhai Musabhai of village Karjan, Tq.On 31.05.2005, he had taken relatives of his master in the Jeep to village Karanja, Dist.It is further prosecution case that thereafter the Jeep was taken to a petrol pump.There a servant was asked to fill the tank and thereafter that person was assaulted.The persons at the petrol pump were compelled to surrender cash amount.They were locked in the cabin.Thereafter, the jeep was taken to another petrol pump and thus in that night said four boys robbed persons at five petrol pumps and robbed cash amounts in all totalling Rs. 1,20,000/-.It is further prosecution case that P.W.4-Ambersing and his son P.W.19-Arjunsing, who are agriculturists having their land at Pachpirwadi, Tal.Gangapur, heard sound of falling something in the well at about 3.00 a.m. on same night.So, both of them went to see what was the matter.In the light of torch, they found one person fallen in the well and begging for help.So, P.W.4-Ambersing and P.W.19-Arjunsing, who were father and son respectively, pulled out that person fallen in the well with the help of rope and stick.He was accused No.1-Pawankumar before the Court.He was injured and therefore he was taken by P.W.4-Ambersing and P.W.19-Arjunsingh to hospital of P.W.5-Dr.Sarla Patni.Accused No.1 told P.W.5-Dr.Sarla Patni that while he was running away on seeing police, he fell in a well and got injured.When P.W.4-Ambersing and P.W.19-Arjunsing had taken out accused No.1, they found few bullets, one mobile phone, and cash of Rs. 1500/- in the pocket of clothes of accused No.1-Pawankumar.When accused No.1 was being treated by P.W.Patni, police came and P.W.19-Arjunsing told about ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: (7) taking accused No.1 to hospital of Dr. Patni.Police arrested accused No.1 at the hospital of Dr. Patni.Police attached the mobile phone, bullets and cash amount, which were found with accused No.1 under panchanama.They arrested him.Niyaz in the identification parade has no much value as it is rightly stated that as admitted by P.W.18-Sk.Niyaz in his cross-examination, he was in jail for 2 to 2 ½ months.Niyaz, P.W.4-Ambersing, P.W.19-Arjunsing and P.W.5-Dr.Sarla Patni has connected accused No. 1 with the crime.However, there are also other eye-witnesses, who have identified all the three accused persons and who have spoken about the robberies committed at the various petrol pumps.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::( 12 )P.W.3-Murlidhar Kadam, examined at Exh.31, stated that he was working as a Manager at Pralhad Auto Petrol Pump, situated at Khultabad, on Aurangabad-Dhule highway.On 01.06.2005 at about 3.00 a.m. he was sleeping.He was accompanied by Ganesh Dalal, Bhagchand Atre and Santosh Wagh, who were his co-employees.On earlier day he had handed over cash collected till 9.00 p.m. to the owner of petrol-pump and thereafter in between 9.00 p.m. to 12.30 a.m., amount of Rs.27,364/- was received.The amount of Rs. 350/- was with Santosh Wagh.It was to be handed over to the owner on the next day.At 3.00 p.m. a white jeep arrived at the petrol pump.There were six persons.One of them alighted for getting diesel.He woke up Dnyaneshwar.Dnyaneshwar woke up P.W.3-Murlidhar.Others from jeep also got down.They assaulted the persons at the petrol pump with kicks and snatched Rs. 350/- from Santosh and threatened P.W.3-In this case there is other corroboration regarding complicity of accused No.1 in the crime.He was working at Sai Petrol Pump at Deogaon Rangari.He stated that on 01.06.2005, he was on duty at night.At Exh. 62, there is statement of P.W.9-Balasaheb Ghadge.He was working as servant at Jai Shriram Petrol Pump at village Verul.He stated that at about 2.30 a.m. one jeep of white colour bearing registration No. GJ-06-AA-4358 came on the petrol pump.Five persons got down from the jeep.This is an appeal preferred by three accused persons who are convicted, in Sessions Case No. 229 of 2006, decided on 10.02.2009, by the Assistant Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad, of offences punishable under Sections 394 read with 34, 397, 342 read with 34, 365 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and under Section 3 (25) of the Arms Act. Each accused/appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for each of offences punishable under Section 394 read with 34 and 397 of the I.P.C. For offence punishable under Section 365 read with 34 of the I.P.C., each of the accused/appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.For ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:19 ::: (3) offence punishable under Section 342 read with 34 of the I.P.C., each of the accused/appellant is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:19 :::(3)500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.For offence punishable under Section 3 of the Arms Act, each of the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.All substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as below :-He reached Karanja on the next day.Thereafter, after leaving the relatives at Karanja, he was to return back and came to Khamgaon at about ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:19 ::: (4) 5.30 p.m. When he was near Khamgaon bus stand, four unknown boys standing on the road, gave signal to stop.Those boys were of age group of 20 - 22 years.They said that they had missed bus and wanted to go to Nasik and requested for lift up to Nasik.So, P.W.18-Sk.Niyaz allowed them to board the Jeep and they travelled for a distance of about 10 kms.At that time one of the boys told him that he wanted to pass water and he should stop the vehicle.Accordingly, the vehicle was stopped.Thereafter, all those four boys alighted from the vehicle and came back after five minutes.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:19 :::Two of them sat on the back side.One sat on the cleaner seat and forth unknown person came near him and told him that he would drive the vehicle and put pistol on the head of P.W.Niyaz were tied with rope and he was kept at the back side of the vehicle.They gave him threats of killing, in-case, he attempted to shout.Then they proceeded in the jeep.It was about 11.30 p.m., when they stopped at a Dhaba.They took dinner in the vehicle itself.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:19 :::Due to continuous running of the vehicle, the engine of the Jeep became hot and the jeep stopped.At that time police jeep came and on seeing the police jeep, the four boys, out of whom three were identified later on as accused Nos. 1 to 3, ran away.Niyaz was in the jeep.Police arrested him.He disclosed the real incident to them.Police took search of the jeep and found one revolver, six cartridges, one mobile phone, one wrist watch, red chilli power, a bag and cash of Rs. 10,550/-.Police attached those articles, recorded statement of P.W.18-Sk.Initially, P.W.18-Niyaz was also arrested as one of the accused persons, but lateron, after being satisfied with his innocence, he was cited as a witness.On that night robberies were committed at five petrol pumps situated at Khultabad, Deogaon Rangari, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:19 ::: (6) Verul, Galle Borgaon and Hatnoor.All the petrol pumps are on Aurangabad - Kannad road.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:19 :::The information given by accused No.1 led to arrest of accused Nos. 2 and 3, who by that time were arrested by Thane Police in another crime.According to police accused Nos. 2 and 3, led police to bank and withdrew cash from bank account and the same was attached as cash from those accused.But, that would not be evidence of commission of crime.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::(7)Immediately after robberies at first and second petrol pumps, police were informed and police had come in search of the persons.On that night appellant No.1 was arrested.Police recorded statements of the persons who were present at the petrol pumps and who were also witnesses to the incident.After arrest of accused Nos. 2 and 3, identification parade was held.Main evidence in this case is of P.W.14-Sangita Sanap, who was then working as Tahsildar and who had held test identification parades.Police had also drawn spot panchanamas.Finally charge-sheet was sent ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: (8) to Court.Three accused were put on trial.In all 24 witnesses were examined.Ultimately, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as aforesaid and as against the same, this appeal is filed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::During evidence the factum of robberies and user of the jeep by the culprits is not seriously challenged.Even during arguments before this Court, it is the identification of the accused as persons involved in the crime that was mainly challenged.It is also argued that the offence punishable under Section 397 of the I.P.C. is individual offence and there is no evidence about the same.Heard Shri N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the appellants and Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for respondent/State.Both have taken me through the entire record.Main evidence is of P.W.18-Sk.He has stated the story disclosed in paras 2 and 3 above.It is not case of the accused/appellants that in any way they were knowing P.W.18-Sk.Niyaz prior to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: (9) the incident or that P.W.18-Sk.Niayz has any reason to depose falsely against them.Niyaz is resident of Gujarat State; whereas appellant No. 1 is resident of Maharajgunj district, (U.P.) and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are resident of Vasai, Dist.Statement of P.W.18-Sk.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::(9)Niyaz was recorded by Special Executive Magistrate, when he was under arrest and that statement is proved by him at Exh.accused with the appellants.He was arrested and was in police custody.Thereafter, he was in jail along with accused/appellants.So, identification by P.W.18-Sk.Police had arrested appellant No.1 - Pawankumar on the next day of the incident.Both were in the police custody.Police arrested accused Nos. 2 and 3 and they were also in custody with him.Niyaz was with all three appellants in jail for about 2 months and thereafter he was exonerated from the crime.So, the identification parade has no value, but this witness has stated that all the three ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 10 ) accused before the Court are same.He did identify accused No.3-Vijay as the person who had given him threat with pistol and who was driving the jeep.Absolutely, there is no reason to disbelieve evidence of P.W.18-Sk.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::He had opportunity to see all the three accused persons, that too for a considerable period in the jeep.Not only that, he was with them even after arrest.So, absolutely, there is nothing in the deposition of this witness, which raises any doubt regarding his evidence.So far as accused No.1 is concerned, there is also evidence of P.W.4-Ambersing and P.W.19-Arjunsingh at Exhs. 34 and 100 respectively.Both of them stated that they had taken accused No.1 out of well.Accused No. 1 was having bullets, mobile phone and cash amount with him.Accused No. 1 was injured.Evidence of P.W.5-Dr.Sarla Patni clearly shows that accused No.1 was also brought to her.He had sustained injury on head due to fall in the well and the patient had disclosed her that police were chasing him and while he was running, he fell into the well.While giving treatment police came to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 11 ) the clinic and took him away.Patni said that she cannot identify the patient to whom she gave treatment and refused to identify accused No.1, may be because she is a lady doctor and does not want to incur wrath of criminal, but P.W.5-Ambersing and P.W.19-Arjunsing have identified accused No.1 as the very person to whom they had taken to P.W.5-Dr.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::Sarla Patni and who was arrested by the police.Finding of bullets with accused No.1 clearly links him with the crime.It is not say of accused No.1, if not in present crime, he was involved in any other crime and so he was running away on seeing police at that night.It may be noted that he is the person who is from Uttar Pradesh and he is taking defence of total denial.It is for him to explain why he ran away on seeing police and what he was doing at Panchpirwadi near house of P.W.5-Ambersing.So, the above said evidence clearly establishes complicity of accused No.1 in the crime.Evidence of P.W.18-Sk.Murlidhar with revolvers in their hands.Three of them had revolvers and remaining had choppers.They compelled Santosh Wagh to open door of the cabin.They snatched keys of drawer from P.W.3-Murlidhar, and took cash therefrom.While going away, they cut off telephone connection and threatened them ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 13 ) that if they shout, they would fire.Then they closed door of the cabin and left confining them in the cabin.They watched the accused going away from the window.Thereafter, P.W.3-Murlidhar lodged complaint with police, which is proved at Exh.32 and it is treated as F.I.R. in this case.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::He was slim with greenish eyes.He was fair by complexion, having height of 5'5", wearing sky blue half shirt and black jean pant.Person with knife was about 45 years, who was also slim.His left eye was bigger.He was wearing lining shirt and blue pant.He was speaking in Hindi.Other three were in white clothes between 25-30 years and fat and dark.Out of them two had revolvers.P.W.3-Murlidhar further stated that he was called in Harsool jail for identification parade on 01.09.2005 i.e. after three months.Accused No.1 was holding revolver at the time of incident and he had given threats to them.He ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 14 ) proved panchanama of identification at Exh.33 and his signature thereon.It is argued before this Court that test identification parade was held after three months and prior to that accused No.1 was shown to him in police stated as admitted in the cross-examination.Police had also brought accused No.1 to the petrol pump.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::His duty hours were from 6.00 p.m. till next day 6.00 a.m. The cash ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 15 ) collected till 12.00 mid night was kept by him in the locker and at about 12.00 mid night he and his colleagues went to sleep near the cabin.At about 2.00 a.m. when he was in the sleep, three persons came to the petrol pump and woke him up.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::There was white Trax Jeep.Said three persons were between 20 - 25 years of age.They told him to fill diesel in the tank.As he was about to become ready, those persons started demanding money and assaulted him.They carried him into the cabin.One of them was holding a small gun.Said persons forcibly took key of the locker from his possession and took the cash.They confined P.W.6-Dnyaneshwar and others in the cabin and latched it from outside and went away.Thereafter, one of them went out through window and opened the cabin.P.W.6-Dnyaneshwar identified accused No.1 as the person who demanded money and assaulted him.He could not identify other two.Absolutely, there is no cross-examination why this witness should be disbelieved.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::Two of them were holding revolver.They gave threats of killing.The owner of the petrol pump was present there, but he was under threat.Due to the threats, he ran on the back side of the pump.After departure of those unknown persons, P.W.9-Balasaheb came back.By that time the owner of the pump was confined in the store room by locking the door.So, he broke glass of the window and the owner came out.The owner disclosed him that said unknown persons by giving threat to him, had taken away cash of Rs. 30,000/- and confined him in the store room.Thereafter, the owner gave intimation to police on mobile phone.10 days after the incident, he was called in Harsool Jail for identification.He identified accused No.2-Radheshyam and accused No.3-Vijay.He also identified them before the Court.It appears that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 17 ) the witness has wrongly stated that identification parade was held after 10 days.He proved signature on the panchanama of identification.In cross-examination he stated that he had not given any description of these persons in his statement, nor he described any clothes on their persons.It was suggested to him that police had shown him to the accused out of the Court and therefore he could identify them, but he denied the same.The fact remains that this person has identified accused Nos. 2 and 3 before police during test identification parade.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::A witness is not expected to remember such minute details as to at what serial number person identified by him was standing.So, that is not reason to disbelieve evidence of the witness.It is also argued that no role of accused Nos. 2 and 3 was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 18 ) stated.It is true that this person has not given details, but he has stated that he had seen the persons with revolvers in their hands and they had given threats, but he had ran away to save himself and later on came back.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::He stated that he was working as a Salesman at Ram Automobile Petrol Pump at village Galle Borgaon.According to him, when he was on duty from 6.00 p.m. on 01.06.2006 to 6.00 a.m. on the next day.At about 2.00 a.m. one Trax Jeep came to the petrol pump.One person got down and came to him.Four other persons from jeep also got down and followed him.They showed him revolver and asked him to give cash.He was frightened and gave Rs. 4750/-.Thereafter, these unknown persons carried him and his colleague Shivaji in the cabin.They demanded key of the cabin to Balu, who gave it and thereafter they took cash amount from cabin and confined the persons working at petrol pump in the cabin, locked the door and went away.After they went away, P.W.12-Vishnu gave telephone message to police, so also to the owner.On 01.09.2005, he was called at Harsool Jail, where Executive Magistrate arranged identification parade.He identified ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 19 ) accused No.1-Pawankumar.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::In cross-examination P.W.12-Vishnu admitted that after revolver was pointed on his head, he was frightened and as he was frightened he had not properly observed faces of the culprits and their wearing clothes.At Exh.75 there is statement of one Balu Aher.He was working as a Salesman at the petrol pump at Galle Borgaon along with P.W.12-Vishnu.He also stated same story.He stated that he and other persons on the petrol pump were given threats at the point of pistol and cash amount was robbed from them.Amount of Rs. 4750/- was taken from Shivaji & Vishnu and remaining amount was taken from cabin.He signed on both panchanamas.He stated in his statement before police that he had not given description of thieves.He also stated that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 20 ) he learnt about police having arrested one thief.Police had shown photograph of the accused, may be to ascertain whether it was the same person.It is argued before him that it is not stated which of the appellant had possessed pistol and who assaulted him with iron bar.It may be noted that this witness had sustained injury on his leg due to assault with iron bar and the doctor has proved the injury on his leg.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::So, he was the man who had better opportunity to identify the person and merely because photograph of one of the accused was shown to him by police, that is no reason for disbelieving identification by him.Then there is evidence of P.W.15-Rajaram Bodkhe.He stated that he was running petrol pump by name Jay Shri Ram Petrol Pump at village Verul.P.W.9-Balasaheb Ghadge was working with him as servant.He stated that at about 2.30 a.m. he was sleeping.He heard shouts.He woke up and saw three unknown persons demanding money to his son Vilas by showing pistol.One of those persons rushed to him and showed him revolver.They took key from his son, opened cupboard and took cash of Rs. 30,331/-.Thereafter, those persons went away with cash.After hearing noise, his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 21 ) servant P.W.13-Balu, who had ran away, came back and broke glass of window and took them out.This witness stated that on 27.07.2005, he identified accused No.3-Vijay.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::Identification parade panchanama is at Exh.68, which bears his signature.In cross-examination, he said that he had not given description of the thieves and their clothes.Mukund Dabhade is another panch of test identification parade, in whose presence panchanama Exh. 70 to 72 were made.All these witnesses have stated about holding of test identification parade.The learned advocate for the appellants has argued that the provisions of Criminal Manual regarding test ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 22 ) identification parade were not followed.But in the cross-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::In-fact, there was no cross-examination on the point of various measures which are required to be taken for test identification parade and whether those precautions were taken or not.So, the argument that guidelines were not followed or precautions were not taken has no value.It is not expected that in examination-in-chief, witness should tell every minute detail.It is also duty of the cross-examiner to show if there is any infirmity and bring it on record.In this case there is evidence of four police officers, who have performed various parts of investigation.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has discussed the entire evidence in detail and I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to bring home guilt.There is sufficient evidence to prove involvement of each of the three accused.The learned advocate for the appellant cited cases of Karan alias Baasha Shyam Pawar V/s.State of Maharashtra, 2007 CRI.L.J.2573, Vilas Vasantrao Patil V/s.The State of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 23 ) Maharashtra, 1996 CRI.L.J.1854, Suresh Jaikumar Samuel Godavari and anr.V/s.State of Maharashtra, 2005 CRI.L.J.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::2506, Yeshwant and ors.V/s.The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 S.C. 337, Pralhad Singh V/s.State of M.P., AIR 1997 S.C. 3442 and Manik Shankarrao Dhotre and ors.It may be noted that the witnesses examined in this case had sufficient opportunity to identify the culprits, though some of them may not have described the features or clothes of culprits in their statements.It is not case of anyone that accused had put on any masks or covered their faces or that there was no sufficient light at the petrol pumps.The witnesses examined were working on different petrol pumps.They were not knowing the accused prior to the incident.There was no question of any enmity.There was no reason for any of them to falsely involve the accused.There is no sufficient reason to disbelieve these witnesses when they identified the accused persons.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::In this case though revolver/pistol was not fired or other weapon was not used for causing hurt, but threats with revolvers/pistols were given.It has come in evidence that all the accused were armed and threats were given by them to various witnesses as discussed earlier.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is hereby confirmed.[P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/NOV09/crap214.09 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The prosecution's case in short is that on 20.1.2003 at about 9.00 a.m one Mihilal Thakur (PW10) had lodged an FIR at Police Station Damoh Dehat that two days prior to the date of FIR a quarrel took place between the sister of Delan and Batu son of the complainant Mihilal and therefore, on 20.1.2003 at about 7.30 when Batu went to a grocery shop at Village Marutal 2 Tek (Police Station Damoh Dehat, District Damoh) the appellant and his companions surrounded him and assaulted him with axe and stick.After lodging of the FIR, Dr. Y. P. Patel (PW1) examined the victim Mihilal and gave his report Ex.An incised wound was found on his left leg.Dr. Patel had also examined the victim Batu and gave his report Ex.He found that he sustained a lacerated wound of left jaw and 2-3 other wounds were found at nose, forehead and upper lip.He was referred to a dental surgeon and it was found that two teeth of Batu were broken.(Delivered on the 30th day of November, 2015)The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 30.1.2015 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in ST.No.200/2003 whereby, the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and 324 of I.P.C and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-.After due investigation the charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to First Additional Judge, Damoh.The appellant abjured his guilt.He did not take any specific plea, but has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter.The Additional Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution's evidence acquitted the appellant from the charges of offence of Sections 506 (Part II), 294 and 341 of I.P.C. However, he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.However, Jirabai (PW7), Mihilal (PW10) and Batu Singh (PW14) have stated against the appellant.They have stated that when quarrel started the appellant Delan assaulted with an axe on 3 nose of Batu Singh and thereafter, Ramal Singh assaulted by a sword due to that his jaw was broken and lip was also cut.It was also stated that the appellant Delan also assaulted Mihilal with an axe on left leg.Looking to the overt act where he was not author of the grave injury caused to the victim Batu Singh, he is convicted with the help of section 34 of I.P.C. He was the first offender and the quarrel was started in a spur of moment.Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence for the period for which he remained in the custody.Since he is a poor person and unable to deposit 4 any fine amount and then if fine continues, he will undergo for default sentence unnecessarily.After considering the aforesaid discussion the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed.Copy of the judgment be sent to the Court below along with its record for information and compliance.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 30.11.2015 bina

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

sh None for the complainant.ad Per contra, the counsel for the respondent/State opposed the appeal.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Abhi Digitally signed by ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Date: 2018.04.13 18:44:11 +05'30'

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard on I.A.No.2108/2014, an application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304II of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and under Section 353 of IPC, sentenced to undergo 2 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/-.

['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

2 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr. A. 198/01It is not disputed that Rajni Saxena was married to appellant Manoj Shrivastava in June 1987 and respondents Ramkishan and Sharda Devi are the parents of the appellant Manoj Shrivastava.The facts transpired before the learned Trial Court are that on 10.9.1991 an information was sent by the District Hospital, Bhind to the Police Chowki of the District Hospital that Smt. Rajni Saxena wife of Manoj Shrivastava aged about 24 years, resident of Jain Mandir, Bhind has been brought dead to the Hospital.Merg No. 36/91 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Dead body was sent for postmortem.Viscera received by police was sent for chemical examination.During investigation, it was found that on 30.6.1987 marriage of Rajni Saxena was performed with accused Manoj Shrivastava.The accused Manoj Shrivastava was demanding scooter from the father of the deceased Rajni since the time of marriage.As the demand was not fulfilled, accused Manoj, his father and mother were harassing Rajni and she was subjected to cruelty.They have threatened her that she will be divorced, if the demand is not fulfilled.Despite the fact that several persons tried to resolve but the accused persons did not pay any heed.The original letters were not produced.The expert, who examined the letters and viscera were not examined.That original document is admissible in evidence.(01/10/2014) Per S.K. Palo, J.Criminal Appeal No. 198/2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 119/2002 have arisen out of the same judgment dated 30th March, 2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T. No. 13/92, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted appellant Manoj under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC.At the same time acquitted the accused Ramkishan and Sharda Devi on the same charges.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, appellant, Manoj has filed appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C assailing and requesting for setting aside the judgment.Whereas, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed 2 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr.A. 198/01 Criminal Appeal No. 119/2002 under Section 378 of Cr.Then, father of the deceased was sent a message about her death.Police City Kotwali, Bhind registered a case under Sections 498-A 3 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr. A. 198/01 and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC.After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed against accused persons.3 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr. A. 198/01Charges framed and explained to the accused persons under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC.Accused persons abjured guilt.In their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C they contended that they have been falsely implicated.Accused / appellant, Manoj claimed that the deceased Rajni Saxena died due to illness and on that day he was not at home.They claimed that, father of the deceased Ramprakash claimed the expenses borne by him, at the time marriage, from the accused persons.When this demand was not met, he lodged the report on false ground.The learned Trial Court after adducing the evidence, pronounced the impugned judgment, acquitted the respondents Ramkishan and Sharda Devi and convicted appellant, Manoj Shrivastava under Section 498-A and 304- B of IPC.He is sentenced 7 years RI under Section 304-B IPC and under Section 498-A, he has been sentenced to undergo two years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-.In lieu of fine, he has to undergo RI for another period of six months.Appellant, Manoj has assailed the judgment on the grounds that the impugned judgment is not in accordance with law.The evidence has not been evaluated and analyzed properly.There was no demand of dowry.The deceased Rajni Saxena and the appellant had gone to her parent's place to attend marriage of her younger brother Rajiv they stayed there 10 to 15 days.No such demand 4 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr.A. 198/01 was ever made by him.4 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr. A. 198/01In Criminal Appeal No. 119/2002, just contrary to the above.Before the document can be allowed to be led, as secondary evidence, two things have to satisfy-A No.119/02 and Cr.There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned.9 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr. A. 198/01

['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 2 of 19Accordingly, a raiding team was constituted and at the instance of the informer, the premises at Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi was raided.He further disclosed that one Bijender Chikara would be sending the answer key of morning shift examination through SMS.Thereafter, a SMS was received from the mobile of Bijender Chikara containing e-mail and password of the same.Another SMS from mobile No.9310441200 was received by Ajeet son of Devi Singh having email and password in respect of another key.The said mails were accessed on the laptop available in the room and the question paper uploaded on the email was printed out.The attachment consisted of 27 papers having code Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 3 of 19 011kpo-Part-A on front page containing 200 multiple questions.The said question papers were counter checked and verified from Examination Centre at Govt. Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, Sector 11, Rohini and the same question paper was found which was circulated to the candidates.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 3 of 19The prosecution has taken the printout of the question papers from the printer installed at the spot.Mobile phones, two laptops and one printer of Canon alongwith slips containing names of candidates, etc. were also seized.Thereafter the case was registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi vide FIR No. 73/2013 under Section 120- B read with Sections 408, 420, 468, 471, 201, 511, 34 of IPC and Section 66 of I.T. Act. Nine persons found at the spot were arrested, when they were in the process of receiving question paper and answer keys for solving the paper.Subsequently, specific recoveries were affected from all the nine accused persons.Ashu Sharma, one of the arrested person disclosed about Bijender Chikara working as LDC in MCD Office at Sector 5, Rohini, who can arrange question paper of SSC Combined Graduate level examination to be held on 21.04.2013 for both the shifts and the same can be sent through email at the cost of Rs.3.5 lac.During investigation, it was revealed that Ajit was assigned to manage a place for execution of conspiracy and his friend Sushil was to arrange one house on rent.Ravinder was sent to Sushil for taking house on rent.Thereafter, the rent agreement was executed and all the Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 4 of 19 accused persons assembled at the rented accommodation in Pooth Kalan, Delhi.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 4 of 19The origin of the paper leak has to be ascertained from the accused.The examination centre, out of the various centres in Delhi, NCR, from where the paper was leaked has to be ascertained and identified.The involvement of the large number of students in the racket who have benefited from the leakage is also to be identified and ascertained at the instance of the accused/respondent.Electronic gadgets of the accused including cell phone, data cards or laptops, computer used etc., are to be recovered which are of utmost evidentiary value.P.S.TEJI, J.The aforesaid four petitions have been preferred by the State primarily for the purpose of cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the accused - Sushil Kumar, Ashish Kumar and Pawan Kumar vide order dated 06.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi.However, petitioner - Vikram Dahiya has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.11.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi.Since the cause of action as well as facts of all the aforesaid four petitions are same and the accused persons have been granted Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 2 of 19 anticipatory bail on the ground of parity with the main accused, who has already been granted bail in the present case, therefore the same were heard together and are being disposed of together.During investigation, it was revealed that the URL logs, as provided by the franchisee Gaurav Bhardwaj were logged into the Gmail accounts at the time of uploading the SSC CGL 2013 question paper by the persons named - Pawan Kumar, Ashish Kumar, Sarvesh Saroha and Ashok Arya.During investigation, it was also revealed that the internet connection of world Phone Internet Connection was being used at his shop for customer complaints and subsequently used by Ashish Kumar, Pawan Kumar and their relative Vikram Dahiya on weekends.The said fact was confirmed on the basis of the frequent cell phone conversation which took place amongst them as detailed in the call detail records of the said accused.The suspect/accused in conspiracy with Vikram Dahiya had facilitated his premises and his internet connection knowingly as to circulate the leaked SSC CGL 2013 question paper for monetary gains.During further investigation, disclosure statement of accused Bijender Chikara, analysis of mobile phone call detail records of arrested accused and Vikram Dahiya, Sushil Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Ashish Kumar (respondents herein) were found to be having direct nexus in conspiracy.While arguing the present petitions, Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State contended that the offences are not only serious but are targeted towards causing loss to Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 5 of 19 the public at large as the case relates to the leakage of question paper of Combined Graduate Level Examination 2013, illegal solving of the paper and then supplying the answers through answer keys, to the candidates appearing in the exam.It is further contended that none of the accused have direct relation to exam governing agency i.e. SSC, still the question paper and respective keys came in hands of the accused persons and there is every possibility of such leak with different examination centres where the question papers were supplied by SSC.It is further submitted that the question paper was leaked only after the question paper reached the examination centres and before the actual time of the start of the examination i.e. about 1.5 hours before the examination.Therefore, there is every possibility of involvement of school authorities and their officials, i.e. Principals, teachers, etc. in the said offence.It is further contended that the conspiracy is hatched by a group of several persons divided into several groups acting as an organized gang for the said purpose.Some of them procured the question paper, some arranged the prospective competitors, and some arranged their meeting and some solved the question paper.The racket was well organised in the way that they had even obtained mobile phones on fake and fictious identities.The chain of circumstances in between are turning and are woven in such a manner that tampering at any stage will make the efforts to unearth the conspiracy, almost impossible.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 5 of 19Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further contended that till the time of granting the bail by the learned Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 6 of 19 Additional Sessions Judge, the respondents/accused persons were absconding and non-bailable warrants were also issued qua their arrest but it was not taken into consideration by the concerned Court.Apprehension of respondents in manipulating and tampering with the crucial and sensitive evidence has been raised, and it has been submitted that the respondents were members of a well organized racket involved in leakage of question paper, therefore, they are not entitled to have the benefit of anticipatory bail.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 6 of 19Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further drew attention of this Court to the impugned order in which the respondents were granted anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.In this regard, it is contended that the co-accused persons in the case were not granted anticipatory bail and rather they were given regular bail after remaining in custody for more than 60 days and that too, after filing of the initial charge sheet wherein the factum of the respondents absconding was clearly mentioned which resulted in issuance of NBWs against the respondents by the Court.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further contended that one of the co-accused namely Vikram Dahiya having been denied anticipatory bail by the District Court had approached this Court for bail, but the same was also denied vide order dated 23.07.2013 passed in Bail Appl.No.1260/2013, wherein this Court had directed the accused to surrender before the concerned Court.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 7 of 19 contended that the custodial interrogation of the respondents is necessary for providing the following vital and important information:-M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 7 of 19The call detail records (CDR logs) have to be confronted with the accused for further identification of the person involved in the conspiracy.The IP logs also are required to be confronted with the accused.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 8 of 19Hide outs of the co-accused at Jind, Gannaur, Sonepat and other places are to be visited with the accused in custody.The sustained interrogation of the accused/ respondent is required to be conducted which is necessary to unearth and expose the entire conspiracy behind the racket of leaking the concerned question paper.It has specifically been mentioned in the order of learned Additional Session Judge that the respondent shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall report to the Investigating Officer on every Saturday of English Calendar month.It is contended on behalf of respondent - Sushil Kumar that in view of the directions of learned Additional Session Judge, the respondent remained present at the office of the Investigating Officer on 10th August 2013 from 9AM to 7 PM, but no one in the office entertained the respondent.In this regard, the respondent had sent a written communication regarding his physical Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 9 of 19 presence to the Investigating Officer through courier on the same day.It is further contended that the respondent remained physically present at the office of Investigating Officer on 17.8.2013 from 11 AM to 6 PM but he was not entertained and the written communication about his physical presence was conveyed to the Investigating Officer through courier on the same day.Similar was the position on 24th August 2013, when the respondent remained present in the office of Investigating Officer from 10 am to 5.30 pm.Respondent again visited the office of Investigating Officer on 3rd September 2013, 7th September 2013 and 14th September 2013, but he was not entertained.Counsel for the respondent further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram & Others v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) CC Cases 66 (SC) in support of his submissions and submitted that the bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of the bail during trial.Counsel for the respondent further contended that there is no averment in the petition filed by the State that the respondent has not joined investigation and did not cooperate with the Investigating Officer; or has mentioned that the respondent had tampered with evidence or pressurised or intimidated any witnesses or that the bail order had been obtained fraudulently, therefore, the petition filed by the State deserves to be outrightly dismissal.Counsel for the respondent further contended that the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent cannot be cancelled as the State failed to make out a Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 10 of 19 case for interference in the order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge under Section 438 of Cr.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 9 of 19M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 10 of 19M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 11 of 19 respondent did not appear before the Investigating Officer in compliance of the directions passed by learned Additional Session Judge, rather it was the Investigating Officer who was not interested in investigation from the respondent and the interest of the State seems to be to somehow take the respondent into custody and to harass him and to ruin his entire life and for such ill motivated and malafide intentions, the petitioner is legally prohibited from seeking cancellation of bail of the respondent.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 11 of 19While arguing the case of the respondents - Ashish Kumar and Pawan Kumar, Mr. V. Madhokar, counsel for the respondents contended that in compliance of the directions given by learned Additional Session Judge, the respondents alongwith his surety and advocate visited the office of ACP, Crime Branch, Sector 16, Rohini on 10.08.2013, 17.08.2013 and 24.08.2013 and showed the order of learned Additional Session Judge to mark his presence and allow them to join the investigation, but they were not allowed to join the investigation and they were not even allowed to mark their presence.In support of his contention, counsel for the respondents relied upon the video clipping to show that the respondents had visited the office of the ACP, Crime Branch.Thereafter, the respondents reported the matter of Commissioner of Police and had also apprised the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi as well as to Sessions Court.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 12 of 19Counsel for the respondents further contended that it is not the seriousness/gravity of the offence only which is to be looked into by the learned Session Judge while entertaining the bail application but the specific role and the involvement of the accused is also to be considered and which the learned Additional Session Judge has rightly looked into and there is no infirmity in the order granting bail to the respondents.Counsel for the respondents further contended that mere issuance of NBWs or filing of charge sheet is no ground to refuse anticipatory bail to the accused.In support of his contention, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naturasu and other vs. The State, 1988 CriLJ 1762 and Bharat Choudhary and Anr vs. State of Bihar and Anr, AIR 2003 SC 4662 were relied upon by counsel for the respondents.Counsel for the respondents - Ashish Kumar and Pawan Kumar further contended that the prosecution has given clean chits to the other two accused namely Ashok Arya and Sarvesh Saroha against whom there are almost similar allegations and the prosecution is bent upon to send the respondents in jail.The prosecution has already raided the shop and seized the modem and the computer of the Institute, therefore there is no need of any custodial interrogation to make any recoveries from the respondents.The respondents were granted bail Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 13 of 19 on parity with the accused who were already granted bail in the case.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 13 of 19On behalf of respondent- Vikram Dahiya, Mr. K.K. Manan, Senior Advocate, apart from the legal principles settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, contended that the order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent does not call for interference as in compliance thereof, the respondent alongwith his surety and advocate visited the ACP Office, Crime Branch, Sunlight Colony Police Station on 23.11.2013 and the respondent was subjected to sustained and prolonged interrogation by a team consisting of ACP Raja Ram Yadav, Inspector Pawan Kumar, Inspector Surajbhan, one cyber expert and two other officials.The interrogation was conducted in writing and the replies were also given in writing and to a question whether respondent is ready for narco test, it was replied that since he is undergoing treatment for brain tumour, therefore he will consult his doctor.Thereafter the police official left the space blank and obtained the signature of the respondent on the statement.The mobile phone of the respondent was also thoroughly examined by the expert .It is further contended that during the prolonged and sustained interrogation nothing incriminating was Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 14 of 19 found against the respondent.The learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - Vikram Dahiya contended that apart from the ground of parity the other main ground of the bail application of the respondent was that no offence under Section 420/468/671/34 of IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act are made out against the respondent even if the case of the prosecution is accepted as its face value and the State has failed to satisfy the learned Additional Session Judge that the offences are made out against the respondent.It is contended on behalf of respondent - Vikram Dahiya that the impugned order is not against proprietary and the learned Additional Session Judge has rightly interpreted and followed the order dated 01.11.2013 passed by this Hon'ble Court.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 14 of 19I have heard the contentions raised by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the respective counsel representing the case of the respondents.I have also gone through the impugned order passed by learned Additional Session Judge and also perused the documents placed on record.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 15 of 19The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Basit Vs.Abdul Kadir Choudhary, (2014)10SCC754 held as under:-Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive.This Court observes that there is specific averment on behalf of the respondents in their replies to the present petitions that they had approached the Investigating Officer for performing their part of Crl.This Court is of the opinion that at best, the investigating officer should have started the investigation and during investigation, if he would have found any clue of respondents hiding any material information or found some concrete reason for not cooperating the investigation, then it was open for the Investigating Officer to approach the Court passing the order of anticipatory bail in favour of the respondents, for cancellation of the impugned order.The real position is that the State has preferred to take steps to file petition for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents, rather than to comply with the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge.In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion and in the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge.Finding no merit in the present petitions filed by the Crl.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 22, 2016 pkb Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 19 of 19

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

23.12.13 Item No. 11 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 11And In the matter of: Arindam Roy.The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Ashish Dey For the Petitioner Mr. Pabitra Talukdar For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Ashoknagar Police Station Case No. 468 of 2013 dated 25.08.2013 under Sections 498(A)/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has applied for anticipatory bail.Pursuant to the leave granted by us on 17.12.2013 the Petitioner has paid an ad hoc of `20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) to the complainant.This amount has been paid without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to receive any further amount in any proceeding that she may file and the amount is not to be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded in any proceeding.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J)

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The second respondent is present in person.The petitioners as well as respondent No.2 are also identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Uma Dutt.It is stated that aforesaid FIR came to be filed by the complainant / respondent No.2 as a result of certain matrimonial and domestic differences Crl.A son was also born to the parties.A copy of the said order is annexed to this petition.M.A. No.15054/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.This application is disposed off.This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.689/2013 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC at police station Mangol Puri on 09.11.2013; on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.Issue notice.Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, enters appearance and accepts notice.M.C. No.4389/2014 Page 6 of 7I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus since the parties have reconciled their differences on terms, and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the investigation.Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.689/2013 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC at police station Mangol Puri, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 dr Crl.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

[Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.] The petitioner Mrs.Surumi/wife of the detenu namely Sathik Batcha, S/o.Mohamed Hanif, aged about 35 years has come to this Court with this Habeas Corpus Petition, challenging the correctness of the impugned detention order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the second respondent/District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, branding the petitioner's husband as 'Goonda'.2.A perusal of the Grounds of Detention dated 25.07.2019, passed by the 2nd respondent herein, would disclose among other things that the detenu, viz., Sathik Batcha came to the adverse notice in the following two cases:-Karaikal Town Police Station Cr.U/s 419, 420, 120-B of I.P.C and 166 of 2015 Section 66C, 66-D of IT Act, 2000Mambalam R1 Police Station 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, Cr.No.301/2018 448, 427, 380 and 506(ii) of I.P.C It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu was involved in a case for the commission of offences under Sections 294(b), 307, 506(ii) I.P.C and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, r/w 26(2) of Arms Act, 1959 in Kumbakonam Police Station Crime No.187 of 2019 (ground case).The detenu was arrested on 07.07.2019 and produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kumbakonam.The detaining authority on being satisfied with the materials placed by the sponsoring authority that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, clamped the order of detention and making a challenge to the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner.3.We have heard Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to page No.83 of the booklet and would submit that after the arrest of the accused in ground case in Crime No.187 of 2019, the arrest intimation was not communicated to the family members of the detenu and though the arrest intimation was said to have been sent to the mobile No. 9003169990 through SMS, the person to whom the message was sent to the said mobile number has not been identified and the signature of the concerned person has also not been obtained and in the light of the non- communication of the arrest intimation, the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR (1997) SC 610 [D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal] is violated and as such, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.5.In support of his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on an unreported order of this Court dated 07.06.2019 made in H.C.P.(MD) No.26 of 2019 in the matter of Natarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Principal Secretary to Government and two others, in which one of us (B.PUGALENDHI, J) was a party.Accordingly, on this sole ground, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 detention order is liable to fall.9.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed by setting aside the Order of Detention passed by the second respondent herein, namely, the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District in P.D.O.No.

['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

2.The facts in brief are that on March 19, 1973 being theHoli day, the appellant and one Rajan Mani went to the shopof the deceased bearing No. 1259/A/B situated at BalbirNagar, Shahdara, New Delhi and requested him to close thetea shop which he was vending and asked him to take part inplaying Holi.Thereon the deceased refused to accede totheir request.Thereafter, in a huff the appellant andRajan Mani went away with a dire threat to the deceased andhis father, Ved Prakash, PW-1, who remonstrated against thethreat.The appellant was charged for the offenceof murder ofSudhir on March 19, 1973 at 12 noon.The trial courtacquitted him of the charge, but on appeal the High Courtreversed the acquittal and convicted him under Section 302IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.One hour thereafter the appellant came holding agupti (sharp edged weapon) in his right hand to the shop bywhich time the deceased was closing the shop.Rajan Manitook the deceased in his arms and held him back.Theappellant inflicted a fatal blow near the neck and also gaveother minor injuries.PW 1 and PW 3 have seen theoccurrence.The deceased was made to walk for a distance of2530 feet and thereafter he fell down at the house of PW 4.Then he was taken to the hospital.PW 12, thedoctor, conducted the autopsy and found that there were asmany as nine injuries and injury No. 2 was found to be fatalwhich in the opinion of the doctor was sufficient to causedeath in the ordinary course of nature.PW 1 is the fatherof the deceased.PW 3 is another independent witness, whohappened to come over to the area to his sister's house toplay Holi.3.The trial court disbelieved the evidence of PW 3 on theground that PW 1 did not disclose the name of the PW 3either in his initial statement under Section 161 or in hissupplementary statement.The name of PW 3 was also notdisclosed in the FIR.The statement under Section 164 ofCrPC was got recorded.As a result, his evidence wassuspect.The evidence of PW 1 was also disbelieved.TheHigh Court considered the evidence afresh and found that PW3 is an independent witness.PW 1 being the father of thedeceased is not464interested to exclude the real offender and implicate aninnocent person as the assailant of his son and that,therefore, their evidence was found acceptable.The HighCourt accordingly convicted the appellant and confirmed theacquittal of the co-accused, Rajan Mani.4.Shri Das Bahl, learned counsel for the appellant hasreiterated the contentions which were found acceptable tothe trial court, but on consideration of the evidence wefind no justifiable reason to differ from the High Court.It is seen that in the cross-examination of PW 3 he hasgraphically explained the attack mounted by the appellant onthe deceased, but for the fact that he was an eyewitness, itwould be difficult to give such a graphic description of thehappening of the occurrence.Absolutely PW 3 has no axe togrind against the appellant.No material contradictionshave been brought out to doubt his veracity except statingthat he was speaking falsely.PW 3 being an independentwitness, his evidence cannot become suspect merely becausethe statement under Section 164 CrPC was got recorded by thepolice.Perhaps with a view to see that he cannot be gainedover, the police in its usual precaution has got thestatement of PW 3 recorded under Section 164 CrPC.It mightbe that there is an attempt to pressurise PW 3 by gettingthe statement under Section 164 and the prosecutionattempted to pin him down to the statement given to them.But that ground should be taken as a caution to scrutinisethe evidence of PW 3 and subject it to critical examination.We have carefully scanned his evidence keeping these factorsin view and we find that absolutely there are no compellingreasons to differ from the assessment of the evidence by theHigh Court to disbelieve his evidence.That apart, we havethe evidence of PW 1, Ved Prakash, father of the deceased,which is sufficient to hold that the appellant alone hasinflicted the injury which resulted in the death of Sudhir.It is not disputed that PW 1 was present at the time whenthe shop was being closed.Even at the first instance also,the father was present when the threat was administered bythe appellant to the father himself, when he remonstratedagainst the obstruction to his son continuing the teabusiness in his shop.5.On a totality of the facts and the circumstances, weare satisfied that the evidence of PW 1 and PW 3 inspiresconfidence to be acceptable.Accordingly, we accept theirevidence.We have seen the evidence.7.We have seen the nature of the injuries and also thetime gap between the time ofinfliction of the injury tillthe date of death which was two days after the injurywasinflicted.We have no sufficient material as to the natureof the treatment given to the deceased during those twodays.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Criminal law was set into motion when at around 01.05 A.M. on 19.10.2006, an entry was made in the PCR Form Ex.PW-19/A by HC Jai Kumar PW-19 to the effect that a call has D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 3 of 130 been received from the mobile number 9811042809 informing that children have been murdered by the servants at 6/4, Singh Sabha Road.HC Jai Kumar immediately transmitted the aforesaid information to Police Station Roop Nagar where HC Pawan Kumar PW-20, recorded the DD No.3A, Ex.PW-20/A, to the effect that a wireless information has been received informing that servants had murdered children at 6/4, Singh Sabha Road, Roop Nagar.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 3 of 130On receiving a copy of the afore-noted DD entry, SI Dharampal PW-40, accompanied by Const.Tejpal PW-25, proceeded to the building bearing Municipal No.6/4, Singh Sabha Road, Roop Nagar, Delhi.Simultaneously, Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, who also received the information recorded in DD No.3A, reached the said building.On reaching the said building, the aforesaid police officers learnt that three children of Mr.Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10 and Nirmal Aggarwal PW-23, who are residing at the second floor of the said building, have been injured and removed to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital.The children who were injured were a boy named Pratham (herein after referred to as the "Deceased") aged 4 years, a girl named X aged 17 years and a girl named Y aged 9 years.(The real names of the two girls are not being disclosed D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 4 of 130 as the instant case pertains to the commission of the offence of rape).D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 4 of 130Leaving SI Dharampal PW-40, at the place of occurrence, Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48 and Const.Tejpal PW-25, proceeded to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital where they learnt that the deceased has been brought dead at the hospital as recorded in the MLC Ex.PW-2/C of the deceased.We note that following was recorded on the MLC Ex."....Alleged H/o stab injury, incise wound over Lt submandibular region at house at 12.45 AM on 19/10/06, brought in casualty by his relatives at 1:15 AM on 19/10/06 for medical aid.L/E incise wound over Lt Submandibular region .....Child was declared brought dead....."Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48 and Const.Tejpal PW-25, further learnt that X and Y have also been admitted in the hospital in an injured condition as recorded in their MLCs Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B respectively.We note that following was recorded on the MLC Ex.PW-2/A of X:-"Alleged H/o stab injury, incise wound over anterior aspect of neck and multiple incise wound over back at home at 12.45 AM on 19/10/06, brought in casualty by her relatives at 1:15 AM on 19/10/06 for medical aid.L/E Deep incise wound over anterior aspect of neck and multiple incise wound over back.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 5 of 130Shifted to OT Admit in ICU"We note that following was recorded on the MLC Ex.PW- 2/B of Y:-"Alleged H/o stab injury, incise wound over anterior aspect of submandibular region and Lt side neck Rt index and middle finger injury at home at 12.45 AM on 19/10/06, brought in casualty by her relatives at 1:15 AM on 19/10/06 for medical aid.L/E Incise wound over anterior aspect of submandibular region, Lt side neck and Rt index and middle finger.Shifted to OT Admit in ICU"At the hospital, Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48 and Const.Tej Pal met Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10, the father of the children.Inspector Baltej Singh recorded the statement Ex.PW-10/A of Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal and made and endorsement Ex.PW-48/A thereon, and at around 04.00 A.M. on 19.10.2006 forwarded the same through Const.Tejpal PW- 25, for the purposes of registration of an FIR.Tejpal took the endorsement Ex.PW-48/A to HC Pawan Kumar PW-20, who recorded the FIR No.295/06 Ex.In his statement Ex.PW-10/A Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal stated that his family consists of his wife Nirmala Aggarwal, three daughters Nikita Aggarwal, X and Y and his D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 6 of 130 son Pratham (deceased) and that they reside on the second floor of the building bearing Municipal No.6/4 Singh Sabha Road, Ghanta Ghar, Shakti Nagar, Delhi.The accused used to reside in a room constructed on the roof of their residence.On 18.05.2006 in the evening he was watching television along with his wife and children in his room.At about 10.00 P.M. his three children i.e. X, Y and the deceased left their room while the accused remained in his room till 11.15 P.M. The accused was watching television and pressing his legs till the time he remained in his room.At about 11.15 P.M. the accused left from their room and he and his wife went to sleep.At about 12.45 P.M. his daughter X who was smeared with blood and writhing in pain suddenly came to his room.After telling him that the accused had hit her, X fell on the bed and became unconscious.In the meantime Y who was also smeared with blood came there.She told him that the accused had hit her and the deceased, upon which he and his wife rushed to the room of their children where they saw that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood with a knife stuck in his neck.On seeing the same he raised an alarm and removed his three children to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital with the help of his neighbours and relatives.The deceased was declared as D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 7 of 130 brought dead at the hospital.The condition of both his daughters was serious.The accused absconded from his house.In the meantime, injured girl X was operated upon at Sunder Lal Jain Hospital.The report Ex."....Alleged H/o Assault Pt has been stabbed at multiple placesTracheal wound - already tube put2. Left side of chest wall around 47th ICS horizontal 5- 9 cm long wound, sucking woundPosterirly - 7-8 multiple wounds 2-3 ling vertically and horizontally placed D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 8 of 130 All the wounds bleeding profusely mid line superior wound has an discharge also....."D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 8 of 130The report Ex.PW-8/C prepared by Dr.A.464/2009 Page 9 of 130L/w over distal phalagx of Rt index, Rt middle and Lt ring finger L/w of about 1 cm x 0.5 cm over Rt shoulder."At around 3.45 A.M. Dr.Uma Rani Swain PW-9, conducted the gynaecological examination of Y. The relevant portion of the gynaecological examination report Ex.PW-9/B prepared by Dr.Uma Rani Swain reads as under:-"Ext genitalia: healthy and normal no obvious discharge or bleeding.Hymen intact.No sign of injury...."At about 5.15 A.M. Dr.Neetu made endorsements on the MLCs Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B of X and Y respectively that 'Pt. is not fit for statement because of tracheotomy.'After collecting the MLCs of the deceased, X and Y, Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, proceeded to the place of occurrence.In the meantime, the crime team also reached the place of occurrence; on being summoned.At the place of occurrence, the police officials found that two bed sheets which were spread on the beds which were lying in the room of the children were stained with blood and that a foot print was imprinted on one of the said two bed sheets; a blood stained pyjama and an underwear were lying on the floor of the D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 10 of 130 childrens room; a knife having an iron handle stained with blood was lying in the childrens room; a bunch of hair was lying on the one of the bed lying in the childrens room; a hair was lying on the floor of the childrens room; the floor of the room of the parents of the children was stained with blood; bed sheet which was found spread on the bed which was lying in the room of the parents of the children was stained with blood; the floor of a bathroom which was situated near the childrens room was stained with blood and that a knife was lying outside the said bathroom.The police lifted the aforesaid materials and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-40/A.PW-26/A the same could not be developed.HC Rajpal Singh PW-32, photographer, took 11 photos Ex.PW-32/A1 to Ex.PW-32/A11 of the place of occurrence; negatives whereof are Ex.PW-32/B1 to Ex.SI Ajay Kumar PW-27, Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, North District, examined the place of occurrence and prepared the report Ex.PW-27/A, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 11 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 11 of 130Articles examined and lifts SOE - Lot of blood lying on the floor of the bed room and beds 1 Two nives - one from bed room floor and other in the bathroom window.I.O. is advised to 1 send the D.B. for P.M. 2 Interrogate the parents, neighbours and corporate 3 to locate and interrogate servants 4 Also interrogate injured ......." (Emphasis Supplied)Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, prepared the sketches Ex.PW-48/B and Ex.PW-48/C of the two knives found at the place of occurrence and the site plan Ex.PW-48/D of the place of occurrence.PW-1/C8 pertaining to the death of the deceased prepared by Inspector Baltej Singh records that 'One knife has been recovered from the place of occurrence'.The medial angle of the wound is more acute.The shape of the wound is more or less spindle shaped.Two small cuticle deep cuts each 0.4 cm long and about 1 cm apart each other over just below and adjacent to middle part of mandible."The doctor further opined that the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia consequent upon choking of trachea (wind pipe) by blood clots as a result of injuries to major vessels of left side of neck.The injuries were caused by sharp, cutting, penetrating and straight weapon and that the same were ante-mortem in nature.Injury no. (1) found on the person of the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.After conduct of the post-mortem, the doctor handed over the clothes, scalp hair and blood sample of the deceased D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 13 of 130 on a gauze to HC Tejpal PW-33, who in turn handed over the same to Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, vide memo Ex.PW-33/A."He tried to molest me.He entered inside me, took off his clothes.It pained.This all happened in the end when he already stabbed me.He hurt all three of us simultaneously.Firstly he stabbed my younger sister, then me and then my brother.I dont know his name, my mom must be knowing it.I had seen him earlier also and I opened the light.He was working in my house since about 1 week.PW-48/F that 'Patient Y is very anxious and has been anti-xilotius.She would be not fit for statement'.Likewise, at about 11.00 P.M., Dr.Gaurav Singhal PW-3, made an endorsement Ex.PW-3/A on MLC Mark X of X that 'Pt not fit to talk at present as advised by Dr.Anoop K Ganjoo'.In the meantime, the police went about looking for the accused as Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal, the father of the children, indicted the accused as the person who caused death of the deceased and inflicted injuries on girls X and Y. In the early morning of 19.10.2006 the police received information that the accused is present in Rishikesh pursuant to which Inspector Vimal Kumar PW-29, accompanied by HC Yogender PW-28, proceeded to Rishikesh where he arrested the accused at 6.30 P.M. as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.PW-28/A.On being interrogated by Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, in the presence of SI Rishipal Singh PW-34, the accused made his disclosure D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 15 of 130 statement Ex.PW-34/A wherein he admitted that he caused the death of the deceased; committed rape upon X and inflicted injuries upon the person of X and Y. He further stated that he had hidden the clothes which he was wearing at the time of occurrence and that he can get recovered the same.Pursuant thereto, the accused led Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, SI Rishipal PW-34 and SI Ramesh Dixit PW-35, to the place of occurrence i.e. second floor, 6/4, Singh Sabha Road and got recovered a pyjama, vest, underwear and handkerchief from the roof of the room which was built upon the said floor.The aforesaid clothes were seized vide memo Ex.PW-34/A. It may be noted here that Prem Prakash Aggarwal PW-17, the brother of the father of the children, was also present at the time of the recovery of the said clothes.It may be noted here that MLC Ex.PW-4/A of the accused records that no fresh external injury was found on any part of the body of the deceased and that the secondary sexual characters of the accused are well developed.A.464/2009 Page 16 of 130After conducting the medical examination of the accused, the doctor handed over the blood sample of the accused on a gauze to SI Rishipal PW-34, who in turn handed over the same to Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, vide memo Ex.PW-34/C.On the same day i.e. 20.10.2006 at about 3.30 P.M. the accused was examined by Dr.M.K.Panigrahi PW-12, for the purposes of ascertaining whether he is capable to perform sexual intercourse.The report Ex.PW-12/A prepared by Dr.M.K.Panigrahi records that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sexual intercourse and that no smegma was found in the external genitiala of the accused.On 21.10.2006 Y was discharged from Apollo Hospital.On the same date Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, recorded the statement of Y under Section 161 CrPC.In her statement Y indicted the accused as the person who caused the death of the deceased; committed rape upon X and inflicted injuries upon her and X.On 22.10.2006 SI Rishipal PW-34, accompanied by HC Sanjay PW-30, again took the accused to Hindu Rao Hospital where he was examined by Dr.The MLC Ex.PW-6/A of the accused records that no fresh external injury was found on the person of the accused.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 17 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 17 of 130After conducting the medical examination of the accused, the doctor handed over two vials containing scalp hair and pubic hair of the accused to SI Rishipal PW-34, who in turn handed over the same to Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, vide memo Ex.PW-30/A.On the same day i.e. 22.10.2006 Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, collected pyjama, t-shirt and brassiere worn by X at the time of her admission at Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, panty worn by Y at the time of her admission at Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, vaginal swabs of X and Y, urinal sample of X, blood which oozed out from vagina of X and pubic hair of X from Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-9/C.On 23.10.2006 the bed sheet seized from the room of the children and having a foot print imprinted upon it was sent to Sudhir Bhalla PW-14, Finger Print Expert, who opined that no chance print could be developed by him for the reason no ridges were found on the foot print imprinted upon the bed sheet in question.He further opined that the said foot print be got examined by physical and biology division of FSL, Delhi.Sudhir Bhalla prepared the report Ex.PW-14/A in said regard.Pursuant thereto, said bed sheet as also other articles which were seized during investigation were sent to FSL where Ravinder Kumar Jain PW-15, Finger Print Expert, examined the D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 18 of 130 foot print in question.A.464/2009 Page 18 of 130On the same day i.e. 23.10.2006 SI Manohar Lal PW-38, Draftsman, prepared the site plan to scale Ex.PW-37/A was prepared.Unfortunately, the error which had occurred in the rough report and was corrected subsequently found its way in the report Ex.PW-37/A. This practice of callously preparing reports by the officials of FSL is seriously deprecated by this court.It is expected that in future the officials of FSL would be more careful and vigilant while preparing the reports.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 24 of 130The correct factual position is that the hair seized from the spot (exhibit 5) was compared with pubic hair of X (exhibitThe result of the said comparison was that the characteristics of exhibit 5 were found to be dissimilar from the characteristics of exhibit 23 D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.Additionally, the hair seized from the spot (exhibit 5) was also compared with scalp hair of the deceased (exhibit 11) and scalp hair of the accused (exhibit 25).However, no conclusive opinion could be rendered with regard to the said comparison.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 25 of 130Vide FSL report Ex.PW-37/B it was opined that blood detected on the two bed sheets, underwear and strand of hair seized from the room of the children was having O group; blood detected on pyjama seized from the room of the children and blood lifted from the said room was of human origin, group whereof could not be determined; blood detected on the bed sheet seized from the room of the parents, knife seized from the bathroom and clothes of the deceased was having O group; blood group of the deceased was O; no opinion could be given about the group of blood sample of the accused as the same had putrefied; blood detected on pyjama which X was wearing at the time of her admission in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and t-shirt which Y was wearing at the time of her admission in Apollo Hospital was of human origin, group whereof could not be determined; no opinion could be given about the group of blood sample of X and blood which oozed from the vagina of X as the same had putrefied; blood detected on shirt and pyjama which X and Y respectively were D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 26 of 130 wearing at the time of her admission in Apollo Hospital was having O group and that no opinion could be given about the group of semen which was found on the vaginal swabs of X and Y.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 26 of 130Vide FSL report Ex.PW-37/C it was opined that blood was detected on the vest, underwear and pyjama recovered at the instance of the accused and that human semen was detected on the said underwear and pyjama.Vide FSL report Ex.PW- 37/D it was opined that blood detected on the said vest was having O group; blood detected on the said underwear and pyjama was of human origin, group whereof could not be determined and that no opinion could be given about the group of semen which was detected on the said underwear and pyjama.Armed with the aforesaid materials, a charge sheet was filed against the accused.Following charges were framed against the accused:-D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 27 of 130PW-20/B and the DD entry Ex.PW- 20/C were prepared by him.HC Shiv Pratap Singh PW-24, deposed that the copy of the FIR Ex.Tej Pal PW-25, deposed that he took the endorsement Ex.PW-48/A prepared by D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 28 of 130 Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, to the police station at about 04.00 A.M. on 19.10.2006 for the purposes of registration of an FIR.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 28 of 130Hari Gupta PW-6, Dr.Sudha Kansal PW-7, Dr.Seema Patni PW-8, Dr.Uma Rani Swain PW-9, Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya PW-11, Dr.M.K.Panigrehi PW-12, S.S.Rana PW-16 and Dr.K.Goyal PW-1, deposed that he conducted the post- mortem of the deceased and prepared the post-mortem report Ex.PW-1/A of the deceased.He further deposed that he handed over the clothes, scalp hair and blood sample of the deceased on a gauze to the police.M.Arshad PW-2, deposed that the MLCs Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C of X, Y and the deceased were prepared by him.Gaurav Singhal PW-3, deposed that the endorsements Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 29 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 29 of 130Rakesh Kumar PW-4, deposed that he medically examined the accused on 20.10.2006 and prepared the MLC Ex.PW-4/A in said regard.He further deposed that he handed over the blood sample of the deceased to SI Rishipal after conducting the medical examination of the accused.Hari Gupta PW-6, deposed that he medically examined the accused on 22.10.2006 and prepared the MLC Ex.PW-6/A in said regard.He further deposed that he handed over two vials containing pubic hair and scalp hair of the accused to SI Rishipal after conducting the medical examination of the accused.Sudha Kansal PW-7, deposed that she had prepared the history sheet Ex.PW-7/A of X on 19.10.2006 of X and that she made the endorsement Ex.PW-7/B on the MLC Mark X of X.X had multiple stab injuries all over her body, predominantly on the upper chest and abdomen and that her neck was slit open.Tracheotomy tube was put in the throat of X and that a chest tube was put in the left side of the chest of X. Multiple blood transfusions were given to X. She further deposed that she opined that the injuries found on the person of X were dangerous in nature and that the treatment record Ex.PW-8/A of X was prepared by her.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 30 of 130Uma Rani Swain PW-9, deposed that she conducted the gynaecological examination of X at about 3.15 P.M. on 19.10.2006 and prepared the report Ex.PW-9/A in said regard.She further deposed that she conducted the gynaecological examination of Y at about 3.45 A.M. on 19.10.2006 and prepared the report Ex.PW-9/B in said regard.After conducting the gynaecological examination of X and Y she handed over the materials seized vide memo Ex.Neetu made the endorsements that 'Pt. is not fit for statement because of tracheotomy' on the MLCs Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B of X and Y respectively.That he can identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Dr.M.K.Panigrehi PW-12, deposed that he examined the accused on 20.10.2006 at about 3.30 P.M. to ascertain whether the accused is capable of performing sexual intercourse and that he prepared the report Ex.PW-12/A in said D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 31 of 130 regard.S.S.Rana PW-16, deposed that he handed over the materials seized vide memo Ex.PW-16/A to the police.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 31 of 130Urvashi Prasad Jha PW-46, deposed that on 19.10.2006 X had written the account Ex.PW-46/A of the incident in her presence.She conducted the gynaecological examination of X at about 05.00 P.M. on 19.10.2006 and she noted following injuries on the person of X:- (i) A torn hymen;(ii) Circumferential tears between the hymen and the labia minora with slight bleeding; and (iii) Tear in the fouchette with slight bleeding which is suggestive of forced sexual vaginal intercourse.C Witnesses to prove the scientific evidence: - Ravinder Kumar Jain PW-15, Dr.V.K.Goyal PW-36 and Anita Chhari PW-Ravinder Kumar Jain PW-15, deposed that the report Ex.PW-15/A was prepared by him.Anita Chhari PW-37, deposed that the FSL reports Ex.PW-37/A, Ex.PW-37/B, Ex.PW- 37/C and Ex.PW-37/D were prepared by her.V.K.Goyal PW-36, deposed that the police made an application Ex.PW-36/A for return of the parcel containing the pyjama recovered at the instance of the accused and that he D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 32 of 130 made an endorsement Ex.PW-14/A was prepared by him.ASI Manish Kumar Bhardwaj PW-26, deposed that the report Ex.PW-26/A was prepared by him.ASI Ajay Kumar PW-27, deposed that the report Ex.PW-27/A was prepared by him.X PW-21, deposed that on 14.10.2006 her mother employed the accused as a domestic servant.On 18.10.2006 at about 10.00 P.M. she, Y, the deceased and her parents were watching television in the room of her parents.After sometime, she, Y and the deceased went to their bedroom where Y and the deceased went to sleep whereas she studied for about half an hour.Thereafter she also went to sleep on the bed on which the deceased was sleeping.At about 12.00 A.M. she heard the noise of weeping of Y upon which she woke D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 33 of 130 up and saw that the accused was sitting between the bed on which she was sleeping and the bed on which Y was sleeping.She immediately switched on the light and saw that the neck and hands of Y were smeared with blood.The accused who was carrying a knife in his hand rushed towards her.She tried to open the door but the accused gave knife blows on her back and the left side of her body due to which she fell down on the floor.The accused went to Y, slit her throat and asked her to remove her pant.In the meantime, the deceased also woke up and started crying.Y asked the accused to allow her to go out to drink water but the accused told her to drink water from the tap in the bathroom which was situated in the said room.Y went to the bathroom and the deceased started to follow Y. When the deceased was about to enter the bathroom the accused caught hold of the deceased from his neck.The accused lifted the deceased from his neck, gave a knife blow on his neck and threw him on her bed.The knife got stuck in the neck of the deceased.She and Y requested the accused to let them go out and told him that they would not disclose a word about the incident to anyone.The accused went out of the room and brought another knife from the kitchen.The accused gave knife blows on her neck as also on the neck of Y. Thereafter he removed her pyjama and under pant as also his clothes.The accused tried to rape her but she managed to D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.The accused again gave a knife blow on her back and committed rape upon her.While committing rape upon her, the accused removed a ring from the finger of her left hand.The accused again tried to rape her but she fell down from the bed.The accused placed his fingers on her nostrils to ascertain if she was alive or not.She stopped her breath and the accused went out of the room.She asked Y to go to the room of her parents and inform them about the incident but she did not go as she was scared and apprehended that the accused is present outside the room.She and Y were bleeding from their necks.Thereafter she went to the room of her parents by crawling on the floor.On reaching there, she switched on the light upon which her mother woke up.Her mother woke up her father.Her father made her to lie down on the bed.She told her parents about the incident.Her mother and her neighbours helped her to wear clothes.Her father and her neighbours removed her, Y and the deceased to the hospital.The pyjama and the underwear recovered by the police from her room were worn by her at the time of the occurrence.She caught the hair of the accused when he assaulted her for the first time and that some strands of hair of the accused came in her hand.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 35 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 33 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 34 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 35 of 130On being questioned as to why she did not raise an alarm at the time of the occurrence, X stated that (Quote) 'I could not raise any alarm because I had sustained injuries on my neck.I had not struggled with the accused to save myself nor I had fought with him.I had pulled his hairs.'PW-22, deposed that on 18.10.2006 she, i.e. Y, the deceased and her parents were watching television in the room of her parents.At about 10.30 P.M., she, i.e. Y and the deceased went to their bedroom where she and the deceased went to sleep whereas X started studying.After sometime she felt that someone was fondling her body upon which she woke up.She saw that the accused was fondling her body with his hand.She removed the hand of the accused from her body upon which the accused pressed a knife on her neck as a result of which blood started to ooze out of her neck.When she removed his hand she also sustained injuries on her fingers.The accused pushed her from the bed due to which she fell down on the floor upon which she started weeping.On hearing her noise X woke up and switched on the light.X tried to open the door of the room but the accused attacked her with knife.The accused gave two-three knife blows to X. X caught the hair of the accused but fell on the floor.The accused asked her to open her pant.She asked the accused to D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 36 of 130 let her go out as she wanted to drink water upon which the accused told her to drink water from the tap in the bathroom.In the meantime the deceased also woke up and started crying.She went to the bathroom and the deceased started to follow her.The accused caught hold of the deceased from his neck, gave a knife blow on his neck and threw him on the bed.The knife got stuck in the neck of the deceased.The accused ran to the kitchen and brought another knife from there.She followed X. She narrated the whole incident to her parents.Her father and neighbours removed her, X and the deceased to the hospital.She sustained injuries on her neck and other parts of her body.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 37 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 36 of 130A.464/2009 Page 37 of 130On being questioned as to why she did not raise an alarm at the time of the occurrence, Y stated that (Quote) 'I did not cry because I have received cut with knife on my neck...I did not raise any alarm since I was injured.I was not having injuries on my leg.I did not run out of the because it was bolted from upside by a chitkani.' On being questioned about the commission of rape by the accused upon X she stated that (Quote) 'Accused kept on lying on my sister for 3-4 minutes.At that time I was on my bed.The difference between the first bad act and second bad act was half a minute.My sister has tried to free her by moving herself on one side but accused gave a knife blow to her.When my sister took a turn on one side accused had given a knife blow to her.My sister had taken a turn much after the accused laid on her....For the second time, the bad act which the accused did with my sister was on my bed.I was sitting on the same bed'.On being questioned about the movement of the accused to the kitchen the witness stated that (Quote) 'The accused left our bedroom at around 12.30 a.m. The door was open when the accused had left the bedroom to the kitchen to bring a knife.Within 5- 10 seconds, accused had returned back to the bedroom with a knife.We did not try to run out of the bedroom because the accused in the meantime had come to the bedroom again.' D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 38 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 38 of 130Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10, the father of the children, deposed that they employed the accused as a domestic servant to work in their house five days prior to the intervening night of 18/19.10.2006 on the recommendation of a driver named Jeetu.They gave a room built on the roof of their residence to the accused for his occupation.On 18.10.2006 he, his wife and three children namely X, Y and the deceased were watching television in their room.The accused who was pressing his legs was also present in the said room at that time.At about 10.00 P.M., X, Y and the deceased went to their bedroom.At about 11.15 P.M. he and his wife went to sleep and the accused left their room.At about 12.45 P.M. X who was soaked with blood and writhing in pain entered their room all of a sudden.She told him and his wife that the accused has inflicted injuries on her body and thereafter fell on the bed.Meanwhile, Y who was also soaked with blood and was weeping loudly came to their room and told them that the accused has caused injuries to the deceased.On hearing the same, he and his wife rushed to the room of their children where they saw that the deceased was drenched with blood and that a knife was stuck in his neck.The knife which was stuck in the neck of the deceased did not belong to their household.He pulled out the knife from the neck of the deceased and threw it on the floor.He raised an alarm upon which their neighbours came to their residence.He and his neighbours removed X, Y and the deceased to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital where the deceased was declared as brought dead.The doctors told him that the condition of X and Y was serious at the time of their admission in the hospital.After sometime the police arrived at the hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW-10/A. The accused managed to escape from their house.On 26.10.2006 he handed over the t-shirt and the pyjama which Y was wearing at the time of the occurrence to the police.The date of birth of X and Y are 09.10.1989 and 28.07.1997 respectively as recorded in the birth certificates Ex.PW-10/C and Ex.PW-10/D.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 39 of 130A.464/2009 Page 40 of 130 the hospital.I did not find that knife there in my house when I came back at 10.00 am from the hospital'.On being questioned about the presence of the accused after the occurrence, the witness stated that (Quote) 'It is correct that after my daughter came to my bedroom I along with my wife and daughter had gone to the bedroom of my children.Nirmal Aggarwal PW-23, the mother of the children, deposed that on 14.10.2006 they employed the accused as a domestic servant to work in their house.On 18.10.2006 she, her wife and her three children namely X, Y and the deceased were watching television in their bedroom.At about 10.30 P.M., X, Y and the deceased went to their bedroom.She had seen a knife in a bathroom situated near the stair case of her house.A.464/2009 Page 41 of 130On being questioned about her movements after the occurrence, the witness stated that (Quote) 'We had removed our children from our house around 12.40 am for hospital.I had not gone to sunder Lal hospital with my children but remained in the house.I remained in my house upto 1.30/1.45 am.Thereafter police came and took me to Jain Colony in search of the accused.SHO had taken me in the search of the accused.I returned back to my house around 4.00 am....It took about 1 hour to search out the house of my driver in Jain Colony.At that time accused was not found in the house of Jeetu.From there we had tone along with Jeetu to Jawahar Nagar where jija of accused had been residing.Accused was not found there also'On being questioned about the knives recovered from the place of occurrence the witness stated that (Quote) 'After D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 42 of 130 removing the knife from the neck my husband had thrown the knife on the floor.When SHO was taking me in search of the accused in my house before leaving the house I had gone to the bathroom near the stair case where I noticed the knife.On hearing the same, he immediately rushed to the second floor of the building in which he used to reside as the voice was coming from there.Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal, his wife, three daughters and one son were residing on the second floor.The family of Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal had employed one domestic servant.When he reached the second floor, Mr.Ramesh Aggarwal and his wife opened the door and told him that their children have been killed by their servant and that their servant has absconded.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 43 of 130 He saw that Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal was carrying the deceased who was badly injured and was bleeding profusely.X was lying on the bed in an injured condition while Y who was also injured was standing in the room.He immediately offered his help to Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal for removing the children to the hospital.He also gave a call to the police from his mobile having number 9811042809 and informed them about the incident.Thereafter he along with Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal removed the deceased to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital in his own car while X and Y were also removed to the same hospital by someone else.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 43 of 130On being questioned about the room in which the occurrence took place the witness stated that (Quote) 'I had seen the room where the incident took place.I had not seen the knife lying in the room.I had seen the room of the children where the incident took place after I came from the hospital.' On being questioned about the arrival of the police at the place of occurrence the witness stated that (Quote) 'I had taken Pratham (the son of the complainant) to the hospital.We had reached the hospital between 12.00 or 1.00 am.PCR came at the house after we left for hospital.In my presence police did not reach the hospital.Jeetan Dass PW-39, deposed that he earns his livelihood by working as a driver.The wife of Ramesh Kumar asked him to get her a domestic servant.Since he had provided a boy named Jheri to her on an earlier occasion she again asked him to get her a domestic servant.The boy he had earlier provided to wife of Ramesh Kumar left her services.A person named Subash who was known to him had requested him to arrange some job for his brother-in-law.He asked Subash to meet the wife of Ramesh Kumar for the job upon which Subash along with his brother-in-law met her.After meeting Subash and his brother- in-law wife of Ramesh Kumar gave him a telephonic call and told him that she has employed the brother-in-law of Subash.The accused is the brother-in-law of Subash.In the month of October 2006 some police officials came to his house and made inquiries about the accused whereupon he learnt about the incident in question.He took the police officials to the residence of Subash where they met Subash.On being questioned about the presence of wife of Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal at the time when the police came to D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 45 of 130 his house, the witness stated that (Quote) 'Wife of Ramesh was also with them.On being questioned about the identity of the accused the witness stated that (Quote) 'It is correct that I had not seen accused present in the court before I had referred him to the wife of Ramesh, complainant.Thereafter I had seen the photograph of the accused in the newspaper and after that I had seen him in the court.HC Yogender PW-28, deposed that on 19.10.2006 pursuant to a secret information he along with Inspector Vimal Kishore and other police officials had gone to Rishikesh to arrest the accused.They apprehended the accused at about 6.30 P.M. on 19.10.2006 at Rishikesh.On being questioned about the time when he left Delhi to go to Rishikesh the witness stated that (Quote) 'We left Delhi at about 1.30 am on 19.10.2006....'Inspector Vimal Kishore PW-29, deposed in harmony with the evidence of HC Yogender.On being questioned about the time when they left Delhi to go to Rishikesh the witness stated that (Quote) 'We left Delhi at about 1.30 am on 19.10.2006....' On being questioned about the time when he left Delhi to go to Rishikesh the witness stated that (Quote) 'I left Delhi at 4.00 or 4.30 am on 19.10.06......."D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 47 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 47 of 130SI Rishipal Singh PW-34, SI Ramesh Dixit PW-35 and Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, deposed that on 20.10.2006 at about 11.00 A.M. the accused led them to the second floor, 6/4 Singh Sabha Road, New Delhi i.e. the residence of the children and got recovered a pyjama, a vest, an underwear and a handkerchief from the roof of the room which was built on the said floor.Prem Prakash Aggarwal PW-17, the brother of the father of the children, deposed that he was present at the time of the said recovery.Additionally, SI Ramesh Dixit PW-35 and Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, deposed that on 30.10.2006 on being interrogated the accused made his second disclosure statement wherein he stated that the ring which was removed by him from the finger of X at the time when he committed rape upon her was kept by him in the right pocket of the pyjama worn by him at that time.Pursuant thereto, the parcel containing the said pyjama was brought from the FSL to the police station.The said pyjama was checked upon which a diamond ring was recovered from the right pocket of the said pyjama.In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused admitted that on 14.10.2006 he was employed as a domestic servant at the residence of Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal; that in the night of 18.10.2006 he surreptitiously entered the bedroom where X, Y and the deceased were sleeping; that he gave a knife blow on the neck of the deceased and inflicted injuries on the person of X and Y; that he raped X; that on 19.10.2006 he was arrested by the police at Rishikesh and that he got recovered the clothes which he was wearing at the time of the occurrence.The accused however denied having removed a ring from the finger of X at the time when he committed rape upon her.The accused further stated that he committed the aforesaid acts to seek revenge from the father of the children as he used to force him to commit homosexual acts with him.The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 49 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 49 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 50 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.Notwithstanding that the plea of juvenility was not raised before Trial Judge, in the interests of justice, vide order dated 03.09.2009 we directed that ossification test of the accused be conducted by a medical board of AIIMS to ascertain the age of the accused.Pursuant to the said order, Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, constituted a medical board consisting of following members:-"1. Dr.Sanjeev Lalwani - Chairman Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine2. Dr.Ashu Seith Bhalla - Member Assoc.Professor of Radio-diagnosisVijay Prakash Mathur - Member Assistant Professor of C.D.E.R.Kashipa Harit - Member Secy.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 51 of 130Department of Hospital Administration"After conducting the physical, dental and radiological examination of the accused, Board prepared the report dated 18.09.2009, relevant portion whereof reads as under:-"PHYSICAL EXAMINATION SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS- Fully Developed GENITALS-Adult size fully developed genitalia with bilaterally descended testis.DENTAL CHARTING Right Upper Jaw 1 to 7 8 th Partiall erupted Right Lower Jaw 1 to 8 Left Upper Jaw 1 to 7 8 th Partially erupted Left Lower Jaw 1 to 8 X-Ray - OPG- Report of Dental Radiological Examination OPG X Ray seen wisdom molar (3rd Molar) present and fully developed roots Impression: Ages estimation between 18-22 years (Report Enclosed) RADIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION (REPORT ENCLOSED) .....Report of Radiological Examination-X-ray B/L Humerus- AP & Elbow - B/L Conjoint humeral epiphysis fused - BA > 17.5 yearsThe MLCs Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-6/A and the report Ex.PW-12/A of the sexual examination of the accused and the order on sentence dated 21.10.2008 passed by the trial court throw some light on the aspect of age of the accused on the date of offence.The MLCs Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.Neither any question was put to the said witnesses in their cross-examination regarding the lifting of finger prints from knives in question nor was any suggestion given to them that they did not make any attempt to lift the fingerprints from D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.The above captioned appeal and the death sentence reference arise out of the judgment and order dated D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 1 of 130 04.10.2008 and the order on sentence dated 21.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.09/2007 arising out of FIR No.295/2006 registered at PS Roop Nagar.By virtue of the judgment and order dated 4.10.2008, Sanjay Dass has been convicted for offences under Sections 302/307/376/379 IPC.It may be noted that Sanjay Dass was charged for an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC but has been convicted for a lesser offence i.e. the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.Vide order on sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed the extreme penalty of death sentence on Sanjay Dass in respect of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.With regard to the offence(two) punishable under Section 307 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.1,000/- pertaining to the injuries caused by him to Kumari X and Kumari Y; in default to undergo SI for 3 months.With regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.1,000/-; in default to undergo SI for 3 months.With regard to the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.500/-; in default to undergo SI for 1 month.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 1 of 130Accordingly, with the able assistance of learned Counsel for the State and Sanjay Dass, hereinafter referred to as the accused, we perused the entire evidence led at the trial while hearing the reference and the connected appeal.The accused has murdered the deceased and caused injuries to both his daughters after committing a murderous attack on them.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 6 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 7 of 130PW-8/A of X prepared by Dr.Seema Patni PW-8, the surgeon who operated X records that she had multiple stab injuries on her chest and that ten wounds were found on her person.Seema Patni PW-8, made an endorsement on the MLC Ex.PW-2/A of X to the effect that the injuries found on the person of X are dangerous in nature.Thereafter at about 1.50 A.M. X was examined by Dr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta.The relevant portion of the case note Ex.PW-11/C of X prepared by Dr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta reads as under:-At about 3.15 P.M. Dr.Uma Rani Swain PW-9, conducted the gynaecological examination of X. The relevant portion of the gynaecological examination report Ex.PW-9/A prepared by Dr.Uma Rani Swain reads as under:-".....Local pan examination: Whole pubic area with hair stained with fresh blood, bleeding and oozing from introital injury.Internal examination: fresh injury (cut) in the midline of fourchette bleeding + size 1 cm and 4.5 cm deep, hymen ruptured with multiple small bruises on it.Fourchette cut extends upto hymen.No bleeding from internal pa..."Injured girl Y was also operated upon at Sunder Lal Jain Hospital.Seema Patni PW-8, the surgeon who operated Y records that multiple wounds were found on her face and fingers and that a wound was found on her neck.Thereafter Dr.Seema Patni PW-8, made an endorsement on the MLC Ex.PW-2/B of Y to the effect that the injuries found on the person of Y are simple in nature.Injured girl Y was also examined by Dr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta.The relevant portion of the case note Ex.PW-11/A of Y prepared by Dr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta reads as under:-"L/E D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 9 of 130 Multiple lacerated wound over Ant aspect and lateral aspect of neck.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.2 Three bed sheets with blood 3 Hair bunch 4 foot print on rt side bed sheet 5 Blood sample with hair (floor) 6 earth control 7 one plastic print (blood) found on the s/w board in bathroom 8 Blood soaked panty with underwear..... ADVISE TO I/O OF THE CASE1. ........Thereafter he prepared the inquest papers Ex.PW-1/C1 to Ex.PW-1/C11 pertaining to the death of the deceased.It may be noted here that the brief facts Ex.It may be further noted that the death report Ex.PW-1/C9 of the deceased prepared by Inspector Baltej Singh records that the weapon used for committing the death of the deceased was apparently a sharp object.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 12 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 12 of 130Since the deceased was brought dead at the hospital, his body was sent to the mortuary at Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi at 11.30 A.M. on 19.10.2006 where Dr.K.Goyal PW-1, conducted the post-mortem and prepared the post-mortem report Ex.PW-1/A of the deceased which records following external injuries on the person of the deceased:-Incised punctured wound 1.8 X 0.5 cm transversally placed over Lt front of neck about 2 cm left to the midline at the level of just below apple of Adam.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 13 of 130On the same day i.e. 19.10.2006 injured girls X and Y were shifted from Sunder Lal Jain Hospital to Apollo Hospital.Rakesh Kumar Gupta prepared the discharge summary Ex.PW-11/B of Y, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-".....Lacerated wound Neck, fingers following on arm Lt Neck: Multiple lacerated deep wound in the neck Hand: Multiple cut in different fingers Lac from Rt shoulder ......Wounds stitched in layers......."On 19.10.2006 at about 5.15 P.M. X was examined by Dr.Since X was unable to speak as she had undergone tracheotomy in her throat, she wrote her statement Ex.PW-46/A and gave the same to the doctor.The statement Ex.PW-46/A of X reads as under:-I tried to fight.I dont remember his name.I think its Sanjay.A.464/2009 Page 14 of 130A.464/2009 Page 14 of 130After some time Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, made an application Ex.PW-48/F before CMO, Apollo Hospital, for recording the statement of Y. However, at about 10.45 P.M., the doctor opined that Y is not fit for giving a statement.The doctor made an endorsement on the application Ex.Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the said clothes; being Ex.PW-48/I.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 15 of 130Thereafter SI Rishipal PW-34, took the accused to Hindu Rao Hospital where Dr.Rakesh Kumar PW-4, examined the accused.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 16 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.On 23.10.2006 at about 8.00 P.M. Dr Gaurav Singh PW-3, made an endorsement Ex.PW-3/B on the MLC Mark X of X that 'Not fit to talk at present'.On 24.10.2006 at about 12.00 P.M. Dr.Sudha Kansal PW-7, declared X fit to give a statement as evident from the endorsement Ex.PW-7/B made by her on the MLC Mark X of X pursuant to which Inspector Baltej Singh PW- 48, of X under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In her statement X also indicted the accused as the person who caused the death of the deceased; committed rape upon her and inflicted injuries upon her and Y. Additionally, X stated that the accused removed a diamond ring from her finger at the time when he was committing rape upon her.On 24.10.2006 S.S. Rana PW-16, Security Supervisor, Apollo Hospital, handed over the clothes which X and Y were wearing at the time of their admission in Apollo Hospital and D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 19 of 130 the blood sample of X on a gauze to Inspector Baltej Singh PW- 48, who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-16/A.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 19 of 130On 26.10.2006 Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10, the father of the children, handed over a torn t-shirt and a pyjama which Y was wearing at the time of the occurrence to Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW- 10/B.On 30.10.2006 the accused made another disclosure statement Ex.PW-35/A wherein he stated that he removed a ring from the finger of X at the time when he committed rape upon her and that he hid the same in the pocket of the pyjama which he was wearing at the time of the occurrence.Pursuant to the aforesaid disclosure made by the accused, Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, made an application Ex.PW-36/A dated 31.10.2006 to the FSL for the return of the parcel containing the pyjama which was worn by the accused at the time of the occurrence.It be noted here that the application Ex.PW-36/A records that 'His clothes were sealed on the spot without thorough search as there was no information of any type regarding the said diamond ring at that time.Further more it was apprehended that too much handling/searching of the clothes may disturb evidence........ and blood vigilance stains of procutics and ..... of accused'.V.K.Goyal PW-36, Director, D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 20 of 130 FSL allowed the request of the Investigating Officer as evident from the endorsement Ex.PW-36/B made by him on the application Ex.After the return of the parcel in question by FSL, Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, checked the pyjama which the accused was wearing at the time of the occurrence in the presence of SI Ramesh Dixit PW-35, upon which a diamond ring was found in the right pocket of the said pyjama.The aforesaid ring was seized vide memo Ex.PW-35/B.On 04.11.2006 Ajay Goel PW-41, Metropolitan Magistrate, conducted the Test Identification proceedings of the ring which was found in the pocket of the pyjama of the accused.X participated in the said proceedings and identified the ring found in the pocket of the pyjama as the ring which was removed by the accused from her finger at the time when he committed rape upon her.Ajay Goel prepared the record Ex.PW-41/B of the said Test Identification proceedings.The aforesaid seized materials viz; two bed sheets, an underwear, a pyjama, a knife, one strand of hair and bunch of hair seized from the room of the children; bed sheet seized from the room of the parents of the children; knife recovered from the bathroom situated near the room of the children; scalp hair, blood sample and clothes of the deceased; pyjama, D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 21 of 130 t-shirt and brassiere worn by X at the time of her admission in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital; underwear worn by Y at the time of her admission in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital; vaginal swabs of X and Y; urinal sample and pubic hair of X; blood which oozed from the vagina of X; pubic hair, scalp hair and the blood sample of the accused; clothes recovered at the instance of the appellant; ring found in the pocket of pyjama of the accused; shirt and pyjama worn by X at the time of her admission in Apollo Hospital; the blood samples of X and Y; clothes worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence and t- shirt and pyjama worn by Y at the time of occurrence were subjected to forensic evaluation at the FSL.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 21 of 130Vide FSL report Ex.PW-37/A, it was opined that blood was detected on the two bed sheets, underwear, pyjama, knife and one strand of hair seized from the room of the children; knife recovered from the bathroom; clothes worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence; pyjama, t-shirt and brassiere worn by X at the time of her admission in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital; underwear worn by Y at the time of her admission in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital; vaginal swabs of X and Y; t-shirt worn by X at the time of her admission in Apollo Hospital and t-shirt worn by Y at the time of occurrence.It was further opined that human semen was detected on the vaginal swabs of X and Y. That the D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 22 of 130 bunch of hair and one strand of hair seized from the room of the children were found to be of human origin and that they were dissimilar in most of their morphological and microscopical characteristics from the hairs contained in exhibit 23 i.e. pubic hair of X and the hair contained in exhibit 24 i.e. the scalp hair of the accused.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 22 of 130A close perusal of the FSL report Ex.PW-37/A shows that 38 parcels were sent by the Investigating Officer to FSL.Out of the said 38 exhibits, 6 exhibits were hairs.Exhibit No.5 was the bunch of hair seized from the room of the children.Exhibit No.6b was one strand of hair seized from the room of the children.Exhibit No.11 was the scalp hair of the deceased.Exhibit 23 was the pubic hair of X. Exhibit 24 was pubic hair of the accused.Exhibit No.25 was the scalp hair of the accused.There is a serious anomaly in the FSL report Ex.PW-37/A. The anomaly is that the FSL report Ex.PW-37/A records that Exhibit No.5/bunch (few strands) of hair seized from the room of the children is dissimilar from Exhibit No.24/scalp hair of the accused.As already noted in para 46 above, exhibit no.24 was pubic hair of the accused and not scalp hair of the accused as recorded in the FSL report Ex.Pubic hair of the accused or scalp hair of the accused? D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 23 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 23 of 130After conducting the said examinations, following conclusions were arrived at by Anita Chhari, which are recorded at page 61 of the record of the FSL:-"i. Exhibit 5 (scalp hair) different from hair in exhibit 23 & 24 (pubic hair)(ii) Only one hair in exhibit 6b & as such no opinion with respect to similarity or otherwise with exhibit 5 can be given.(iii) Exhibit 5, exhibit 11, Ex.25, No opinion is offered whether exhibit 5 is similar with exhibit 11 & Ex.25(i) From morphological and microscopical examination, the hair in exhibit 5, 6b, 11, 23, 24 & 25 were found to be human in origin(ii) Hair in exhibit 5 were found to be dissimilar in most of the morphological & microscopical characteristics with hair in exhibit 23 i.e. Pubic hair of X & exhibit 24 i.e. Pubic hair of accused.(iii) No further opinion."Pursuant thereto, a rough report was prepared recording therein the results of the hair examinations conducted by Anita Chhari and the other examinations conducted at FSL with respect to the case property.The error which occurred was that exhibit 24 was referred to as containing scalp hair of the accused.However, said error was detected and duly corrected.The word scalp was stroked and word pubic was substituted in its place.At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 48 witnesses.With a view to have clarity in the analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution, we segregate the witnesses of the prosecution into 9 categories, clubbing in one category witnesses who have thrown light on the same issue.We would also be splitting, while noting, the testimonies of the witnesses, whenever required pertaining to the evidence throwing light on different facets/stages of the case of the prosecution.A Witnesses who participated in the preparation of the necessary documents prepared by the police till the FIR was registered: - HC Jai Kumar PW-19, HC Pawan Kumar PW-20, HC Shiv Pratap Singh PW-24 and Const.HC Jai Kumar PW-19, deposed that the entry pertaining to the incident in question was recorded by him in the PCR Form Ex.PW-19/A. HC Pawan Kumar PW-20, deposed that the DD entry Ex.PW-20/A, FIR Ex.B Witnesses who prepared the documents pertaining to the medical condition of the deceased, X and Y:- Dr.K.Goyal PW-1, Dr.M.Arshad PW-2, Dr.Gaurav Singhal PW-3, Dr.Rakesh Kumar PW-4, Dr.A.464/2009 Page 30 of 130 That she made the endorsement Ex.PW-8/B on the MLC Ex.PW- 2/B of Y and prepared the treatment record Ex.PW-8/C of Y.PW-9/C to the police.Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya PW-11, deposed that he is working as Record Clerk at Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and that the case note Ex.PW-11/A of Y, discharge summary Ex.PW-11/C of X were prepared by Dr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta.That Dr.PW-36/B on the said application allowing the return of the said application.A.464/2009 Page 34 of 130 save herself by taking a turn.The accused inflicted several knife blows on her body.The accused also gave knife blows on the neck and back of X. The accused removed the under pant of X as also his clothes.Thereafter the accused committed bad act with X. The accused made X to lie on her bed and again committed bad act with her.(The witness explained the meaning of bad act by stating that (Quote) 'By bad act I mean that he laid himself on my sister'.) The accused placed his fingers on the nostrils of X to ascertain if she was breathing or not and went out of the room.After a while X asked her to call their mother but she did not go as she was scared.After sometime X herself went to room of their parents by crawling on the floor.On the way to hospital I was accompanied by my first floor neighbour Sh.Gurmeet Singh.' On being questioned about the knife which was stuck in the neck of the deceased the witness stated that (Quote) 'I had removed the knife from the neck of my son and the same was left at the spot.That knife remained on the spot when I left for D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.The accused was also present in their bedroom up till 11.00 P.M. and thereafter he also left from there.The accused used to sleep in a room built on the roof of their house.At about 12.40 AM she heard the noise that of light being switched on upon which she woke up and saw that X was smeared with blood and was not having any undergarments on her person.She woke up her husband and made X to lie on her bed.X told her that she has been assaulted by the accused.In the meantime Y also came there and told her that the accused has stabbed D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 41 of 130 her, X and the deceased.On hearing the same, she and her husband rushed to the bedroom of the children where they saw that a knife is stuck in the neck of the deceased.Her husband pulled out the knife from the neck of the deceased.They raised an alarm.She and her neighbours put on the clothes on the person of X and removed the children to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital.On the intervening night of 18.19/10.2006 at about 12.20 PM or 12.30 PM he was about to go to sleep when he heard some noise but he ignored the same.After a while he heard a voice saying that my children have been caused injuries.I remained in the hospital only for 5 D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 44 of 130 minutes.When I returned back to the house I saw the police officials, present there.'D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 44 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 45 of 130As per the said register, a female D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.Believing the evidence of X PW-21 and Y PW-22, to be creditworthy, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused of having murdered the deceased, attempted to murder X and Y and raped X. With respect to the charge under Section 392 IPC framed against the accused, the learned Trial Judge has held that since there is no evidence to show that the accused used force to remove the ring from the finger of X he cannot be convicted for the offence of having committed robbery of the ring of X. The learned Trial Judge held that the accused is guilty of committing theft of the ring of X, an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.(We shall be noting the reasoning of the learned Trial Judge with regard to imposition of death penalty on the accused in the later part of this judgment).At the hearing, numerous arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the accused, which arguments can be divided into following two categories:-A.464/2009 Page 53 of 130 the trial court shows that the lawyer appointed by the trial court to defend the accused defended the accused in a most slipshod manner inasmuch as he did not appear before the trial court on many dates and did not subject witnesses of the prosecution to any cross-examination.PW-27/A and FSL report Ex.PW-37/A. Counsel urged that the recordings contained in the PCR form Ex.PW-19/A and DD entry Ex.PW-37/A that semen was detected on the vaginal swabs of both X and Y establishes that both the girls had sexual intercourse on the date of the offence.PW-19/A. Counsel urged that the gap of 35 minutes between the time of reaching of Gurpreet Singh at the place of occurrence and time of his informing the police about the incident shows that the parents of the children and Gurpreet Singh bought time to decide a strategy as to what should have been told to the police before conveying information of the incident to the police.The reason given by Inspector for seeking the remand of the accused was that the accused is required to be interrogated to ascertain the source of knife used by him for committing the offence.PW-6/A dated 20.10.2006 and 22.10.2006 respectively record the age of the accused as 22 years.The report Ex.PW- 12/A of the sexual examination of the accused dated 20.10.2006 records the age of the accused as 20 years.The report further records that the accused is married and is father of a female child.It can again be assumed D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 66 of 130 without any doubt that the aforesaid submission would have been made by the counsel on the basis of the information provided to him by the accused.Considering the aforesaid recordings and the fact that the accused was married and was having a female child on the date of offence, we hold that the accused was aged 19-20 years on the date of offence.We may hasten to add that the accused has very cleverly not informed about the date and the year of his birth or the place of his birth, thereby preventing an investigation into the primary facts with reference to the record of the Registrar of Births and Deaths or the village panchayat, depending upon whether the accused was born in a rural or an urban area.This has also prevented the issue to be investigated by examining the parents of the accused.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 65 of 130The case was adjourned to 23.02.2007 for hearing of arguments on framing of charges against the accused.On 23.02.2007 the arguments on framing of charges against the accused were D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 67 of 130 heard and the case was adjourned to 06.03.2007 for order on charge.On the next dates i.e. 06.03.2007 and 08.03.2007 the case was adjourned.On 09.03.2007 charges were framed against the accused.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him and the case was adjourned to 18.04.2007 for the recording of prosecution evidence.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 67 of 130On 18.04.2007 three witnesses namely K.Goyal PW-1, Dr.M.Arshad PW-2 and Dr.Gaurav Singhal PW-3 were examined.It be noted here that counsel for the accused was not present in the court on the said date and therefore the witnesses could not be subjected to cross-examination.The case was adjourned to 16.05.2007 for recording of the remaining prosecution evidence.On 16.05.2007 the witnesses; Dr.Rakesh Kumar PW-4, Gurpreet Singh PW-5 Dr.Hari Gupta PW-6, Dr.Sudha Kansal PW-7, Dr.Seema Patni PW-8 and Dr.Uma Rani Swain PW-9 were examined.The said witnesses were not subjected to any cross- examination by counsel for the accused.It is most relevant to note here that the witnesses examined till this time were formal witnesses.None of the said witnesses deposed anything which was incriminatory to the accused in the present case.On the same date Gurpreet Singh PW-5, the neighbour of the children, was examined.He was the first witness whose evidence incriminated the accused in the D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.At the time of the cross-examination of the witness, the accused pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him.He also filed an application in said regard and the same was taken on record by the trial court.The witness was not subjected to any cross-examination by counsel for the accused.Thereafter the witnesses; Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10 and Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya PW-11 were partly examined and the case was adjourned to 26.05.2007 for recording of the remaining prosecution evidence and the accused was directed to rethink over the guilty plea taken by him.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 68 of 130On 26.05.2007 the examination-in-chief of the witnesses; Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10 and Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya PW-11, was completed and the other witnesses Dr.The said witnesses were not subjected to any cross-examination by counsel for the accused.The accused filed a second application pleading guilty to the charges framed against him.On the next dates the case was adjourned.Thereafter on 13.09.2007 witness namely HC Jai Kumar PW-19 was examined.It be noted here that counsel for the accused was not present in the court on the said date.The case was D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.On 27.09.2007 S.K.Jha, Advocate appraised the court that he does not want to defend the accused and in such circumstances, Mr.K.S.Rana, Advocate was appointed as counsel for the accused.On 01.11.2007 witnesses; HC Pawan Kumar PW-20 and X PW-21 were examined.X PW-21, was cross-examined at length whereas HC Pawan Kumar was not subjected to any cross-examination by counsel for the accused.On 2.11.2007 and 03.11.2007 Y PW-22 and Nirmala Aggarwal PW-23 were examined and subjected to a lengthy cross-examination.Thereafter on 3/4/5/6/7.12.2007 the witnesses; HC Shiv Pratap Singh PW-24, Const.Tejpal PW-25, ASI Manish Kumar Bhardwaj PW-26, SI Ajay Kumar PW-27, HC Yogender PW-28, Inspector Vimal Kishore PW-29, HC Sanjay PW-30 and Const.Ramesh Chand PW-31, were examined and subjected to cross-examination.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 69 of 130On 07.12.2007 counsel for the accused requested the trial court to allow him to cross-examine Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10, which request was accepted by the trial court and Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal was recalled.On the same date, counsel for the accused cross-examined Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal.On the next dates i.e. 16/17/18.01.2008 the witnesses; HC Rajpal PW-32, HC Tejpal PW-33, SI Rishipal Singh PW-34, SI D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 70 of 130 Ramesh Dixit PW-35, Dr.V.K.Goyal PW-36, Anita Chhari PW-37 and SI Manohar Lal PW-38 were examined and subjected to cross-examination.On 17.01.2008 the accused filed third application pleading guilty to the charges framed against him.Vide order dated 17.01.2008 the trial court rejected all the applications filed by the accused pleading guilty to the charges framed against him.On the same date, counsel for the accused filed an application before the trial court seeking recall of the witnesses; Gurpreet Singh PW-5 and Prem Prakash Aggarwal PW-17, which application was allowed by the learned trial court.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 70 of 130On 02.02.2008 the witness; SI Dharampal PW-40 was examined and subjected to cross-examination.On the next date i.e. 04.02.2008 the witnesses; Gurpreet Singh PW-5 and Ramesh Aggarwal PW-17 were cross-examined by counsel for the accused.On the next date i.e.03.03.2008 the accused filed an application before the trial court seeking transfer of his case from the court which was dealing with his case to another court on the ground that the court which is dealing with his D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.In such circumstances, the matter was placed before District and Sessions Judge.On the same date, District and Sessions Judge sent the matter back to the concerned court in view of the submissions made by counsel for the accused that he does not want the case to be transferred to another court.On the next date 04.03.2008 the witness namely Ajay Goel PW-41 was examined and subjected to cross- examination.The accused filed yet another application pleading guilty to the charges framed against him, which application was again rejected by the trial court.On the next dates the witnesses HC Arun Kumar PW-42, Geeta Arora PW- 43, Santosh Kumar PW-44 and Dr.Urvashi Prasad Jha PW-46 were examined and subjected to cross-examination.On 03.05.2008 the accused filed an application before the trial court for taking on record his confessional statement recorded by Metropolitan Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C., which application was dismissed by the trial court.On 13.05.2008 Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48 was examined and subjected to cross-examination.The evidence of the prosecution was closed by the prosecutor.On 02.07.2008 the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he virtually admitted all the incriminating D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 72 of 130 circumstances appearing against him.Thereafter the case kept on getting adjourned.On 24.09.2008 after a perusal of its order sheets the trial court found that the witnesses; K.Goyal PW-1, Dr.M.Arshad PW- 2 and Dr.Gaurav Singhal PW-3 and Dr.Rakesh Kumar were examined in the absence of counsel of the accused.(It may be noted here that learned trial court has wrongly noted that Dr.Rakesh Kumar PW-4 was examined in the absence of counsel of the accused.In that view of the matter, trial court gave an opportunity to the counsel for the accused to recall the said witnesses for cross-examination, which opportunity was not availed by counsel on the ground that the said witnesses were formal witnesses.Thereafter the arguments were heard and D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 73 of 130 the court passed the impugned judgment and order on sentence.The learned trial court gave an opportunity to counsel for the accused to recall and cross-examine the witnesses who were examined in the absence of defence counsel.Whether a conclusion can be drawn from the PCR Form Ex.PW-19/A, DD entry Ex.PW-27/A that the offence was committed by more than one person?Generally, the process of criminal law sets into motion when the informant rings up number 100 and the said call is received at the police control room which is centralized.The duty officer at PCR thereupon notes the information provided D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 78 of 130 by the informant in the PCR form and conveys the said information either over the telephone or wireless to the concerned police station where the duty officer notes down the same in the DD register.The error which crept in the PCR form Ex.PW-19/A was bound to occur in the DD entry Ex.PW-20/A as the DD entries are prepared on the basis of the information recorded in the PCR form.PW-9/B of gynecological D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 79 of 130 examination of Y records that hymen of Y was found intact.The question which thus arises is that how come semen was found on vaginal swab of Y when she was not subjected to sexual intercourse?D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 79 of 130The answer to the aforesaid question lies in the testimony of X and Y. As already noted herein above, both X and Y deposed that the accused asked Y to remove her pant.Y stated in her cross-examination that she sat on the bed on which the accused raped X. These two depositions explain the presence of semen on the vaginal swab of X. Though it is not clear from the testimony X and Y whether Y did remove her pant or not the fact, that semen was found on her vaginal swab shows that Y did remove her pant.The fact of the matter is that Y removed her pant as directed by the accused and sat on the bed on which the accused raped X after removing her pant.The semen of the accused fell on the bed sheet spread on the said bed and the vagina of Y got stained with the semen which had fallen on the bed sheet as she was sitting on the said bed and her private parts were not covered by any cloth.Pertaining to the submission that the parents of the children and Gurpreet Singh bought time before conveying information of the incident to the police, it be noted here that X deposed that at around 12.00 A.M. on 19.10.2006 she heard D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.It depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.Where was the time for X and Y to comprehend that the accused has left their room and that they should rush to the room of their parents in the absence of the accused?This takes us to the next two submissions advanced by the learned counsel predicated upon the statement Ex.PW- 46/A of X. X was seriously ill at the time when she wrote her statement Ex.PW-46/A. She had undergone tracheotomy and D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 86 of 130 the tracheotomy tube was still inside her neck.It is most reasonable to assume that the mental faculties of X were slow at that time because of which she took some time to remember the name of the accused.What is significant to note that X was able to correctly state that the name of the accused was Sanjay, that he was their domestic servant and that he was working in their house since last one week even when she was seriously ill.Far from showing that X was tutored to falsely implicate the accused statement Ex.PW-46/A goes a long way in showing that X spoke the truth at the first available opportunity.The accused was armed with a knife.The children were caught unawares as the accused attacked them while they were sleeping.The accused was under a fit of rage.He was inflicting injuries on X when she was trying to stop him.X was badly injured by the accused.X was defenceless.In these circumstances could X have managed to injure the accused? The answer is an emphatic NO.The next question which has arisen is that whether the conduct of the mother of the children in going with the police to look for the accused too soon after the occurrence can be D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.Different people react differently in similar situations.In the facts of the present case it is completely comprehensible that the mother of the children was filled with fury against the accused and that her anger for the accused outweighed her other emotions.We find nothing unnatural in the conduct of mother of the children in assisting the police in arresting the deceased too soon after the occurrence.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 87 of 130Whether the knives seized by the police from the place of occurrence were planted?It is no doubt true that the brief facts Ex.PW-1/C8 pertaining to the death of the deceased records that one knife was recovered from the place of occurrence.What is equally relevant to note is the fact that the other documents which were prepared contemporaneously with the brief facts Ex.PW- 1/C8 record that two knives have been recovered from the place of occurrence.The crime team report Ex.PW-27/A records that two knives were recovered from the place of occurrence.The photographs of the place of occurrence show the presence of two knives at the place of occurrence.The police officials who participated in the spot investigation have deposed that two knives were recovered from the place of occurrence.Nirmala Aggarwal PW-23, has deposed about the presence of two knives at the place of occurrence.In the light D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 88 of 130Though the fact that two knives were recovered from the place of occurrence indicates that the weapon of offence was knife, but the same was not a conclusive proof.The picture would have come out clearly only after the post-mortem of the deceased.The investigating officer wanted to be completely sure that the knife was the weapon of offence and therefore he did not record in the death report that the knife was the weapon of the offence.But at the same time it is also worth mentioning that the witness stated in his cross- examination that 'I had removed the knife from the neck of my son and the same was left at the spot.That knife remained on the spot when I left for the hospital.I did not find that knife there in my house when I came back at 10.00 am from the hospital'.A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment.A cumulative reading of the aforesaid deposition made by Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10, shows that he got carried away while deposing facts and imagined that the knife which was stuck in the neck of the deceased was taken away by the accused.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 89 of 130To deal with the submission predicated upon the deposition of Gurpreet Singh PW-5, relating to the knives recovered from the place of occurrence, it is necessary to closely scrutinize the evidence of Gurpreet Singh.Gurpreet Singh PW-5, deposed that he went to the room where the occurrence took place but did not see any knife there.He stated in his cross-examination that he went to the said room after the arrival of the police at the place of occurrence.The powers of observation differ from person to person.What one may notice, another may not.An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.Having given no opportunity to the witnesses to explain the circumstance pertaining to lifting of finger prints from the knives in question no adverse inference can be taken against the prosecution.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 91 of 130There must have been mayhem at the place of occurrence after the incident.Inspector Vimal Kishore deposed that he along with HC Yogender left Delhi at about 04.00/04.30 A.M. on 19.10.2006 to go to Rishikesh to arrest the accused.It is thus apparent that an innocuous error has been committed by HC Yogender in deposing the time when the police party left Delhi to go to Rishikesh to arrest the accused.PW-2/B of Y. The endorsement dated 19.10.2006 made on the application Ex.The eighth feature is that the parents of the children deposed that X and Y deposed that immediately after the occurrence X and Y came to their room and told them that the accused has committed the crime.It is also relevant to note that Gurpreet Singh PW-5 deposed that he went to the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by the parents of the children, which alarm was raised by them soon after the occurrence.A.464/2009 Page 126 of 130Following aggravating circumstances have been noted by the trial court against the appellant:-The accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC for the reason we have found a taint in the manner the ring has been recovered as discussed in para 144 above.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 129 of 130

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.47983/2019 (Kalu @ Raees s/o Mazid Shah Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 27.11.2019 Mr. Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.

['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram and Miss Seita Vaidyalingam forthe Petitioner.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.CHANDRACHUD, C.J. By this petition under Article 32 ofthe Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity ofsection 497 of the Penal Code which defines the offence of'adultery' and prescribes punishment for it.A few facts,interesting but unfortunate, leading to this petition arethese:The petitioner filed a petition for divorce against herhusband on the ground of desertion.The trial courtdismissed that petition, holding that the petitioner herselfhad deserted the husband and not the other way about.Thereafter, the husband filed a petition for divorce againstthe petitioner on two grounds: firstly, that she haddeserted him and secondly, that she was living in adulterywith a person called Dharma Ebenezer.The petitionerconceded in that petition that in view of the findingrecorded in the earlier proceeding that she had deserted herhusband, a decree for divorce may be passed against her onthe ground of desertion.That plea was opposed by the husband.He contended that hewas entitled to obtain a decree of divorce against thepetitioner not only on the ground of desertion but also onthe ground of adultery and that, there was no reason why heshould be denied an opportunity to show that the petitionerwas living in adultery.The husband's contention wasaccepted by the trial court but, in a revision applicationfiled by the petitioner, the High Court accepted her pleaand held that since, the finding recorded in the earlierpetition was binding on the parties, a decree for divorcehad to be passed in favour of the744husband on the ground of desertion and that, it wasunnecessary to inquire into the question of adultery.Weare informed at the Bar that, pursuant to the High Court'sview, a decree for divorce has already been passed in favourof the husband on the ground that the petitioner haddeserted him.Therewill be no order as to costs.

['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:33 :::Shivram and accused Laldas were adjoining land holders.Therewas a dhura in between their fields.Similarly, there were babool trees on the saiddhura.The accused and the deceased were on inimical terms, on the point ofdhura and Babool trees.On the day of the incident i.e. 13.5.2000 at about 11.00am, while Shivram was cutting branches of tree at the dhura i.e. boundary of thefield, at that time, his servant Ashok (PW5) was working in his field.DATED: 20th September, 2017ORAL JUDGMENT:Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.11.2003 inSessions Trial No.86/2001 delivered by the learned 3rd Ad-hoc AdditionalSessions Judge, Nagpur, convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'theaccused') for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of the Indian PenalCode and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for six months, the present Appeal is filed.Brief facts giving rise to the instant Appeal may be summarized as ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:33 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 2under:-Theaccused was also working in his field.As Shivram was cutting babool treebranches, the accused objected for the same.On this issue, quarrel took placebetween the accused and Shivram.At that point of time, accused gave a blow ofstick on the head of Shivram, as a result, he fell down and sustained bleedinginjury on his head.The people from neighbouring fields gathered at that place.Inthe meantime Ashok (PW5) intimated the family members and Sheela (PW 6),who is the daughter-in-law of Shivram.The neighbours of the Shivram tooreached at that place.Accused tried to give water to the deceased.Shivram wasthen shifted by a bullock cart to his village and thereafter to the hospital wherehe was declared dead.It is the case of the prosecution that accused visitedJalalkheda Police Station and lodged his report thereby confessing his guilt.Onthe basis of the report given by the accused, an offence was registered foroffence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC.At the relevant time, Police Inspector-Namdeo Ingole (PW10) was ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:33 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 3attached to Jalalkheda Police Station.He recorded the spot panchnama andreferred the dead body of Shivram to the hospital for post-mortem.PW10 thenarrested the accused.The clothes of the accused were taken charge.At theinstance of the accused, a babool stick was seized by the police underPanchnama.The seized articles were sent to the C.A. office for analysis.After theinvestigation was over, charge-sheet was filed in the court of learned JMFC.Thecase was committed to the court of Sessions.The learned Additional SessionsJudge framed the charge.On appreciation of the evidence and after hearing bothsides, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused, as aforesaid.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:33 :::Heard Shri N.D. Khamborkar, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Shri N.H. Joshi, the learned A.P.P. for the respondent -State.The prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1-Dr.Ravindra Ade, Medical Officer, PW 6-Sheela, daughter-in-law of the deceased,PW 9-Rajnarayan Mishra and PW 10-Namdeo Ingole, both Investigating officers.In order to prove that it was a homicidal death, the prosecutionrelied upon the testimony of Medical officer-Dr.Ravindra Ande (PW1) whoconducted the autopsy on deceased-Shivram.On external examination, he noticed the following injuries :-Right eye black swollen, blood oozing from left ear and both nostrils, position of tongue normal, In Column No.17, following external injuries were noted: ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:33 :::Contusion of size 2.5x2.5cm over left tempo parietal bone above left ear with extravaccasation of blood in skin with infiluation of subcutaneous tissues with blood figure is also drawn regarding injury-1, age of injury 20 to 24 hrs, object hard and blunt.Fracture right tempo parietal bone of size 5 x 5 circumference fracture lines radiates towards ferental bone, age 20 to 24 hours.Object hard and blunt, nature grievous injury.3. Contused abrasion 5x3 cm over left side of back age about 20 to 24 hrs.object hard and blunt.On internal examination following injuries were mentioned inColumn No.19:Fractural of right tempo parietal bone 5 x 5 cm circumference fracture lines radiates towards frontal bone as per figure no.Nature of injury dangerous (grievous).Brain intra cerebral haemorrhage present profusely over right side of brain beneath skull (right tempo parietal) due to injury to brain and its membrane.Slight intracerebral haemorrhage present over left side.No any abnormality seen.All organs are pale.According to PW1-Dr.Ravindra, the cause of death was due to intracranial haemorrhage due to forceful impact of hard and blunt object over the ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 5skull.However PW1 stated that death may be due to cardio respiratory arrestdue to haemorrhagic shock.PW1 stated that exact cause would be revealedafter C.A. of viscera.On going through theCA Report he stated that the CA report rules out the possibility of poison and heconfirmed his opinion.On examination of the stick PW1 found the blood stains.According to him, the injuries over the skull was possible by the stick.Similarly,the injury Nos.1 to 3 were possible by a stick.He issued the report accordingly(Exh.20).It is significant to note that during the cross-examination PW1 statedthat the injuries were possible if the person falls from tree on branches and thendown, but there would be other fracture or dislocation.He however stated that hehad not examined the spinal cord of the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::Thus, the testimony of PW1 does not rule out the possibility of thedeceased falling from tree and receiving injuries.No doubt, the Medical Officerhas examined the weapon i.e babool stick and has opined that the injury over theskull is possible by stick and the death is possible by hard and blunt object.Heissued the medical certificate (Exh.20).According to him, the blood stains werefound on the Babool stick.In this regard, recovery the CA report (Exh.42)reveals that no blood was found on the wooden stick.Thus, the testimony of theMedical Officer although indicates that the injury can be caused by a stick, theC.A. report does not reveal blood stains on the said stick.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 6vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge has not considered the aspectthat the homicidal death has not been proved by the prosecution and the testimonyof the Medical Officer PW1 reveals that the injury can be caused due to fall fromtree.He further contended that the eye witness PW5-Ashok, who has notsupported the case of the prosecution had, in fact, his testimony shows that theaccused gave him a call that his master had fallen down from the tree.Hecontended that actually the death of the accused was caused due to falling fromthe tree and as such, the persons working in the field at the time of the incident,they had not supported the case of the prosecution that deceased died due to theassault by the accused by means of Babool stick.He pointed out that even thediscovery and recovery of Babool stick has not been proved by the prosecutionbeyond reasonable doubt.Thus, he contended that the prosecution has failed toprove that it is a homicidal death and it was in fact an accidental death.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::Reverting back to the prosecution case, PW9-Mishra deposed thaton 13.5.2000 the accused visited the Police Station, Jalalkheda and has given anoral report that the land of Shivram is adjacent to the land accused and there is ababool tree on the border of the said dhura of that land and because of thatquarrel took place and in that quarrel Shivram pelted stone on accused andthereafter accused assaulted Shivram by babool stick.The assault was on theleft side of his head and while taking him in the hospital Shivram died.So far as the report is concerned, it is significant ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 7to note that under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, confession ofthe accused before the police is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and itcannot be read in evidence as such.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::Apart from the said evidence, the prosecution relied upon thetestimony of PW 6-Sheela, who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased.Accordingto her, on the fateful day, her servant Ashok (PW5) and Shivram went to the fieldin the morning.At about 11.30, Ashok came home and informed her that herfather-in-law was beaten by Laldas/accused.On this, she along with Kundabai,Dipak, Ashok, Subhash proceeded to the field.A babool stag was lying near thedhura and her father in law was laying down and blood was oozing from hismouth, nose and eyes .They offered water to him, however he could not drink it.PW6-Sheela stated that she had not seen the accused at that time.Shivram wastaken in a bullock cart to his house and thereafter shifted to Hospital, however hewas declared dead.From the testimony of PW6 it can be gathered that Ashok(PW 5) informed that the deceased was beaten by the accused.However thereis no corroboration to the testimony of PW6-Sheela as PW 5-Ashok turnedhostile.She has not supported the case of the prosecution, so far as actualincident is concerned.According to PW5-Ashok, on that day he had come to hisemployer's field.Shivram was cutting branches of babool tree and he wasploughing the field and the accused was in his field.The accused called him and ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 8said that his master had fallen down from the tree.Thereafter, the familymembers of Shivram came to that place and took him to their house.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::According to him, on 13.5.2000, the accusedwhile in custody gave information that the stick of babhool was thrown in thefield and he showed his willingness to produce the said stick.PW 10 stated that the stick wasconcealed in the heap of branches of babool tree.He took charge of the saidstick under panchnama (Exh.48).The testimony of PW10 reveals that the baboolstick was kept in a heap of branches of babool tree.Significantly, it cannot betermed as a disclosure of the stick i.e. weapon as such as the said place wasan open space and accessible to public.Thus, the seizure of the stick at theinstance of the accused has not been proved by the prosecution beyondreasonable doubt and it cannot be termed as discovery under section 27 of theEvidenceWith regard to the confession made by the accused vide F.I.R.(Exh.32) , an useful reference can be made to the judgment reported in (1994) 2 ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 9SCC 467 in the case of Bherusingh vs.State of Rajasthan, wherein the Hon'bleApex Court observed thus:-::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::The accused along with others, putShivram in bullock-cart and took him to village.The other facts disclosed in theFIR are in nature of confession made to the police (PW9) which cannot be used ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 11against the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::Hence the order :-i) Criminal Appeal No. 655/2003 is allowed.iv) The bail bond of the appellant shall stand cancelled.JUDGEsahare ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The present petition u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. invoking inherent powers of the Court has been filed for quashment of FIR (Annexure P-3) bearing crime No. 264/2014 alleging offence punishable u/Ss. 395, 397 of IPC and section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act registered at police station Civil Lines, Morena against the petitioner.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners primarily raises three grounds; first ground is that the said FIR is an outcome of an act of retaliation because one Parasram who is relative of petitioner was murdered in regard to which separate FIR was lodged on 05/06/2013 bearing crime No. 286/2013 (Annexure P-1) alleging offence punishable u/Ss. 302, 147, 148, 149, 294 of IPC; second ground is that the impugned FIR has been lodged solely on the basis of direction issued by this Court in MCRC No. 631/2014, whereby certain directions were issued to the police authorities to act under section 154 of Cr.P.C. upon the complaint filed by 2 Ramveer & Ors.Government of U.P. & Ors.reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 and the third ground is that the alleged offence contained in impugned FIR is vitiated on the ground that the basic ingredient of alleged offence of Dacoity is not made out.Before embarking on the ground of retaliation, it is important to find out as to whether the allegation contained in impugned FIR make out the basic ingredient of offence alleged or not?The offence alleged is of Dacoity u/S. 391, 395 & 397 IPC are reproduced herein below for ready reference and convenience :-Section 391 - Dacoity "When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity."Ramveer & Ors.State of M.P.M.Cr.C. No.5898/2014 Section 395 - Punishment for dacoity "Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."Section 397 - Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt :-"If, at the time of commuting robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years."Bare perusal of the allegation contained in impugned FIR reveals that the accused barged into the house of the victim and forcibly took away 300 bags of wheat and some bags of Arahar and Gram pulses.It is also alleged that T.V., Fridge and other utensils were also taken away along with 30 buffaloes, after extending intimidation and dire consequences to the 4 Ramveer & Ors.State of M.P.M.Cr.C. No.5898/2014 victim.The basic ingredients of Dacoity which is an aggravated form of theft are that while causing theft if intimidation, threat to cause injuries or death is extended by five or more persons, the offence of Dacoity is made out.The allegation contained in the impugned FIR which on prima facie basis reflects that the victim was deprived of certain properties belonging to her by entering into the house and taking away the properties by extending intimidation, threat or fear to cause injury / death.The petitioners were more than five in number and, therefore, on plain reading of the FIR the alleged offence of Dacoity is made out.As regards, other ground of lodging of impugned FIR to be an act of retaliation, this Court is of the prima facie view that the offence alleged of Dacoity is made out in view of allegation contained in the impugned FIR, the said ground cannot be considered in favour of the petitioners.Since Parasram (relative of the petitioner) was murdered, the impugned FIR was lodged as an act of retaliation, this Court 5 Ramveer & Ors.State of M.P.M.Cr.C. No.5898/2014 cannot come to the conclusion that injustice is being caused to the petitioners to the extent of compelling this Court can invoke its inherent powers u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. No such power can be invoked in favour of the petitioners by presuming that due to an act of retaliation the impugned FIR has been lodged by the victim.Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the allegation contained in impugned FIR are absurd and baseless.This Court is afraid that the veracity of the allegation contained in the impugned FIR cannot be adjudged at this stage unless they are put to test on the anvil of evidence adduced.The order passed in MCRC No. 631/2014 has not been brought on record.M.Cr.C. No.5898/2014 542 in respect of the ground that the petitioners were not heard before FIR impugned was lodged against them, Anjani Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Anr.reported in (2008) 2 SCC (Cr.) 582 in respect of the submission that the impugned FIR is an outcome of retaliation and therefore is vitiated by malafide and lastly reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar and Anr.reported in (2011) 1 SCC (Cr.) 94 in respect of submission that allegation in the impugned FIR are absurd and vague.In regard to decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioners supra there is no quarrel that each one of them is an authority by itself on the facts and circumstances prevailing therein.However, none of these decisions of the Apex Court lay down that even if on plain reading of FIR impugned, the allegation contained therein discloses commission of cognizable offence, even then the High Court is empowered to exercise inherent powers u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR.State of M.P.M.Cr.C. No.5898/2014 which were found to be a counter blast to the action taken by the accused in his official capacity.13.3 Considering the delayed lodging of impugned FIR and also the fact that the accused in the impugned FIR are the complainant in the earlier FIR Annexure P-1, presumption arises that subsequent FIR is an after thought, lodged merely to take revenge.However, considering the fact that the allegation contained in the impugned FIR relates to dacoity in Morena which is notified as a kidnapping at dacoity affected area under the special enactment of MPDVPK Act, 1981 and allegation on prima facie basis satisfy the 8 Ramveer & Ors.This Court on hearing learned counsel for the petitioners found that the victim in the impugned FIR had informed the police about commission of cognizable offence and since police authorities failed to act upon it, MCRC No. 631/2014 was filed where this Court issued direction keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari(supra) that every police officer is obliged to lodge FIR in case information furnished discloses commission of cognizable offence.Accordingly necessary directions by this Court were issued to the police authorities to act upon the complaint filed by the victim in terms of section 154 of Cr.P.C. after keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra).Reading of impugned FIR does not indicate that merely on the direction of this Court impugned FIR was lodged, but it was lodged on account of furnishing of information in regard to commission of cognizable offence of Dacoity.There is another submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that before passing order in MCRC No. 631/2014, petitioners were not heard.In this regard, this Court is of the considered view that lodging of FIR u/S. 154 of Cr.P.C. there is no need to hear the accused before lodging the FIR.Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein below for ready reference and convenience :-"Section 154 - Information in cognizable cases (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.Provided further that--(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376, section 376A,section 376B, section 376C, section 376D or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed or attempted is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of a special educator or an interpreter, as the case may be;(b) the recording of such information may be videographed.Ramveer & Ors.M.Cr.C. No.5898/2014(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub- section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.No order as to cost.

['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The appellants are six in number.On 17.09.2002 during mid night, as many as 10 persons came to the house of one Rangiyam V.N. Chidambaram and tied the watchman and the cook of the house and stole a silver idol worth about Rs.10,000/-.During the occurrence, the watchman of the house, namely, Azhagappan was injured.In this regard, the said Azhagappan lodged an information before Panaiyapatti police station on 18.09.2002 at about 3.00 a.m. Based on the same, Crime No.125 of 2002 was registered for the offence under Section 397 of I.P.C.Investigation was taken up and final report came to be laid against as many as 10 persons before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam.It was taken up for trial in S.C.No.66 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai.Out of the 10 accused, only six accused were available for facing the trial and the remaining four accused had absconded.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.The charges framed against the appellants as follows:-prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.M.O.1 to M.O.7 were also marked.The learned trial Judge after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record, sentenced the accused as under:-Accused Nos.1 to 6 120(b)of I.P.C. To undergo 2 years R.I. Accused Nos.1 to 5 395 of I.P.C. To undergo 5 years R.I.120(b)of I.P.C. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months R.I.Accused No.6 412 of I.P.C. To undergo 2 years R.I.Challenging the Judgment dated 31.03.2010, this Criminal appealhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 has been filed.Even though the appeal was filed through a counsel, when the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation on the side of the accused.Since they have already served the entire terms of sentence, this appeal is dismissed as far as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned.The identification of an accused before the trial Court alone would be the substantive evidence.In this case, P.W.1 Palani could not identify any of the accused before the trial Court.In fact the entire case of the prosecution rested on the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. from one Sikkandharkani.But he turned hostile before the Court.As regards accused No.6, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the idol in question M.O.1 was seized only from the house of the sixth accused and that is why the charge under Section 412 of I.P.C. was also framed against him.But then, the learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellants drew my attention to the testimony of P.W.17, namely, investigation officer who had statedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 that on the date when M.O.1 2¼ Kg.silver Vinayagar idol was seized, no confession was obtained from accused No.6 Ramachandra Prabhu.Looked at from any angle, I am of the view that the impugned Judgment cannot stand as far as accused Nos.1,4, 5 and 6 are concerned and the same is set aside as far as they are concerned.The Criminal appeal stands allowed as far as accused Nos.1,4, 5 and 6 are concerned.No costs.The Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai.The Inspector of Police, Panaiyappatti Police Station, Pudukkottai District.3.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.pmu Crl.A.(MD)No.127 of 2010 22.07.2019http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Nirmalabai was the wife of the appellant.They married 20 years hence the alleged occurrence.JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chouhan, J.It appears that she committed suicide sometime in the night intervening 7th and 8th January, 1990 by consuming poison.She died while on way to hospital on 8-11990 and the F.I.R./Marg (Ex.P/1) was lodged by Ward Boy.Garibdas (P.W.I) at 8.35 A.M. at P.S. Timarni.The prosecution case in brief was that deceased Nirmalabai, the wife of the appellant, was married 20 years hence the alleged occurrence.During her life time about 15-16 years hence the date of alleged occurrence he married a second woman namely Kotubai.The appellant usedto beat and accuse Nirmalabai.On a night between 7th and 8th of January, 1990 Nirmalabai was given a beating, as a result of which she consumed poison which resulted in her death.The accused took Nirmalabai to Timarni Hospital where Dr. Sharad Kumar Gadre on 9-1-1990 sent a written information Ex.P/2 to the police Station Timarni and a case of sudden death was registered and the panchnama was prepared but no cause for death could be ascertained by the Police Officers or the panch witnesses, therefore, the body was sent for post mortem.In the post mortem it was detected that the death was on account of consuming some poison.It was also detected that in the night at about 11.00 A. M. Nirmalabai was shouting in her house for seeking help by saying ^^cpkvks & cpkvks**- On this basis the case was registered against the accused-appellant for an offence punishable under Section 306, Indian Penal Code and after investigation the charge-sheet was filed for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses.Garibdas, the Ward boy of the Govt. Hospital, Timarni was examined as P.W.I who sent the information of the death of Nirmalabai to the police.There was no dying declaration of the deceased.The cause of death as per the opinion of Dr. S. K Gadre (P.W. 6) was consumption of the poison.In defence, the prosecution allegation was denied and the accused stated that he did not commit any cruelty, did not assault her wife Nirmalabai in the alleged night and it was he who took her to the hospital.7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Panel Lawyer for the State.Learned counsel for the appellant made three-fold submissions :-(i) That the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the presence of the appellant in the house at the relevant point of time and as a result whereof no guilt can be fastened on the appellant for the offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code.(ii) Apart attribution of beating to the deceased it cannot be said and held to be an act of abetting of suicide by the appellant and at the most if any liability in regard to the beating could be found that could be an offence only under Section 323, Indian Penal Code.Before the trial Court there were two questions for consideration as have been stated in paragraph 5 of the Judgment :-So far as the question of cruelty at the hands of the appellant against her wife Nirmalabai was concerned, the Court recorded a finding in paragraph 37 of the judgment.So far as the earlier incident was concerned, the cruelty cannot be established against him and for that he cannot be held guilty and that question was decided in negative.Second question was decided in affirmative but the appellant was not found guilty for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.He was found guilty for committing abetment between the period 7-1-1990 and 8-1-1990 which resulted in commission of suicide by Nirmalabai.It has come in the evidence of P.W. 2 Sushilabai in paragraph 6 that in the house apart from Nirmalabai, her husband's elder brother Ajabsingh, Tulsabai (wife of Ajabsingh) and Kotubai (second wife of the appellant) were living in the same house.None of these persons has been examined by the prosecution.So far evidence of Sushilabai (P.W.2) is concerned, there was enmity as a result of which she was not in talking terms with the deceased since last 8 years.Further in paragraph 12 she has stated that there are other houses adjacent to the house of the appellant.In the east side are the houses of Jagdish Wadi, Shyamabai and Ramesh Wadi.In the north side, adjacent to the house of the appellant, are the houses of Anarsingh, Yavalsingh, Umeshsingh etc. and in front of the house of the accused are the houses of Madansingh Master, Mastan Singh, Manohar Singh and Jeevan Singh.None of these witnesses has been examined.P.W.2 Sushilabai was not an independent witness as she was an interested witness, She has stated in her statement that Nirmalabai did not use to come to her place.She has stated that her father and brother are in the party of Madan Singh Master with whom the appellant is having litigation.Learned counsel further pointed out that P.W. 2 Sushilabai in her statement stated that on the date of occurrence she went to the temple and after returning back from the temple she heard the voice of Nirmalabai.On that day other ladies, whose houses were in the vicinity, adjacent to the house of the appellant, also went to temple and they returned with her from the temple when she heard the voice of Nirmalabai soliciting help.But in spite of availability of the witnesses, the prosecution did not examine any independent witness.P.W. 4 Jagdish, who was the witness of hearing voice of Nirmalabai soliciting help and calling for not beating, was declared hostile.The witness in the statement stated that the voice which he heard was that of a lady as it was a lady like voice.In his statement in paragraph 6 he has stated that he was working with Gajraj Singh, who is in the party of Madan Master.He worked at his place and was still working on the date of deposition.He clearly stated that between the parties of Devi Singh and Madan Master cases are going on in the Court of S.D.O. He also admitted a case against him where he was included in the party of Madan Master.The witness accordingly is not an independent witness.That apart, from the independent witnesses, the prosecution itself got the witness declared hostile.He was declared hostile on the point that in the statement under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code the police recorded that at that time the voice of Devi Singh was coming out and he was scolding his wife, which statement he denied, that he never gave any such statement to the police and he categorically stated that he did not hear any voice of Devi Singh.Then the prosecution examined Karan Singh as a witness for hearing the voice of Nirmalabai, but this witness did not support at all the prosecution case and he made a statement that on the relevant night no voice of shouting of Devi Singh or his wife was heard by him and he did not give any such statement to the police under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code.On this basis, the prosecution got him declared hostile.There is no other evidence which could link the appellant or establish the appellant about his presence in the house at the relevant point of time.As such the presence of the appellant in the house at the relevant point of time has not been established by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt and when the presence of the appellant in the house at the relevant time when occurrence took place has not been established then the question of abetment by instigation does not arise.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

All the proceeding are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing of various first information reports registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 273,188, 328 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 26(2)(i),26(2)(iv), 30(2)(a), 3(1)(zz)(v), 27, 59(3) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and various rules framed thereunder.2] The first proceeding is in respect of FIR No. 306/2015 registered with Tuljapur Police Station, District Osmanabad.Second proceeding is in respect of FIR No. 81/2016 registered with the same Police Station third proceeding is in respect of FIR No. 165/2015 registered with the same police station.Fourth proceeding is in respect of FIR No. 307 of 2015 registered with the same Police Station and the last proceeding is in respect of the FIR No. 165/2015 registered with the same Police Station.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2018 23:44:46 :::5 30-Cri.Appln.various brands, sweet tobacco of various brands are seized from the shops of the applicant of the said proceeding.The applicant is not having the bills in respect of all the quantity of the different varieties showing that he has purchased it from the wholesaler or from the manufacturers.In the second proceedings the applicant was found in possession of the similar items under different names.6] In the third proceeding similar items were found.In the first proceeding not only the packets, labels and names of the Company were found but the description of Gutka were also found and the quantity was worth more than Rs. 1.68 lakh.In that case also packets of scented Masla, tobacco were found.Packets of blended Gutka were also found worth more than Rs. 35,000/- and packets of Goa Gutka worth more than Rs. 41,000/- were found.In the last proceeding packets of Goa Gutka, Bab Gutka, R.M.B Gutka, R.C. Gutka, Ayarn Gutka and others packets of scented tobacco, Pan Masala and betel nut were found.The value of all these articles is more than Rs. 31,00,000/-.7] The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1027 of 2015, ( Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao and others Vs.The State of Maharashtra and others) decided with many other proceedings on 04.03.2016 and ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2018 23:44:46 ::: 6 30-Cri.8 30-Cri.Appln.9 30-Cri.Appln.A.P.P for respondent/ State : Mr. M.M. Nerlikar ...::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2018 23:44:46 :::

['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This Petition has been filed for a direction, directing the respondents 1 to 5 herein, to consider the representation, dated 09.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner, restraining the sixth respondent from claiming rights from erecting or putting up poles or towers for passing or transmitting anyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/22 W.P (MD).No.19118 of 2019 electricity cables or wires through the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.579, 580, 581, 582, 584 and 628, situated at Ayyanaar Oothu Village, Thoothukudi District.2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land comprised in Survey Nos.579, 580, 581, 582, 584 and 628, situated at Ayyanaar Oothu Village, Thoothukudi District, he has also been cultivated without any hindrance.While being so, the sixth respondent illegally trespassed in his land without any permission from the petitioner in order to draw lines for transmitting high-tension electricity in the land, which is absolutely belongs to the petitioner.3.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that though the sixth respondent is a private concern, they are distributing electricity placed for public purpose as such, there is absolutely no consent is necessary from the concerned land owners to draw electricity lines over the land.He further submitted that now the high-tension line already erected from the wind energy system as directed by the Electricity Board for distribution to the public.The entire work has been completed and as such the present Writ Petition become infructuous.No costs.Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd., NPKRR Maligai, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai.2.The District Collector Thoothukudi District , ThoothukudiLs W.P (MD).No.19118 of 2019 19.09.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 22/22He further submitted that the sixth respondent is a private concerned in nature and he has no right to enter into the petitioner's property without any permission, he is running a business only based on the profit oriented and the land proposed to be drawn over his land is a high-tension line and it caused various issues, the petitioner could not cultivate his agricultural land, it would affect the farming of his land and as such he would sustain huge loss.Therefore, he submitted a detail representation to the respondents 1 to 5 to take appropriate action as against the sixth respondent and unfortunately, it is pending on their file without taking any action.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/22 W.P (MD).No.19118 of 2019Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.4.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that on the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 09.08.2019 they conducted enquiry and revealed that the sixth respondent as directed by the Electricity Board transmitted high-tension electricity cables already from there wind energy system above the petitioner's land and distributed to the general public.Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 and the learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/22 W.P (MD).No.19118 of 20196.The petitioner is the owner of land comprised in Survey Nos.579, 580, 581, 582, 584 and 628, situated at Ayyanaar Oothu Village, Thoothukudi District.While being so, the sixth respondent erected wind mill energy system in their land and had contracted with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to distribute electricity energy to the general public as directed by the Electricity Board the sixth respondent have erected and had drawn high-tension electricity line to distribute the electricity energy to the general public.It is also seen from the photographs produced by the learned counsel for the respondents revealed that the high-tension electricity line wire already drawn from the wind mill energy system for distribution.The telephone lines and connections were thereafter given from time to time.Till the landlord/tenant dispute arose between the Appellant and M/S. Purolator India Ltd., no objection was raised by the Appellant.In fact, we have also called the officer concerned and perused the records.It is the appellants who approached the first respondent and for the reasons known, they did not appear for hearing.They have asked for numerous documents, which is for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings.It is neither a supervisory nor an adjudicating authority over the second respondent.When the element of expertise is involved and the same ishttp://www.judis.nic.in 16/22 W.P (MD).No.19118 of 2019 undertaken by the statutory body as per law, the power of judicial review will have to be entertained with extreme caution.We cannot interfere with the matter on some apprehension expressed by the appellants.It might have a spiralling effect on the project as well.The appellants cannot ask the first respondent to direct the second respondent to furnish all the documents which they seek.The said Crl.On the strength of the powers conferred upon the Power Grid Corporation, to enter upon the lands and to erect transmission, the 3rd and 11th respondents are carrying out the project.If really there is any element of damage, which are peculiar to the petitioners and others, they have every right to make their representation to the District Collector, to increase the height of the Tower so as to avoid passing of electrostatic field near or under their house.10.This Court held that on the strength of powers conferred upon the power grid corporation, to enter upon the lands and to erect transmission, there is absolutely no consent is necessary from the concerned land owners.11.The above judgments are squarely applied to the case on hand and the sixth respondent is being supplying electricity energy to the general public, the sixth respondent need not get prior consent from the land owners viz., the petitioner herein, to draw the electricity lines.That apart, now the entire drawing of electric line has been over and the high-tension electricity lines erected over the land of the petitioner and distributing the electricity energy to the general public.3.The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli4.The Superintendent of Police Thoothukudi District5.The Inspector of Police Kayathar Police Station, Kayathar.http://www.judis.nic.in 21/22 W.P (MD).No.19118 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The appellantherein was arrayed as A-2 in the said special case and convicted under Sections7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentencedto undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- indefault to undergo three months imprisonment for an offence punishable undersection 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and convicted under Sections 7 and13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the said Act and sentenced to undergo one year RigorousImprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo a furtherperiod of three months R.I for the offence, aggrieved by which the appeal hasbeen preferred.It is not in dispute that the copies of documents relied on by theprosecution were furnished to the accused, charges were framed, as perprocedure, under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined andExs.P.1 to 43 and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked.On the side of the accused, no onewas examined, but documents Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked.The trial court foundthat the guilt against the appellant / A2 and the co-accused have been provedbeyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant / A2 and the other accusedunder Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act.It is seen that the case was registered against the appellant andthe co-accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act.According to the appellant he is an innocent person, howeverhe was found guilty, based on certain unforeseen circumstances.It is not indispute that the appeals preferred by A1 and A3 were dismissed for default,though the appeal preferred by the appellant/A2 was also dismissed, subsequentlyon petition, the same was restored to file.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of thisCourt to Ex.P.3, dated 31.12.1998, and submitted that as per the prosecutioncase, P.W.3 had given a complaint to take action against one LaxmananS/o.Mathavan Naicker and 9 others, on the ground that they were causing damageto his crops by cattle and also attempting to attack him.Asper Ex.P.4, the defacto-complainant, Paara Naicker, P.W.3 gave a complaintbefore the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti corruption,Trichy, stating that the Inspector of Police / A1 had asked him to payRs.5,000/- as bribe for taking action against the aforesaid persons and also totake steps to discharge P.W.3 from the aforesaid case, registered against himand for doing favour to the other accused in getting bail.Though P.W.3 was notwilling to pay the bribe he agreed for paying the amount Rs.5,000/- to the co-accused/A1 and informed the same to the respondent.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A2 further submitted thatthere is no whisper against the appellant/A2 in the written complaint given byP.W.3, that he had demanded any illegal gratification and the defactocomplainant / P.W.3 had raised allegation only against the co-accused / A1.Subsequently, as per the prosecution case, on 25.01.99 at about 17.45 hours theVigilance and Anti Corruption squad came to the police station, as alreadyplanned and P.W.3 entered into the police station as per the trap proposal.Prior to that he had been given fifty hundred Rupee notes by the respondent andwas instructed to hand over the same to the co-accused / A1 and to giveimmediate signal to the Vigilance Squad from the police station.Accordingly,P.W.3 went to the police station and at that time, the Inspector / A1 was alsopresent in his office, then P.W.3 informed him that he had the money Rs.5,000/-,as demanded by him and requested A1 to do the needful, after receiving theamount.However, the co-accused / A1, cleverly informed P.W.3 to hand over themoney to A2, who was the Head Constable sitting in the other room, attending hiswork.Theappellant / A2, after verifying the same with the Inspector / A1 received theamount from P.W.3 and kept it in his shirt pocket.The denominations and thenumber of the currency notes were already noted by the Vigilance and AntiCorruption squad and also applied phenolphthalein powder in the currency notes.P.C, he has stated thathe received the money innocently from P.W.3, as P.W.3 informed him that theInspector had asked him to hand over the money to the Head Constable, theappellant herein, who was sitting in the other room and attending his work.(i) In the trap case, prior to the trap arrangement, the defacto-complainant / P.W.3 had given a written complaint to the respondent, wherein hehas specifically stated that the co-accused / A1 had demanded Rs.5,000/- to dosome favour.(ii) As per the trap arrangement, the defacto-complainant directly went tothe police station and informed the Inspector / A1 that he was ready with themoney, as demanded by him and requested him to do the needful in his favour.However, the Inspector / A1 cleverly asked the defacto-complainant to hand overthe money to the appellant, who was the Head constable, sitting in the otherroom.Had it been known to the appellant / A2, he would not have verified withthe co-accused / A1 before receiving the amount, whether he had instructed, soto receive the amount from P.W.3 and there was no other excess amount availablewith the appellant.The amount handed over by the defacto-complainant and theconduct of the appellant / A2, keeping the money in his shirt pocket would showthat he had innocently received the amount, without knowing that the same was anillegal gratification demanded by A1, otherwise, at least, he could not havekept the money in his shirt pocket itself.(iii) As per the evidence of defacto-complainant / P.W.3, after the amountwas handed over to the appellant / A2, while coming out of the room, A3 / writerof the police station, asked further amount from him and the defacto-complainantsaid that he had already parted with a sum of Rs.5,000/-, for which the reply bythe co-accused / A3, according to P.W.3, is that the amount Rs.5,000/- given byhim was only for the Inspector and hence, something must be given to him.The bail bond, if any executed by the appellant shallstand cancelled and the fine amount, if any paid by the appellant shall berefunded to him forthwith.am / tsvnToThe Additional Sessions Judge-cum-The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Tiruchirappalli.On the side of the prosecution 11 witnesses were examined and 43documents were marked and by the impugned judgment, dated 31.01.2003, the courtbelow found that the appellant / A2 was guilty, accordingly he was convicted andsentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- as stated above with default sentence.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the chargesframed against the appellant/A2 was not proved by the prosecution beyondreasonable doubt.In the presence of witnesses, thecurrency notes were recovered from the appellant / A2, and the numbers wereverified by the squad and found tallied.Then they asked the appellant / A2 todip both his hands in a tumbler that contained sodium carbonate water and afterthe dip, the same became light pinkish in colour.In order to prove the factumof seizure of currency notes from the appellant / A2 and the phenolphthaleinpower test conducted, mahazars were prepared in the presence of witnesses andthe witnesses were examined before the court below, on the side of theprosecution.The recovery of the currency notes from the appellant / A2 has beenproved, as per the findings of the Court below.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that theappellant / A2 is an innocent person, he had nothing to do with the allegedoffence and there was no allegation against the appellant / A2 in the originalcomplaint, Ex.As per the evidence ofP.W.3, he approached the co-accused / A1 and informed that he was ready with themoney Rs.5,000/- as demanded by him and requested him to receive the same and dothe favour in a pending criminal case relating to him.However, the co-accused /A1 cleverly asked P.W.3 to hand over the money to the Head Constable, theappellant / A2, who was sitting in the other room.The appellant / A2, withoutknowing the illegal dealing of the co-accused / A1 with P.W.3, after verifyingwhether any such instruction was given by the Inspector / A1, his superiorofficer, received the money from P.W.3, without any malafide intention and keptit in his shirt pocket itself.According to the learned counsel for theappellant / A2, the appellant has not committed any offence, punishable underthe Prevention of Corruption Act and that there was no criminal intentionestablished, as against the appellant / A2 by the prosecution.It is seen that P.W.1, Deputy Inspector General of Police has accordedsanction to prosecute the co-accused / A1, being an Inspector of Police and hehas also deposed that after considering the materials placed before him, havingsatisfied, on perusal of the materials, accorded the sanction.P.W.3 is the defacto complainant, who wasmade as witness by the respondent for the trap arrangement.As per theprosecution case, only on the complaint given by P.W.3 before the DeputySuperintendent of Police under Ex.P.4, he was asked to be present at the officeof the Deputy Superintendent of Police at 4.45 p.m on 25.01.1999 and P.W.4,Munusamy and one Selvaraj were also shown as independent witnesses for theoccurrence.In the original complaint given by the defacto complainant / P.W.3,admittedly the allegation of demanding bribe was raised only against the co-accused / A1, Inspector of Police and no whisper about the appellant / A2 in thecomplaint.In the referred case, charges were framed under Sections 7 and 13 ofPrevention of Corruption Act, based on the trap materials, wherein the accused,officer and his junior officer working in Commercial Tax Department, haddemanded and accepted bribe of Rs.300/- from the complainant, who was a dealerin grocery articles for making way bills.As per the evidence, the accusedofficer directed the money to be paid to his Junior Officer and the evidence ofthe complainant and the trap witnesses established the recovery of money fromthe accused / Junior Officer.It was held that presumption could be raised thatsince accused persons therein had accepted illegal gratification, when there wasno tenable defence, as there was no tax due and on the contrary, complainant wasentitled to refund of the amount already paid.Similarly, as perthe trap arrangement, P.W.3 went to the police station and approached thecomplainant / A1 directly, but to his surprise, the co-accused / A1 asked him tohand over the money to the Head constable, the appellant herein.(iv) It is not the evidence of defacto-complainant / P.W.3 that theaforesaid amount, Rs.5,000/- was for the Inspector / A1 and the appellant / A2,as per the said conversation.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur.(Special Judge).

['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Needless to say, both orders are assailed in the present appeal.A. 1388/2013 Page 1 of 36After marriage, they started residing with the appellants parents, sister and her husband, at Ghaziabad.The Vidai ceremony of Asma took place about a year after their marriage.On 23rd June 2011, apparently, the appellant visited the house of Asmas parents, Mohd. Yakub (PW-7) and Sahida (PW-3) and informed them that he had quarreled with his family members, and wanted to stay with Asma at her parents house.It appears that Asmas parents expressed, to the appellant, their reluctance to accede to such a plan.Instead, they requested the appellant to bring his parents to meet them, stating that they would send Asma back with him only after his parents assured them that they would take care of her.Thereafter, the appellant left and returned with his parents, sister and brother-in-law, who assured Asmas parents that they would take care of her, whereupon Asmas parents agreed to send Asma, with him, back to their house.3 Around 2-3 days thereafter, on 26th June, 2011, at around 8.00 AM, a call was received, at P.S. Kanjhawala, from the PCR, informing that Asma had burnt herself.On the basis of the said information, DD No. 8A was recorded, and the case was assigned to SI Om Prakash (PW-18).4 Following thereupon, SI Om Prakash (PW-18) reached the residence of the appellant, with Constable Rohtash (PW-23) and found Asma in a severely burnt condition.The appellant was also seen to have suffered burns.11), who also arrived at the spot of occurrence thereupon.The crime team was called, and photographs were taken.SI Om Prakash (PW-18), thereafter, proceeded to SGM Hospital, where Asma was found admitted vide MLC no. 10187/2011 (EX PW-18/A).According to him, the doctor at the spot told him that she was conscious and oriented.The MLC also contained a report by the doctor, to the said effect, besides stating that her general condition, and prognosis was poor.Burns were said to be present "over face, chest, abdomen, back, B/L U/L, perennial area, genitals and upper thigh.My husband used to doubt me, because of which we often used to quarrel.Yesterday, on 25th June 2011, at about 9 P.M, my husband beat me severely and said that I had mixed some intoxicant in his tea and given it to him to drink.Though I was in poor health, I prepared food but, thereafter, I went off to sleep.When I woke up in the morning on 26th June 2011, at about 7 A.M. my husband Firasat Hussain poured oil on me and set me afire.When I shouted loudly, my husband, in panic, poured water on me.Thereafter, someone dialed 100, whereupon the police arrived and took me and my husband to the hospital, I want my husband be proceeded against legally so that I can secure justice.You had come to the hospital and recoded my statement which I had heard, and it is correct".Apart from the two thumb impressions at the foot of the statement, a recital, stating "statement recorded before me, please take necessary action as per the law" with the official stamp of signature of Ram Pal Singh, SDM (PW-11) is also to be found.The appellant, whose disclosure statement was recorded (Ex PW-18/F), was arrested and sent to police lock-up.He was, thereafter, produced in court on 27th June 2011, and remanded to judicial custody.A. 1388/2013 Page 4 of 3611. 18 days thereafter, on 14th July 2011, at about 8.30 P.M, Asma expired.Her body was identified by Rais Ahmed (PW-2) who was their neighbour.Inquest was conducted by the SDM.The cause of death, as per the Death Report, dated 14th July 2011 (EX.PW-18/J), was stated to be "sudden cardio pulmonary arrest due to 77% sup.2. mohd Ajub Alleged history Alleged history of sustaining injuries by Burns on 26/06/11 at about 9:30 AM at her home.She was taken to Sanjay Gandhi hospital where she had been given primary treatment, then patient attendant shifted her to RML Hospital, there she expired on 14/07/11 at 9:30 PM.MLC has been made at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital MLC No 10187, on MLC it shows 80-85% of body burn.General appearance Clothing: Clothes not present Built: Average built Face: Burnt.Eyes: Eyes closed.Eyelids swollen and eyelashes burnt.Conjunctivae: Conjunctivae were congested.Mouth: Lips blackened and swollen.Frenulum of upper lip and the lower lip intact.Tongue: Tongue clenched between teeth.Hands: Degloving present.Discharge from natural orifices: Blood present from mouth Post Mortem changes Corneae: Had hazy appearance.Rigor Mortis: Rigor Mortis present.Limbs flexed at elbows and knees and difficult to extend.Total body surface area involved is 80%.Internal examination Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 6 of 36 Head Scalp: Scalp tissue shows congested appearance on reflection of scalp.No extravasation of blood present in scalp.Skull bones including facial bones and base of skull: No fractures present.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 6 of 36Brain: Brain weight - 1225 gms.Brain had congested appearance.Neck Soft tissue: No extravasation of blood present in subcutaneous tissue and muscles of the neck.Hyoid bone, Thyroid cartilage, cricoid cartilage: Intact.Laryngeal mucosa and Tracheal mucosa were congested.Others: Blood vessels, Nerves, Thyroid gland, esophagus showed no gross abnormality.Chest Ribs and Sternum: No fractures present.Pleurae and pleural cavities: Pleurae had congested appearance.Lungs: Weight of right lung was 460 gms.Weight of left lung was 430 gms.Both lungs had congested appearance and consolidation present in the lungs.Heart: Weight of heart was 260 g. Myocardium had congested appearance.Coronary arteries were patent.On cut section no gross findings suggestive of ischaemia were present.Abdomen Fluid in Peritoneal cavity: No fluid present in the peritoneal cavity.Liver and gallbladder: Weight of liver was 1400 g. Congested on cut section.Spleen: Weight of spleen was 120 g. Congested on cut section.Kidneys - Both kidneys congested Pancreas: No abnormality present on gross examination.Stomach: Empty.Mucosa showed petecheal haemorrhages.Bowels: Small bowels contain fluid and gases and mucosa normal.Large intestine contained faeces and gases and mucosa was normal.Pelvis Urinary bladder empty Uterus and ovaries: NAD Genital organs: No abnormality present.A. 1388/2013 Page 7 of 36Vertebral column and spinal cord: No abnormality present.Opinion: Cause of death is shock consequent to burn injuries Time since death: Consistent with Hospital timing of death.Mohd Yakub, aged 40 years, address C-66, Block-C, JJ Colony, Nangloi, Delhi state that on 23-06-2011, Firasat, husband of my daughter Asma, came to our house and said that I have fought with my family and come to participate in a marriage.He also said that I will not stay with my parents.We told him that we would send our daughter Asma with him only after he brought his family members to us.Whereupon he brought his mother, sister and brother-in-law and returned.I fully suspect Firasat, his mother Sabri, his brother-in-law Shakir and his sister Afsana as being responsible for her death and desire that they be proceeded against legally, so that my dead daughter would secure justice.I have read the statement.It is correct."Charge sheet was, thereafter, filed against the appellant, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate and the case was committed to Sessions for framing charges and trial, if required.A. 1388/2013 Page 9 of 3624 witnesses were cited by the prosecution.To the extent they are relevant, the evidence of the witnesses may be distilled as under:(i) PW1 Mohd. Sakir, uncle of Asma, who used to stay close to their Jhuggi, and was a butcher by profession, deposed, on 25th February 2012, that (a) at about 7-8A.M around 3 months prior to the date of recording of the statement, he heard a noise, and, on opening the door found his niece Asma outside the house in a burnt condition, (b) he immediately called the police by dialing 100 whereupon the PCR arrived at the spot, and (c) the appellant, who was also present there, had also suffered burns on his hands.(ii) PW-3 Sahida, the mother of Asma stated, in her statement recorded on 25th February 2012, that (a) Asma and the appellant were married on 27th February 2011, (b) she identified the appellant, who was present in the court, (c) no complaint was made by Asma ever after her marriage, (d) one day, around 2-3 months after their marriage (on 23rd June 2011), however, the Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 10 of 36 appellant arrived at her house with Asma and informed her that he had quarreled with his parents and left their house, (e) she, thereupon, asked the appellant to bring his parents whereafter alone they would send Asma with him, (f) Asma remained with them and the appellant went away, (g) sometime thereafter, the appellant returned with his mother Sabri, sister Afsana and her husband i.e. his brother in law Sakir, (h) on the assurance of Sabri, Afsana and Sakir, that they would keep Asma in good condition, she and her husband sent Asma with the appellant, and (i) thereafter, Asma and the appellant resided at the Jhuggi of the appellants parents J.J. Colony, Ghevra, (j) around 2-3 days later, she received information that her daughter Asma had been burnt and was in the RML hospital, (k) she, thereafter, immediately reached RML hospital, where, on seeing Asmas condition, she fell unconscious, (l) sometime later, when she came to her senses, Asma told her that she had been burnt by her husband Firasat Hussain, (m) around 18 days after the said incident, Asma died due to her burn injuries, (n) the police conducted their proceedings thereafter, (o) after postmortem, (exhibited as Ex. Pw-5/A) Asmas dead body was handed over to them, and (p) the SDM, thereafter, recorded her statement, which was exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A and bore her signature.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 11 of 36(f) she remained, throughout, in the hospital with her daughter Asma.At this stage, remaining cross examination was deferred as it was lunch time.After lunch, the cross examination of Sahida continued, wherein she stated that (a) she was unable to talk to Asma as she was unconscious, (b) neither could her husband, Mohd. Yakub talk to Asma for the same reason, (c) Asma was unconscious at the time she (i.e. Sahida) reached the Hospital from Bijnor and remained unconscious throughout till her death, so that, she was not able to talk to her at any time, (d) the relations between the Asma and the appellant were very cordial ever since their marriage and Asma was very happy, (e) Asma never made any complaint against the appellant, (f) neither did the appellant, or any of his family members, ever demand any article from her, or her husband, at the time of marriage, prior thereto or thereafter, (g) she had visited the residence of Asma while she was staying with the appellant, (h) Asma used to prepare food using a kerosene oil stove, (i) the appellant had also received burnt injuries, and (j) it was incorrect to suggest that Asma had accidentally caught fire while preparing food and that the appellant had run to the Crl.He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.(vii) PW-10, Mohd Ahmed, who was a neighbour of the appellant and worked in a ply factory, deposed, on 21st April 2012, that Asma had caught fire while cooking food, and the Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 14 of 36 appellant had burnt his hands in the process of trying to save Asma.This assertion was repeated in his cross-examination by the learned APP.The suggestion, put to him, that he was deposing falsely, was denied by him.During his cross- examination by the appellant he further deposed that he had never seen any quarrel, between Asma and the appellant, at any point of time.He further stated, that at first, he had not noticed whether the thumb of Asma was having burn injuries or not and, immediately thereafter, denied the suggestion that the thumbs of both hands of Asma were badly burned and that skin from the thumbs had peeled off.The suggestion that Asma had caught fire while cooking was also denied.(xii) PW-19, Dr. Brijesh Singh, CMO, SGM Hospital, deposed, in his examination-in-chief on 28 July 2012, that, on 26th June 2011, he had examined Asma, and that the smell of kerosene was present on her.He further deposed that, at the time, she was conscious, oriented and her vitals were stable, and that she was fit for giving statement.He stated that she had superficial to deep burns, to the extent of approximately 60%.He also confirmed that he had prepared the MLC, exhibited as Ex PW-19/A, and signed the same.He further stated that he had examined the appellant on the same day, and found that he had suffered superficial to deep burns on both hands, forearms and Crl.That apart, there is no explanation as to why, when the SDM was present, he got the statement recorded by the I/O, instead of recording the same himself.If any further material, to doubt the credibility of the deposition of the SDM, were required, it is to be found in his final assertion that, on 14 th July 2011, he had received information regarding the death of Asma on his phone, during office hours which, according to him, were 10 AM to 5 Crl.% C. HARI SHANKAR, J.Vide judgment dated 12th April, 2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, Rohini (hereinafter referred to as the "learned ASJ"), held Firasat Hussain - the appellant before us - guilty of committing the murder of his wife Asma, and accordingly convicted him under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC").Asma and the appellant were, therefore, taken to Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 2 of 36 SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri.As the case could not be managed at SGM Hospital, on the advice of the doctors there, Asma and the appellant, were transferred to Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital about an hour thereafter.A. 1388/2013 Page 2 of 36Burnt matchsticks, one yellow plastic bottle, one stove and some burnt clothes were recovered from the spot of occurrence.The SI informed the SHO, Inspector Surender Dhaiya, of PS Kanjhawla, who also reached the hospital, at around 10-10.30 AM.The SHO informed the SDM Saraswati Vihar, Ramphal Singh (PW-However, the MLC opined that she was fit for statement.Consequent on the arrival of the SDM, according to the prosecution, the statement of Asma was recorded (Ex.PW-11/A).The statement was not recorded in the handwriting of Asma but bears two Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 3 of 36 thumb impressions at the foot thereof which had been encircled with an endorsement to the effect that they were Asmas.The statement, which was recorded in vernacular, may be translated thus:A. 1388/2013 Page 3 of 36Because of this, my married life was not progressing smoothly.My mother-in-law left her house 15 days ago.Apart from this, the statement has been signed by the SHO, PS Kanjhawala.Consequent to the purported recording of the aforementioned statement of Asma, the SDM directed registration of FIR.Pursuant thereupon, an FIR No. 158/2011 was registered against Firasat Crl.To deep thermal burns".The investigation into the case was, thereafter, transferred to Inspector Surender Dahiya (PW-22), who prepared the site plan, got the post mortem done by Dr Manoj Dhingra (PW-5) and Dr. Deepak Sharma, collected the post mortem report and sent the exhibits, recovered from the site to the Forensic Science Laboratory.The post mortem report, which was exhibited as Ex PW-5/A, reads as under:"P.M. No. 643/11 Dated: 16/07/11 Time: 4 PM Name of deceased: Smt. Ashma W/o: Phirasat Hussain Age: 22 years Sex: Female Address: A-110 jj Colony sawada DELHI Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 5 of 36 Body sent by: SDM Ram phal Singh Police station: Kanjhawala FIR No. : 158/dt 26/6/2011 IDENTIFIED/IDENTIFICATION MARKSA. 1388/2013 Page 5 of 36Post Mortem staining: Not appreciable due to extensive burn injuries.Decomposition changes: Not present.External examination (injuries) Dermo-epidermal burn injuries present involving the whole body.The skin is blackened with peeling of skin at places exposing reddish base except Scalp hair.Total inquest papers: Fifteen (15)"On 16th July 2011, the statements of Sahida (PW-3) and Mohammed Yakub (PW-7) were recorded by the SDM (PW-11), under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C").The statements of Sahida (PW-3) and Mohd Yakub (PW-7), as translated from the vernacular, were as under:(i) Statement of Sahida (PW-3):"I, Smt. Sahida, wife of Sh.In the course of conversation, it was decided that Shakir, the brother-in-law of Firasat took the responsibility that everything would be okay.3 days thereafter on 26.06.2011, we received information of Asma having been burnt.I believe Firasats mother Sabri, his brother-in-law Shakir, his sister Afsana and Firasat to be responsible for Asmas death and I am fully convinced that I want all of them to be proceeded against in law so that my dead daughter may secure justice.A. 1388/2013 Page 8 of 36Heard the statement it is correct."(ii) Mohd Yakub (PW-7):On 23.06.2011, Asmas husband Firasat Hussain came to our house in the afternoon, after having fought with his sister, brother-in-law and mother.When we asked him the reason, he told us that they had come to participate in some wedding.He also stated that he had fought with his family and would not stay with them.I told my son-in-law that the Vidai had just taken place.Expenses had been spent on the wedding.How could he bear the burden of my daughter alone, we asked him to bring his family members and that we would talk to them.From his family, his elder sister, brother in law named Shakir and his mother came to our house to talk to us.During conversation, his brother- in-law decided that Asmas responsibility was his, and told us to send Asma with Firasat.So we sent Asma with Firasat.On 26.06.2011, in the morning between 9:30 AM 10 AM, a neighbour informed us that our daughter Asma had been burnt and was admitted in the Sanjay Gandhi hospital.We were again informed, by phone, that our daughter had been sent to RML hospital.On 19th January 2011, charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 302, 304B, and 498A of the IPC.The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Evidence, was thereafter, recorded by the learned ASJ.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 10 of 36(iii) PW-3 Sahida was cross examined by counsel for the appellant.In cross examination, she deposed that (a) she did not remember the date on which she received information about Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 11 of 36 the death of Asma, (b) she received information about the death of Asma at 10 AM while she was at Bijnor and arrived at the hospital at about 8-9 PM, (c) she went to the hospital with her sister in law, (d) the police never met her or recorded her statement, (e) neither did the SDM meet her in the hospital, andA. 1388/2013 Page 12 of 36 kitchen, tried to save her from fire and sustained burn injuries in the process.A. 1388/2013 Page 12 of 36(iv) PW-5 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, who was Medical Officer Incharge at the SGM hospital, deposed, on 28th February 2012, that he, along with Dr. Deepak Sharma, had conducted postmortem of Asma and that she was found to have sustained 80% burns with dermo-epidermal burn injuries present, involving the whole body.He further deposed that no injury was found on internal examination and, in his opinion, the cause of Asmas death was shock consequent upon burn injuries.He proved his report as Ex. PW-5/A. He was cross examined by counsel for the appellant, whereupon he stated that Asma had burns on her hands and fingers in a "degloving manner", clarifying that "degloving" meant "peeling of skin".(v) PW-7, Mohd. Yakub, father of Asma, deposed, in his examination-in-chief on 18th April 2012, that (a) about 4-5 months after marriage, the vidai ceremony had come to their place with Asma and stated that as he had quarreled with his mother, sister, brother in law and that he did not desire to stay with them, (b) he (i.e. Mohd Yakub) told him that they would not send Asma back with him till he brought his family members, (c) that the appellant, thereupon, went away and returned with his family members, who assured that they would take care of Asma, (d) on receiving such assurance, they i.e. Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 13 of 36 Asmas parents, sent her with them, (e) 2-3 days thereafter, at about 8-9 A.M he got to know that Asma had sustained burns and was admitted in the hospital, (f) on their reaching the hospital, they found Asma admitted there, (g) she succumbed to her injuries about 19 days thereafter and (h) his statement, which bore his signatures, was recorded by the SDM, and was exhibited as Ex PW-7/A.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 13 of 36(vi) During cross-examination by counsel for the appellant, Mohd Yakub (PW-7) deposed that (a) they reached the hospital at about 8-8-30 PM and remained there till 1 AM., (b) no Magistrate came to the hospital in his presence, (c) Asma used to visit his house, to meet her parents, (d) he had visited Asmas matrimonial home only once, on the occasion of the death of the appellants brother, (e) the relations between Asma and the appellant were very cordial, (f) even on the occasion when, prior to the present incident, Asma had visited their house with her husband, i.e. the appellant, their relations were cordial, (g) the appellant had not demanded anything from them, either before or after the marriage, and (h) the appellant had never misbehaved with him or with any member of his family.(viii) PW-11 Ram Phal Singh, the SDM/Executive Magistrate, deposed, in his examination-in-chief on 19th May 2012, that, on 26th June 2011, he had recorded Asmas statement, which bore her thumb impression at points A and B, and that, after recording her statement, he gave necessary directions to the SHO.He further deposed that the statement, dated 16th July 2011, of Mohd Yakub (PW-7), was recorded before him.(ix) During his cross-examination by the appellant, PW-11 stated that (a) on arrival at the hospital, he had first met the doctor in the Emergency Ward, and confirmed, from him, that Asma was fit for giving a statement, (b) he had, however, not taken any certificate, from the doctor, to this effect, (c) he did not know the name of the said doctor, (d) he told Asma that he was the SDM and had come there to record her statement, though there was no such recital in the statement of Asma, recorded by him, (e) he satisfied himself, before recording her statement, that Asma was fit for doing so, though this fact was Crl.He denied the suggestion that the thumb impression affixed on Asmas statement was not hers, or that the scale of her whole hand had peeled off.He further denied the suggestion that the statement of Asma had not been recorded before him or under his directions.He accepted the fact that the MLC (Ex PW-11/DX) was received by him on 26th of June 2011, when he reached the hospital, and that, below the certification, thereon, that Asma was fit for recording of her statement, there was no date or time, and no signature of the doctor either.A. 1388/2013 Page 15 of 36Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 16 of 36(x) PW-18 SI Om Prakash deposed, in his examination-in- chief on 28th July 2012, that (a) on 26th June 2011, while he was posted as SI in PS Kanjhawala, he received DD No 8A, (b) thereafter, he, along with Ct Rohtash, reached jhuggi No A-110, JJ Colony, Sawada, (c) there, they came to know that Asma had been burnt and had been taken to the hospital, (d) he noticed the smell of kerosene oil, and found some burnt clothes lying there,(e) he also found one kerosene bottle, one stove, burnt matchsticks and a matchbox, (f) he informed the SHO Surinder Dahiya (PW-22), who also reached the spot, (g) the SHO, thereafter, informed the SDM, whereas he, i.e. Om Prakash, informed the crime team, which came after sometime and inspected the spot, (h) the SHO proceeded to the hospital and he, too, reached the hospital after sometime, where he collected Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 17 of 36 the MLC of Asma, (i) the SDM, Ram Phal Singh (PW-11) met him there, and recorded the statement of Asma, which was handed over to him, (j) he was also handed over the clothes of Asma, carrying which he returned to the Police Station, (k) he handed over the statement of Asma to the SHO, (l) the SHO entered an endorsement, therein, for registration of an FIR, (m) he, thereafter, went back to the spot of incident, where he seized the matchbox, matchsticks, plastic bottle, burnt clothes and the stove, and prepared the site plan (n) the appellant arrived at the spot, where he was interrogated and arrested, and his personal search conducted, (o) he made a disclosure statement, which was exhibited as Ex PW-18/F, and bore his, i.e. SI Om Prakashs (PW-18) signature, (p) the appellant was, thereafter, sent to police lock-up, after which he recorded the statement of witnesses, (q) on 27th June 2011, the appellant was produced in court and remanded to JC, (r) on the night of 14th July 2011, information, regarding the death of Asma, was received, and recorded vide DD No 8A, (s) he reached the SGM Hospital on 15th July 2011, collected the dead body, death report and death summary, sent the dead body to be SGM Hospital Mortuary and informed the SDM, (t) after the SDM had reached, he, i.e. SI Om Prakash, recorded the statements of the I/O and of Rais Ahmed (PW-2), whereafter the SDM conducted the inquest proceedings and got the post-mortem of Asma conducted, (u) the statements of Sahida (PW-3) and Mohd Yakub (PW-7) were recorded by the SDM.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 17 of 36Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 18 of 36(xi) In his cross-examination, SI Om Prakash deposed that he had recorded the statement of Asma under the guidance of the SDM, though this fact was not mentioned by him anywhere.The suggestion that he had recorded the statement himself and got signed, later, by the SDM, was denied.Regarding the injuries on the body of Asma, he stated that all the visible parts of her body were having burn injuries, and that her hands were also burnt.A. 1388/2013 Page 19 of 36 forehead, and that he had prepared the MLC for the appellant, which was exhibited as Ex PW-19/B.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 19 of 36(xiii) In his cross-examination, Dr. Brijesh Singh accepted that he had not put his signature below the "fitness" endorsement of Asma.He further confirmed that he had not mentioned, in the MLC of the appellant, that he was fit for giving statement, as he had already stated, in the MLC, that he was conscious and oriented, and his injury was not serious.He also accepted that the statement, by him, that Asma had suffered 60% burns, as also recorded on the body of the MLC, could also be 85%, as he had only mentioned an approximate percentage on a preliminary examination.He further confirmed that the reference, to Asma, as "conscious and oriented" meant that she could speak properly, and denied the suggestion that a person who had suffered 85% burns would not be in a position to speak clearly.(xiv) PW-22, Inspector Surinder Dahiya, whose statement was recorded on 22nd October 2012, deposed, during his cross- examination, that he was not present when the SDM (Ram Phal Singh PW-11) was recording the statement of Asma.Several questions were put to him, all of which he denied.He stated that he was innocent and falsely Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 20 of 36 implicated in the case.He further stated that while cooking food, the deceased accidentally caught fire and upon hearing her cries, he rushed to her and in the process of extinguishing the fire, he also received burn injuries on his hands and forehand.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 20 of 36Impugned Judgement of learned ASJVide the impugned judgement, dated 12 th April 2013, the learned ASJ has held the appellant guilty of having committed murder of Asma and, accordingly, has convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC.In so holding, the learned ASJ, relies, extensively, and predictably, on the "dying declaration" of Asma.He also places reliance on the deposition of PW-19 Dr. Brijesh Singh, to the effect that Asma was conscious and oriented and fit to give a statement.He has accepted, as correct, the deposition of PW-11 Ram Phal Singh (the SDM), regarding the recording of the said statement of Asma.As regards the exculpatory statements of Asmas parents, the learned ASJ holds that, as part of the cross examination of Sahida (PW-3) took place prior to lunch, and part thereafter, there was every chance of her having been won over during lunchtime.He also holds that, though it would have been better if the statement of Asma had been recorded by the SDM himself, or in question answer form, these minor irregularities were not sufficient to discredit the said statement.He has also relied on the fact that the smell of kerosene was present, indicating that kerosene had been "put on" Asmas clothes.A. 1388/2013 Page 21 of 36 accused in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. then how kerosene oil fell on her cloth", and answers the query by opining that "this is only possible if kerosene oil was poured either by deceased herself or poured by someone else." On this basis, the learned ASJ has completely rejected the proposal that Asma was accidentally burnt while cooking food.He further relies on the fact that the appellant had himself stated that there were strained relations between Asma and him, and his family members.At the same time, he could neither remember the name of the doctor, nor had any written certification, to this effect, obtained from him.This assertion appears, on a reading of the statement itself, to be, prima facie, unacceptable, as the statement reads as a continuous recitation, and not as answers to questions which were periodically being put to Asma.PW-11 further stated that Asma was burnt from the chest downward, with bandages on both hands, and was crying in pain at the time.If there were bandages on both hands Crl.The two times recorded at the head and foot of the statement are discrepant, inasmuch as the commencement, and conclusion, of the statement are both shown to have taken place at 11:45 AM whereas, as per PW-11, the recording of the statement took 10 to 15 minutes.No positive evidence, medical or otherwise, is forthcoming, to indicate that it was possible for Asma to affix her thumb impressions on the statement.In fact, Dr. Brijesh Singh (PW-19), too, in his examination-in-chief, admitted that Asma had suffered superficial to deep burns on both hands, forearms and Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 27 of 36 forehead.The MLC of Asma also reflects the said position, which stands further fortified by the post-mortem report of Asma (Ex PW- 5/A), which clearly opined that Asma had sustained 80% burns with dermo-epidermal injuries covering the whole body.Even more significantly, Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-5), who had prepared the said report, testified, in cross examination, that Asma had burns on her hands and fingers in a "degloving manner", which, he explained, meant that the skin had peeled off.The probability of Asma having been in a position to affix her thumb impression on her statement is, therefore, remote and, at the very least, highly questionable.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 27 of 36That apart, there is no real disconsonance, between the deposition of PW-3 before, and after, lunch.The statement of Mohd Yakub (PW-7) was, for its part, recorded at one continuous stretch, so that no allegation of tutoring could, at any rate, be levelled against him.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 29 of 36It is, moreover, a conceded factual position that, on 23rd June 2011, the appellant did visit Asmas parents, with Asma, stating that he wanted to reside with them, as he had quarrelled with his folks.It also appears, from the statement of Mohd Yakub (PW-7) that the appellant and Asma were proceeding together to attend a wedding.These facts - which are not traversed or controverted by the prosecution - are completely incompatible with the allegation, contained in the "dying declaration" of Asma, that she had frequent quarrels with the appellant, or that the appellant and his family members were harassing her for dowry.It is, moreover, difficult to accept that the appellant who, on 23rd June 2011, was ready to leave his house and stay with Asmas parents, only because he had quarrelled with his family members could, 3 days thereafter, be so murderously inclined, against his wife Asma, as to set her on fire.The assertion, by PW-7, to the effect that the appellant had informed him that he had come, with Asma, to attend to a wedding, would also indicate that there was no want of cordiality in the relations between Asma and the appellant.The statement of PW-10 Mohd Ahmed - who was a neighbour of the appellant and could not, therefore, be said to be "interested" in any manner - also exculpates the appellant, as he has stated, categorically, that Asma had accidentally caught fire while cooking, and that the appellant, who had tried to save Asma, had burnt his hands in the process.This assertion, which was first given in Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 30 of 36 examination-in-chief, was repeated in cross-examination, and the suggestion that he had deposed falsely was emphatically denied.He also asserted that he had never, at any point of time, seen any quarrel between Asma and the appellant.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 30 of 36Adverting, now, to the initial statements recorded from Sahida (PW-3) and Mohd Yakub (PW-7), a reading of the said statement discloses that they make no allegations, either against the appellant or his family members, except for a suggestion, at the conclusion of the said statements, that they were responsible for Asmas death.The basis, for the appellants parents harbouring such a view, is not forthcoming from the said statements.Rather, a holistic reading of the statements, especially that of Mohd Yakub (PW-7), would go to indicate that the reluctance, on their part, to send Asma with the appellant was not because they feared that she would be ill-treated by her in-laws, but because they had doubts about whether the appellant, on his own, could look after her and bear her responsibility.The appellant was, therefore, requested to bring his parents to meet them only so that they could be reassured that the responsibility of Asmas well-being would be accepted by the appellants parents and other family members.Significantly, on the appellants brother-in-law Shakir agreeing to take on the said responsibility, Asmas parents readily and willingly agreed to send her with the appellant.Such a course of action is entirely incompatible with the theory, sought to be advanced by the prosecution, that there was discord between Asma and the family members of the appellant, and that she was repeatedly Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 31 of 36 being ill treated by her husband and his family.Significantly, there is nothing to indicate that Asma ever hesitated in going with the appellant and his family, which would have been the natural reaction, if she had, as her "dying declaration" purports to allege, been subjected to repeated ill-treatment, taunts and abuse by the appellant and his family members.The initial statements, recorded from Asmas parents, i.e. Sahida (PW-3) and Mohd Yakub (PW-7), too, therefore, do not advance the case of the prosecution at all.The mere apprehension, expressed at the conclusion of the said statements, that the appellant and his family members were responsible for the mishap, cannot, in our opinion, render the statements as inculpatory, qua the appellant, in any manner.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 31 of 36There is nothing, either in the examination-in-chief, or in the cross examination, of Shahida, or Mohd Yakub, to even remotely hint at any ill-treatment, by the appellant or by his parents, of Asma, after their marriage.Moreover, the fact that the appellant also sustained superficial to deep burns would also indicate that he intervened after Asma had caught fire which, read with the testimony of PW-10 Mohd Ahmed supra, would appear to be in an effort to save her.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 32 of 36The assumption, by the learned ASJ, that the presence of the smell of kerosene, on and around Asma, would indicate that kerosene had been poured on her is, in our considered view, far-fetched and entirely hypothetical in nature.Kerosene would be bound to be present on the clothes of a person who caught fire while cooking food using a kerosene stove, and the presence of the smell of kerosene, therefore, could hardly be attributed to an attempt, by anyone, to have set her ablaze by pouring kerosene on her.Rather, the fact that the clothes of Asma were also found to contain kerosene, could equally indicate that kerosene had spilled on her clothes, while she was cooking, resulting in her unfortunately being set ablaze.Indeed, it is impossible to comprehend how, in a case where a person cooking food using a kerosene stove, accidentally catches fire, kerosene would be expected not to be present on her clothes.This is a case in which, after recording the initial statements of Sahida (PW-3) and Mohd Yakub (PW-7) under Section 161 of the Cr PC, the prosecution, inexplicably, decided to completely cool its heels.There has not been the remotest effort to obtain any other evidence which could be said to incriminate the appellant.P.C, as also before the learned ASJ, they were never questioned regarding the relations of Asma, either with the appellant or with her in-laws.Rather, the one neighbour who was so questioned, i.e. Mohd Ahmed (PW-10) has come forward with the clear statement Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 33 of 36 that he had never witnessed any quarrel between Asma and her husband at any point of time and that, as a matter of fact, Asma had caught fire while cooking food and the appellant had sustained injuries in his efforts to save.Thus guided, we are unable to discern any justification for holding the appellant guilty of murdering his wife Asma, in cold blood, just 2 to 3 days after he had gone with her, to her parents, wanting to stay with them.We are inclined, rather, to believe the possibility that Asma caught fire accidentally while cooking food, and that the burn injuries sustained by the appellant were also attributable to his having tried to save her.In the absence of any supportive corroborative evidence, and given the evidence to the contrary, we are fully convinced that, on the sole basis of the alleged "dying declaration" of Asma, it would be a travesty of justice if the appellant were to be held guilty of having committed her murder, and sentenced therefor.It is well settled, in law, that, unless all circumstances incontrovertibly point towards the guilt of the accused, and are entirely incompatible with his innocence, the scales must tilt in favour of the accused, rather than against him.We are, therefore, unable to concur with the findings of the learned ASJ, to the effect that the appellant was guilty of having committed the offence of murdering his wife Asma, and was, therefore, liable to be prosecuted under section 302 of the IPC.Resultantly, we set-aside the impugned judgement, dated 12 th April 2013, convicting the appellant under section 302 of the IPC, as Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 35 of 36 well as the subsequent order, dated 26th April 2013, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life therefor.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

ap C.R.M. 2207 of 2017 In the matter of: an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16.03.2017 in connection with Nowda Police Station Case No. 235 of 2016 dated 18.08.2016 under Sections 341/326A/307 of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) 2 (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge-sheet is that the prosecutrix a minor was brought up by her father.After the death of her Crl.A.523/2012 Page 1 of 16 father, she was brought up by her grandmother.The respondent-Punnu and his wife Saroj (co-accused and who has already been convicted while judgment dated 24.02.2006), who are the real chacha and chachi, went to the village and brought the prosecutrix to live with them in their jhuggi at Bapu Dham.After about six months the respondent-Punnu raped her.When she informed the co-accused Saroj, the prosecutrix was scolded.Prosecutrix was used as a prostitute and the accused used to earn money.A.523/2012 Page 1 of 16One day she was made to dance naked after having liquor.After the Jhuggi were demolished, the two accused shifted to quarter No.114, Dhaula Kauan.The prosecutrix then started working as a domestic servant in the house of Dr.Shalini Monga.On 16.12.2002 the prosecutrix complained and informed Dr.Shalini Monga that she was harassed and tormented by the accused.Shalini Monga took the prosecutrix to the office of the Chairman, National Human rights Commission and made a written complaint.The complaint was marked to ASI Bal Kishan of Police Station Dhaula Kuan for investigation.Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded in the presence of Dr.Rajat Mitra, Director of an NGO and his wife Dr.Nidhi Mitra.The co-accused Saroj was arrested.Prosecutrix's medical examination was done and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Crl.A.523/2012 Page 2 of 16 Cr.P.C. The ossification examination revealed that the age of the prosecutrix on 15.01.2003 was between 14-17 years.A.523/2012 Page 2 of 16The respondent Pannu could not be arrested and was declared proclaimed offender.Statements of other witnesses were also recorded.By judgment dated 22.02.2006, co-accused Saroj was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 109 read with Section 376(g) IPC and to pay a fine of `1000/- and in default suffer rigoruous imprisonment for two months.The respondent was arrested by ATS South on Crl.The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.On the said date no witness except Inspector Rajinder Mani was present.Inspector Rajender Mani filed list of witnesses in the main case and of supplementary charge sheet.The same were kept on record.SI Ajay Kumar was absent despite service.As such, the statement of the accused is dispensed with.File be consigned to the Record Room."In his statement Inspector Rajender Mani on 16.03.2011 had stated as under:"FIR No.11/03 PS Delhi Cantt.16.03.2011 Statement of Inspector Rajender Meena, No-D3058, Inspector Investigatin, PS Delhi Cantt.I am IO of this case.The summons of the prosecutrix Ms. Ritu Devi, d/o Late Harparsad Kashyap, r/o village Crl.A.523/2012 Page 5 of 16 Tilokpur, P.O. Alipur, P.S. Bara Sagver, Distt.Unnao, U.P. were given to me for here service.Ayodhaya, Sh.Suresh s/o Sh.Gangaram, Gram Pradhan Ms. Gudiya Devi and inquired about the prosecutrix from them however she could not be traced.The statements of Rajkumar s/o Sh.Ayodhaya, Gram Pradhan Ms. Gudiya Devi Ex. PX to PX2 bearing my signatures at point A and that of Ct.Through : Mr.Sameer Chander, Amicus Curiae.MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG SANJIV KHANNA, J. (OPEN COURT)State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 16.03.2011 in FIR No.11/2003, police station Delhi Cantt.Initially non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the accused were issued and thereafter by order dated 10.02.2003 proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1973 were initiated after recording the statement of process server who had tried to serve the process.She was cross-examined on 11.10.2004 on behalf of co-accused Saroj.He was directed to be summoned again.A.523/2012 Page 3 of 16On 16.03.2011 the following order was passed:-"State Vs.Punnu FIR No.11/03 16.03.2011 Present: Ms. Satwinder Kaur, Ld.PP for state.Accused from J/C with Sh.Amit Chaudhan, Adv.No PW present.He has submitted that the prosecutrix Ms. Ritu Devi is not traceable and has been searched for at various addresses.To this effect his detailed statement has been recorded on oath.In view of his statement, the prosecutrix being not traceable, is dropped.A.523/2012 Page 4 of 16IO as well as Ld. Addl.PP for State have been asked to point out if there is any other incriminating evidence available on record from which the accused can be connected with the alleged commission of offence in the absence of the examination of the prosecutrix.IO has gone through the file and has pointed out that there is no such evidence which can be led by the prosecution other than the prosecutrix to prove that the accused is guilty of the offence he is charged with.In these circumstances, the prosecution evidence is closed.No witness has been examined by the prosecution.I had sent Ct.Sheoraj to the said aforesaid address for effecting the service of summons.Sheoraj had met with Rajkumar s/o Sh.Tejpal Singh at point A1 were recorded by him.A.523/2012 Page 5 of 16On 04.03.2011, Ct.Sheoraj Singh on my directions had gone to H.No.1261, Block A, Phase-II, Holambikala where accused Punnu was residing to find out any clue about the prosecutrix from the said address or nearby places to trace her out however we could not succeed.DD No.66 B was recorded to this effect on his return true copy of which is Ex.PX3 bearing my signatures at point and the signatures of Ct.On 25.02.2011 and 01.03.2011, I had gone to Balika Greh Pratham, Mahila avam bal vikas Vibhagh, after care home for women, Department of Women and Child Dev, Nirmal Chhaya Complex, Jail Road, N. Delhi-64 in search of the prosecutrix.PX4 and PX5 which were duly attested by me at point A. Thereafter I went to East West and Main Sagarpur, Delhi in search of the address of the prosecutrix given by the Superintendent, Balika Greh Pratham and met there with Sh.Bhishan Das, Umesh Kumar, Ishwar Das and Sh.Panna Lal and interrogated them about the prosecutrix and H.No.46, Gali No.4, Sagarpur, Gandhi Market, Delhi, however, this address was found to be incorrect as it was not in existence.PX6 to PX9 all bearing my signatures at point A. Despite my best efforts the prosecutrix could not be traced out.My detailed report to this effect is Ex.PX10 bearing my signatures at point A."A.523/2012 Page 6 of 16In the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent, the Trial court recorded as under:To this effect his detailed statement has been recorded on oath.In view of his statement, the prosecutrix being not traceable, is dropped.IO as well as the Ld. Addl.In these circumstances, the prosecution evidence is closed.No witness has been examined by the prosecution, as such there is no incriminating evidence on record against accused Punnu, hence his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.A.523/2012 Page 7 of 16File be consigned to Record Room."Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon Section 299 of Cr.P.C and Section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and has submitted that the impugned judgment and the reasoning given therein cannot be sustained.The said provisions have not been examined.The statement of PW-1 recorded on 16.08.2003 and 11.10.2003 in the proceedings against co- accused Saroj-wife of the respondent can be read in evidence.In the present case the trial, after the charges were framed against the appellant, has proceeded in haste and hurry.Only one opportunity was granted to the State to produce the prosecutrix.On failure, the prosecution evidence was closed.A.523/2012 Page 14 of 16 acquittal was passed.No opportunity or chance was given to the prosecution to move any application or decide or make any further attempt to prove and establish the case.Of course, it will be also open to the prosecution to produce the prosecutrix if possible.The Trial Court will also record evidence of other witnesses if deemed necessary and appropriate.SANJIV KHANNA, J.

['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

regarding grant of stay and he prays for time.List tomorrow i.e. on 25/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 3 W.P.No.20/2015 24/8/2015 Shri Rishabh Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent is again praying for time.List in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 4 W.P.No.452/2015 24/8/2015 Shri Ajay Assudani, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder.Two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to do the needful.List along with W.P. 7374/2014 after two weeks, as prayed.Interim relief granted earlier to continue.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 5 M.Cr.C.No.7495/2015 24/8/2015 Shri P.K. Shukla and Shri MS.Chouhan, learned Counsel for the applicant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.By this second application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., Ghanshyam has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.764/2015 registered by police station Chandan Nagar, District Indore for offence under Sections 304- B, 498-A/34 of the I.P.C.Counsel for the applicant has candidly admitted the fact that this is the second bail application moved on behalf of applicant Ghanshyam, who was the father-in-law of the deceased.The first application has been dismissed on the ground that the challan has not been filed and now the challan has been filed.Counsel submitted that the allegation against the present 6 applicant regarding demand of schooty was for the benefit of the daughter-in-law.Counsel further submitted that the applicant is a businessman and his entire family is suffering due to his arrest.Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and prayed for dismissal of the application.Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed since the challan has been put up and the applicant is no longer required for further investigation and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.It is also directed that the applicants shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 8 W.P.No.5718/2015 24/8/2015 Shri R.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri V.P. Khare, learned Counsel for the respondent/PSC on advance notice.Heard on admission and interim relief.Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the petitioner had appeared for the examination of Ayurved Medical Officer and he has qualified in the written examination.However, her candidature has been cancelled by the respondent on the ground that he could not file the relevant documents for the interview and there is only one day delay occasioned in filing the documents.Hence, Counsel prayed that a direction be given to the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the ensuing interview of the said examination.In view of the above, it is directed that the respondents shall allow the petitioner to appear in the ensuing interview, if otherwise qualified and on presentation of the relevant documents, but the result of the interview shall be kept in abeyance subject to this petition.Counsel for the respondents is directed to file reply within four weeks.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 10 M.Cr.C.No.6972/2015 24/8/2015 Shri V.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the applicants Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that the criminal case registered against the petitioners has been illegal and civil remedy was available to the complainant.Counsel placed reliance on Rajib Ranjan and others vs R. Vijaykumar (2015)1 SCC 513 whereby the Apex Court has held that it could be an abuse of process of law when civil case converted into criminal and filling of criminal complaint by party after losing battle in civil litigation; and as in present case it was held to be misuse and abuse of process of law and hence, complaint in 11 present case is also liable to be quashed.In view of the above, let nothing coercive like arrest be done against the present petitioners till the next date of hearing.List on 25/9/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 12 M.Cr.C.No.6981/2015 24/8/2015 Shri V.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the applicants.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that the criminal case registered against the petitioners has been illegal and civil remedy was available to the complainant.Counsel placed reliance on Rajib Ranjan and others vs R. Vijaykumar (2015)1 SCC 513 whereby the Apex Court has held that it could be an abuse of process of law when civil case converted into criminal and filling of criminal complaint by party after losing battle in civil litigation; and as in present case it was held to be misuse and abuse of process of law and hence, complaint in 13 present case is also liable to be quashed.In view of the above, let nothing coercive like arrest be done against the present petitioners till the next date of hearing.List on 25/9/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.C.C.No.29/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Benudhar Parida, learned Counsel for the applicant.By this M.C.C. under Order 41 Rule 19 of CPC, the applicant has prayed for restoration of 14 M.A.No.583/2013, which has been dismissed due to peremptory order regarding non-payment of Court fees in time.Counsel for the applicant submits that the appeal was dismissed as per order dated 15/9/2014 and the applicant was not aware that the appeal has been dismissed for want of deficit Court fee.Counsel has candidly admitted that the appeal has been put up before the Taxing Officer and as per report of the Taxing Officer the appeal was listed before the Court and the Court has granted three months' time to pay the deficit court fees.Now the appellant is willing to pay the deficit court fee according to the newly amended Court Fee Act and prayed that the appeal be restored to its original number.Considering the entire facts of the case, I find that the appellant is dilly-dallying the payment of Court fees according to the newly amended Court Fee Act. In view of the above, the applicant/appellant is 15 directed to give an undertaking in writing before the Principal Registrar of this Court regarding the fact that applicant/appellant shall be paid the deficit Court fees, according to the newly amended Court Fee Act within two weeks.Subject to which, Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 16 M.C.C.No.444/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Avinash Thorat, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on I.A.No.4522/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay 35 days occasioned in filing this present M.C.C. Counsel for the applicant submits that due to ill- health and inadvertence of the applicant, the delay has occasioned and hence, Counsel prayed that the application be allowed and delay be condoned.Counsel for the applicant submits that First Appeal No.51/2006 was dismissed due to peremptory order regarding non-payment of process fee.The respondents are not being noticed and dilly-dallying the effect of service.In the present application also process has been paid, but there is no service report.In view of the above, the applicant/appellant is directed to give an undertaking in writing before the Principal Registrar of this Court regarding the fact that the respondents shall be noticed by publication on restoration of the appeal.Further subject to depositing a sum of Rs.300/- as costs in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence and inadvertence the delay is hereby condoned.Thereafter the Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list the First Appeal at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 18 M.A.No.3319/2009 21/8/2015 Shri R.N. Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on I.A. No.3243/15, which is an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for bringing the L.Rs.of deceased Dhanji respondent No.1 on record.The name of his son Anupamsingh respondent No.2 is already on record and the other L.Rs.have been named in the I.A.Counsel for the respondent No.2 has no objection.In view of the above, the application is allowed and name of the L.Rs.of the deceased respondent No.1 is taken on record.Counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary amendment in the cause title of the appeal memo.Counsel for the appellant is also directed to pay 19 fresh process regarding the newly added respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 20 S.A.No.464/2009 21/8/2015 Shri S.I. Ansari, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Shri M.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant and prays for time.List after two weeks on any Wednesday, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 21 S.A.No.529/2012 21/8/2015 Shri A. Siddique, learned Counsel for the appellant.List analogously after two weeks, as prayed (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.218/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Vishal Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni CONC No.560/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Chetan Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within 23 a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni CONC No.558/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Chetan Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of 24 process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 25 S.A. No.132/2014 21/8/2015 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant.Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the respondent submits that the application i.e. I.A. No.2797/2014 for stay has been rendered infructuous since possession is already taken by the appellant.Counsel for the appellant prays for time to verify the same.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 26 S.A. No.228/2014 21/8/2015 Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.Counsel for the appellant prays for one last opportunity to pay process regarding the L.Rs.By way of indulgence, last opportunity Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 27 M.A. No.1828/2014 21/8/2015 Shri Romil Malpani, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 28 F.A. No.92/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Vishal Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant.Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has filed cross-objection and reply to the application.Counsel for the appellant prays for a short time.List in the week commencing from 7//9/2015, as prayed.Interim relief granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 29 S.A. No.1245/2005 21/8/2015 Shri Abhishekh Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri S. Mukati, learned Counsel for the LRs.Counsel for the appellant prays for time.List on 3/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 30 M.Cr.C. No.6411/2015 20/8/2015 Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the applicant/State.Counsel for the applicant has prayed for grant of time to file an application for condonation of delay.He submitted that the present petition is barred by only a single day.In view of the above, the delay is hereby condoned and the present petition is taken up for hearing.Briefly stated; the facts of the prosecution case are that the land of complainant Jagdish and his elder brother Moolchandra was adjacent and in between the 31 land there was a Babool tree and its root came into the field.On 17/5/2015 when Jagdish was cutting the roots of the Babool tree, Moolchandra, the elder brother of Jagdish, along with his nephew Gangaram and Prakash started hurling filthy abuses at him.On being asked to stop abusing, accused Moolchandra snatched the axe from him and assaulted him on the right hand.Accused Prakash and Gangaram assaulted the complainant with lathi.One Pappu and Mangilal intervened to pacify the matter.The complainant reported the matter at police station Ringnod.Crime was registered at No.89/05 for offence under Sections 294, 323/34 and 506 of the IPC.The investigation was launched and the accused persons were arrested and the offence was registered against the accused and they were duly committed to their trial.The accused abjured their guilt and they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the matter.On considering the evidence, the Trial Court has convicted the accused Moolchandra for offence 32 under Section 294, 324 & 506/34 of the IPC.However, the trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused Prakash and Gangaram from the offence as hereinabove stated.Being aggrieved, the applicant/State has filed the present application for grant of leave to file appeal.Counsel for the applicant/State has urged the fact that there was ample evidence available on record, despite which the trial Court had erred in acquitting the respondents/accused.Counsel submitted that the trial Court had ignored the testimony of P.W.4 Tejsingh, who has supported prosecution case.In the testimony of P.W.2 Dr. Arvind Verma, Medical Officer, Government hospital, Jaora, he has stated that on the examination of the complainant it was found that as per injury No.1 there was a contusion of 6 x 2 cm on his thigh, injury No.2 was scratch 4 x 1.5 cm on the paw of left leg and injury No.3 was a lacerated wound 1.5 x 3 cm on the back side of the right upper arm and 33 the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.The injuries No.1 & 2 were simple in nature, however, for the injury No.3 the doctor advised for X-ray.And under these circumstances there was no need to disbelieve the evidence.Hence, Counsel prayed that the application for leave to file appeal be allowed.On considering the above submissions, I find that the lower Court had scrutinized the evidence available on record and the impugned judgement is impeccable and it does not call for any interference.The submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant State are without substance, primarily because, the prosecution hopelessly failed to prove its case.The presence of the accused respondents in the place of occurrence has been doubted which the prosecution has failed to dispel.According to paragraph 20 of the impugned judgement the lower Court has categorically observed that complainant Jagdish in his cross- examination admitted that accused respondent 34 Moolchand was alone at the time of cutting the root of Babool tree and accused respondents Prakash and Gangaram were not present at the place of occurrence.Similarly, it has been stated by D.W. Rukhnath that the accused Moolchandra was working in his field and after the complainant Jagdish fell on the tree before accused respondents Prakash and Gangaram had come there.Thus, the presence of these accused respondents at the place and time of occurrence is doubtful.Similarly, the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant is concerned, except a single injury sustained by the complainant on his leg, all the other injuries are simple in nature.Moreover, the dispute pertains to agricultural land between the related parties, which has been admitted in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment of the lower Court.Enmity is a double edged sword and the defence of the accused cannot be dispelled.And hence, the lower Courts had rightly acquitted the accused respondents.There was 35 no sufficient evidence on record for the conviction of the accused respondents.The evidence in order to sustain conviction must be unshakable and consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.I have no hesitation in concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court.The application is without merit and hence the leave to file appeal is rejected and there, the present M.Cr.C.is dismissed as such.as per rules.Besides, in view of the above, it is also directed that till then no coercive action be taken against the appellant by the executing Court and needless to say the executing Court shall also take into consideration the accident of the appellant on humanitarian ground.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 38 M.Cr.C.No.7496/2014 20/8/2015 Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Both the Counsel for the respondents did not agree to the suggestion put forth by this Court to solve the dispute.Counsel for the applicants prays for a short time to seek instructions.By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the applicants.List for disposal on 7//9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 39 Judge moni 40 W.P.No.3521/2015 20/8/2015 Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Shyam Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State submits that he would like to enquire whether the work orders have been issued or not?By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent to do the needful.List for disposal on 25/8/2014, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 41 Cri.A. No.728/2002 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Appellant No.2 Pawan s/o Chunnilal has been produced in proper custody by Head constable Abdul Sayed,325 and Constable Raju Savle 851, DRP Line,Khargone.The appellant was absent since he was in custody for some other offence and non-bailable warrant has been issued for his arrest.Since no one appears on behalf of the appellant, the Police officials are directed to be take back the appellant in proper custody, to undergo the remaining sentence.In view of the above, earlier order of suspension of sentence is hereby recalled.However, Counsel for the appellant is granted liberty to move fresh 42 application for grant of suspension of sentence, if he deems necessary under the circumstances.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1924/2014 20/8/2015 Shri Bharat Malviya, learned Counsel for the appellants.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent/State.Appellants Ramcharan, Rameshwar and Rambabu are present in person.Heard on I.A. No.6142/2015, which is an application for condonation of absence of the appellants.The appellants submits that there was some death 43 in the their family and hence they could not appear before this Court on the date set by this Court Registry.The appellants are directed to mark their presence today and they are also directed to remain present before this Court/Registry on 29/9/2015 and on all other dates as may be fixed by the Registry.List for final hearing in due course.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 44 M.Cr.C. No.5774/2015 20/8/2015 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State on advance notice.Counsel for the applicant prays for a short time to argue the matter.List in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A. No.1095/2015 20/8/2015 Shri Nitesh Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State on advance notice.Heard on admission.Call for the record.List after receipt of the record.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A. No.1028/2005 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Report of non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the appellant indicates that the appellant has left the place with his family.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two 46 weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge S.A.Nos.1326/2005 and 1343/2005 20/8/2015 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Koustubh Pathak, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the respondent is again praying for time to file reply to the I.A.By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted 47 to the Counsel for the respondent to do the needful.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cr.A. No.385/2010 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.440/2010 20/8/2015 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.Hence, Counsel prayed that extension of time be granted to the appellant since the order dated 26/4/2010 is still in existence.In view of the above, it would be more appropriate that the appellant move a fresh application for grant of suspension of sentence regarding the appellant No.8 and one week's time is granted to the appellant to do the needful.Subject to which, list in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.1243/2011 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the 50 respondent/State.There is a report regarding service of non- bailable warrant of arrest issued against the appellant No.1 Santosh @ Santish @ Dadu, which indicates that the appellant No.1 was absconding.In view of the above above, perpetual warrant be issued against the appellant No.1 for his appearance before this Court as and when he is arrested.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cr.A. No.415/2012 20/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.On perusal of the order sheet dated 15/5/2015, I find that the sole appellant Sumitra Bai has died.Counsel is again praying for time to verify the same.By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent to do the needful.List in the week commencing from 1st of September, 2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge 52 Cri.A. No.1229/2012 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the appellant/State.However, he was unable to avail the bail since he was in custody and on 17/10/2014 the appellant has already undergone the entire jail sentence and the sentence of fine to the tune of Rs.500/- has been paid.However, he has not been released on bail.And hence, the learned Trial Court Judge prayed for appropriate direction in this matter.In view of the above, I find that appellant may be 53 released, if he is not already released.In this light the present appeal stands abates and rendered infructuous due to efflux of time and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed as such.The P.U.D.is also stands closed and disposed off.A copy of this order be sent to the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain C.c.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 54 W.P.No.11723/2012 20/8/2015 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Respondent No.2 Deepak Kasliwal is present in person.Respondent No.2 submits that the reply to the I.A. has been filed by the petitioner today only and hence he prays for a short time to argue the matter.List on 25/8/2015 on consent of all the parties.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R. No.1070/2013 20/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cr.R.No.690/2015 20/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.This Court had on 21/7/201directed to the applicant to move appropriate application for converting this criminal revision into the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, but the application is not available on record.None appears on behalf of the petitioner today also.It appears that the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the case.In view of the above, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge M.A.Nos.1447/13, 1443/13,1445/13,1449/13 and 1450/13 20/8/2015 Shri M. Negi, learned Counsel for the appellant.None for the other respondents.Service report of the other respondents is awaited.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.275/2014 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Time was granted to the appellant for his appearance before this Court on several occasions.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned 59 C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.389/2014 20/8/2015 Shri Sachin Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the appellant/State.Hence, Counsel prays for time to seek instructions in the matter.In view of the above, list in the next week, as 60 prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.450/2014 20/8/2015 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the appellant/State.Shri S.K. Meena, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the respondents is again praying for time to keep the respondent present before this Court.Time was granted on 29/6/2015 and 30/7/2015 to the Counsel for the respondent, however he was unable to keep the respondent present before this Court.In view of the above, Registry is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrests against the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.696/2014 20/8/2015 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the appellant/State.Counsel for the respondents is again praying for time to keep the respondents present before this Court.Time was granted on 24/3/2015 and 16/6/2015 to the Counsel for the appellant, but he was unable to keep the respondents present before this Court.In view of the above, Registry is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrests against the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.845/2014 20/8/2015 Shri Avinash Thorat, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant prays for one last opportunity to keep the appellant present before this Court Registry.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.No further time shall be granted.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.1038/2014 20/8/2015 Shri Nitin Vyas, learned Counsel for the appellant.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two 64 weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.1198/2014 20/8/2015 Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Time has been granted to the Counsel for the appellant on several occasions.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge 66 Cr.A. No.1150/2013 19/8/2015 Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned Counsel for the appellant.Appellant Moin @ Golu is present in person.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Tanvir Ahmad, learned Counsel with complainant Shakeb Ahmad s/o Ikram Uddin present in person.Heard on I.A.Nos.9186/14 & 9187/14, which are the applications for taking the compromise on record and the matter can be settled.However, both the Counsel submitted that during the pendency of the appeal a compromise has been arrived at between the parties 67 and the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties.The affidavit in support of the applications have also been filed along with the applications.The complainant has stated before me that the matter has been settled amicably and he has no more grievance and he has no objection, if the offence is compounded.In view of the above, the compromise is taken on record along with the affidavit.Consequently, I find that the authorities relied on by the Counsel for the appellant pertains to quashment of proceedings in the Trial Court; whereas this application has been filed after conviction in this appeal.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed and accordingly allowed by maintaining the conviction recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court but by reducing the sentence already undergone by the appellant.If the appellant has not paid the amount of fine, he will pay such amount within four weeks from today."However, the custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to the appellant having paid the fine amount.With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.as per Rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 71 The complainant has stated that he has no more grievance against the appellant and has no objection, if the compromise is taken on record.The appellant set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other offence.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 73 M.Cr.C.No.4884/2015 19/8/2015 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press this case.However, he prays that direction be given to the Trial Court to complete the trial as early as possible.In view of the above, although this M.Cr.C. is dismissed as withdrawn the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 74 four months from today.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.2778/2015 19/8/2015 Shri Bhupendra Singh, learned Counsel with petitioner prays for a short time on behalf of the senior Counsel.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 75 W.P.No.2426/2015 19/8/2015 Shri Ajay Gupta, learned Counsel with petitioner Smt. Sampurna.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Reserved for orders.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 76 M.Cr.Notices be returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 77 M.Cr.Considering the order of the Trial Court, Counsel for the applicant is directed to amend the cause title.He is also directed to pay fresh process regarding the respondent by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1802/2013 19/8/2015 Shri Asif Warsi, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant prays for time to keep the appellant No.1 present before this Court.On two occasions, time has been granted to Counsel for the appellant.In view of the above, by way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to Counsel for the appellant to keep the appellant No.1 present before this Court.List on 15/9/2015, as prayed.A.No.1753/2013 19/8/2015 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.Counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for time to keep the respondent No.3 present before this Court.Time has been granted on two occasions.In view of the above, by way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to Counsel for the respondent No.3 to keep the respondent present before this Court.List on 15/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 80 moni Cr.R.No.1212/2013 19/8/2015 Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Petitioner Shanu @ Rais is present in person.Heard on I.A. No.3270/2015, which is an application for condonation of absence of the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been granted suspension of jail by this Court on 2/12/2013 and he has never misused the liberty granted to him.However, on 24/4/2015 the petitioner was out of station and hence he could not appear before this 81 Court on the date set by the Registry.Hence,Counsel prayed that the absence be condoned.The petitioner undertakes to remain present before this Court/Registry.For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the absence is hereby condoned.However, the petitioner is warned no such mistake would be repeated in future.The petitioner is directed to mark his presence today and he is also directed to remain present before this Court/Registry on 29/9/2015 and on all other dates as may be fixed by the Registry.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 82 M.Cr.C.No.6942/2015 19/8/2015 Shri Raghuvir Yardi, learned Counsel for the applicant prays for a short time to cure the defects, as pointed out by the Registry.One week's time is granted to the Counsel for the applicant to do the needful.Subject to compliance, list in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.2669/2013 19/8/2015 Shri Romil Malpani, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Zaffar Qureshi, learned Counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company.At the risk of the appellant, the prayer is accepted 84 and service of notices to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is hereby dispensed with.Both the Counsel pray that the appeal be listed before the Lok Adalat.In the meanwhile, call for the record of the lower Court.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.6349/2013 19/8/2015 Shri Ajay Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.I find that the matter can be disposed of finally.List for final disposal on 2/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.14102/2013 & 14201/13 19/8/2015 Shri R.T. Thanewala, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.for the respondent/State.Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for a short time.List on 31/8/2015 for disposal, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 86 Cr.A.No.210/2014 19/8/2015 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the appellant/State.Heard on I.A.No.8107/2014, which is an application for marking the presence of the respondent No.1 before the Trial Court.I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of finally.In view of the above, both the Counsel pray for a fixed date in the matter.List on 9/9/2015 for final disposal, as prayed.Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent.Heard on I.A.No.3937/2014, which is an application for condontation of 13 days' delay in filing this appeal.Call for the record.List for final hearing in the last week of October, 2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.2832/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Sanjeev Rawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner.A.G. for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6/State.Considering the submissions made by all the Counsel, I find that the matter can be disposed of finally.Petition is partly allowed.Direction be given to the competent Authority (State Government) to decide the appeal within four weeks.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.2953/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Arjun Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner.for the respondent/State.Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents.Jurisdiction has been challenged by the respondents to file the complaint by the petitioner.In view of the above, Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to argue the matter.List in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 91 Cr.R.No.650/2014 18/8/2015 Shri Ajit Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for a short time.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 92 Cr.Last opportunity of four weeks' time is granted to the petitioner to do the needful.List after four weeks, as prayed.No further time shall be granted.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 93 Cr.A.No.2008/2014 18/8/2015 Shri Vikas Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant submits that no date has been given by the Registry to keep the appellant present before this Court and prays for a fixed date to keep the appellant present before this Court.List on 27/8/2015 for the presence of the appellant.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 94 Cr.R.No.815/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Deepak Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the respondents.Counsel for the petitioner is directed to pay process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 95 Cr.R.No.824/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Nitesh Singh Chouhan, learned Counsel for time on behalf of the senior Counsel for the petitioner.Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to argue the matter.List in the next week for disposal, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.831/2015 18/8/2015 Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Anirudh Gokhale, learned Counsel for the applicant.In view of the above, status-quo ante is restored and the proceedings before the Trial Court shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.At this juncture, Counsel for the respondent prays for time.List for final disposal on 15/9/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.884/2015 18/8/2015 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defects have been cured.Registry to 97 verify the same.Heard on I.A.No.6064/15, which is an application for condonation of 463 days' delay in filing this petition.Issue notices of this I.A. to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 98 M.Cr.Counsel for the applicant prays one more opportunity to verify as to how much amount has been deposited by the applicant.Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the same.By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the applicant to verify the same.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 99 M.Cr.C.No.6867/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Hitesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant prays for time to cure the defect, as pointed out by the Registry.Subject to compliance, list in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 100 M.Cr.C.No.7240/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned Counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this application since earlier petition is already pending consideration.In view of the above, this M.Cr.C. is dismissed as not pressed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 101 M.Cr.C.No.561/2014 18/8/2015 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri Nitin Vyas, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the respondent prays for time.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 102 Cr.964/2014 18/8/2015 Ms. Kiran Gohar,learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent 2/State.He prays for time.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 103 M.Cr.C.No.4921/2015 18/8/2015 This case is not to be listed before me.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.9511/12, 9040/13 & 6140/2013 18/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/State.Shri D.S. Gandhrav, learned Counsel for the Ku.Shraddha Singh, learned Counsel submits 104 that he has filed an application for intervention.Last opportunity is granted to the petitioner.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.6151/13, 6152/2013 & 6153/2013 18/8/2015 Shri Sadanand Choubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 & 2/State.Counsel for the respondent No.3 is praying for 105 time.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.13/2014 18/8/2015 Ku.Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned Counsel for 106 the appellant.Shri Ramesh Vishwakarma,learned Counsel for the respondent prays for time.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.7622/2014 17/8/2015 Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ishita Agarwal,learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 prays for time to file reply.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 107 W.P. Nos.7980/2014, 7981/14 and 7982/2014 17/8/2015 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Meena Saxena,learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to make compliance of provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, which is vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.However, by way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner.Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 108 W.P. No.7992/2014 17/8/2015 Shri Anand Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran,learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder, which is vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the respondent/State.However, by way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner.Interim relief to continue.List after two weeks, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 109 W.P. No.8325/2014 17/8/2015 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran,learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.7/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time since the service report regarding the respondent Nos. 1 & 3 is awaited.Two weeks' time is granted.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 110 W.P. No.8489/2014 17/8/2015 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Abhishekh Singh Rathore, learned Counsel for the respondents.Reply has been filed.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to argue the matter.List after two weeks for disposal, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 111 W.P. No.8710/2014 17/8/2015 Shri S.P. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.3,4 & 5/State.Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 prays for one last opportunity to file reply.Counsel for the respondents/State prays that the name of the office of the Addl.Advocate General be reflected in the daily cause list.Registry is directed to do the needful.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 112 W.P. No.8870/2014 17/8/2015 Shri Rishi Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent No.13/State.Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 submits that he has not received the annexures.Counsel for the petitioner is directed to hand over the same to the Counsel for the respondents within a week.Subject to compliance, Counsel for the respondents is directed to file reply within four weeks.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 113 CONC No.122/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Viraj Godha, learned Counsel for the applicant.Issue fresh notices to the respondent No.1 & 2 on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks thereafter.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after two weeks, as prayed.In the meanwhile, Counsel for the respondent No.3 is directed to file reply within two weeks.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 114 Judge moni M.A. No.219/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned Counsel for the appellant.Counsel for the appellant prays for time to take appropriate steps regarding the unserved respondents.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the appellant to do the needful.Call for the record.Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 115 moni CONC No.368/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Kamal Airen, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondents.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 116 W.P.No.1174/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Reply has been filed.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to argue the matter.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 117 Cr.R. No.630/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Palash Chowdhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent.List after two weeks, as prayed.No further adjournment shall be granted.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 118 M.A.No.1535/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on I.A.No.6115/15, which is an application for condonation of 9 days' delay in filing this appeal.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed and delay is hereby condoned.The appeal is taken up for admission.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.6116/2015, which is an application for stay.Counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory amount has already been paid and the receipt 119 of the same is appended with the File.In view of the above, subject to deposition of half the awarded amount within a period of one month from today, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to abide by any of the condition within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 120 Cr.A. No.1066/2015 17/8/2015 Ku.Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.6119/2015, which is an application for condonation of one day's delay in filing the appeal.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.The appeal is taken up for admission.Call for the record.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 121 Cr.A. No.876/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Ramlal Patidar, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.5032/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay.Counsel for the appellant is directed to hand over a fresh copy of the appeal along with the copy of the application to the Counsel for the respondent within three days.List in the next week for consideration of the application.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 122 M.C.C. No.662/2015 17/8/2015 Shri M.M. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within two weeks.Notices be made returnable within two weeks thereafter.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 123 M.Cr.C. Nos.6765/2015 and 7009/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Anand Mohan Mathur, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for the applicants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the 124 respondent/State.Shri P.V. Bhagwat and Shri Prakash Shrivas, learned Counsel for the objector.Both these applications are taken up together since they arise out of the same cause of action and same crime number registered at same police station Vijay Nagar, Indore.By these applications under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., applicants Sanjeev s/o Kaidarnath Dhody and Arjun s/o Babulal Choudhary respectively have moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No.1254/2014 registered at police station Vijay Nagar, Indore for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 474, 465 and 120-B of the IPC.Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged the fact it was a case of false implication.Counsel submitted that the case is civil in nature, despite which the prosecution is bent on giving it a criminal colour.Counsel submitted that applicant Sanjeev is the 125 promoted Director of M/s Silver Oak India Ltd. and he is the owner of 65% of the shares.Counsel submitted that the allegation against the applicants is that they have appointed five other persons as Directors of the company and including their names in the company register and uploading the same in the Internet and causing loss to complainant Bhupendra Singh and Bhupendra Singh states that he has never given his consent as a Director; whereas Counsel submitted that complainant Bhupendra Singh is not a Director of the Company and he has no right to challenge the application.Moreover, Counsel submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the offence by the complainant and the applicants have full chance of success in the trial.Counsel further submitted that the applicants are reputed businessmen of Indore and they would face social ostracism and embarrassment, if they are arrested.Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.Both Counsel for the respondent/State and the objector have opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicants and submitted that the applicants were fully involved in the matter.Counsel submitted that there is one other case registered against applicant Sanjeev Dhody and there was grave allegation against both of them regarding forgery.Hence, Counsel submitted that the applicants did not deserve any sympathy and prayed for dismissal of the application.At this juncture, Counsel for the applicants submitted that co-accused Himanshu has been granted time to surrender by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.6763/2015 and the present applicants would be satisfied, if such a direction is given in this matter also.On considering the above submissions and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.However, in the interest of justice and on the grounds of parity 127 alone, the applicants are better advised to surrender themselves before the competent Court, Counsel for the applicants have expressed apprehension that the applicants are likely to be arrested immediately.In view of the above, the applications are partly allowed to the extent that the applicants shall surrender themselves within a period of four weeks from today i.e. on or before 16/09/2015 before the Competent Court and if the applicants shall file an application for regular bail before the Competent Court within the said period then the application shall be considered on the same day on its presentation, in accordance with law.I would like to make it abundantly clear that the application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merits by the trial Court.It is also directed that till then the applicants shall not be apprehended or arrested.In case of failure to do so within the said period and the applicants shall be arrested in accordance with the provisions of law without 128 reference to this Court.With these directions, the application is disposed of.Original order be retained in the record of M.Cr.C. No.6765/2015 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of M.Cr.C. No.7009/2015 17/8/2015 In view of the detailed order passed by me today in M.Cr.C.No.6765/2015, this M.Cr.C.stands disposed of.A copy of the main order be retained in this File.By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Raghuvirsingh has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No.452/13 registered by police station Industrial Area for offence under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act.Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged that co-accused Hakem Khan has been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.1857/2015 and hence he prayed that on the grounds of parity also the applicant is entitled to grant of bail.Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and submitted that the parity cannot be 131 claimed as a matter of right.More so, Counsel submitted that there is single case for offence registered under Section 354 and 336 of the IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act against the present applicant.She further submitted that huge quantity of contraband has been seized from the possession of the present applicant and applicant is supposed to be a supplier of the contraband.Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions and the fact that a huge quantity of contraband has been seized and the offence is grievous in nature, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant even if bail has been granted to the co-accused and parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right.This M.Cr.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 132 M.Cr.C.No.5172/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.However, Counsel for the applicant prays that the matter be listed in the next week.List on 25/8/2015, as prayed.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press this case.However, he prays that liberty be provided to file fresh application after a period of six months.Counsel for the respondent submits that there are two other cases recorded against the applicant.In view of the above, this M.Cr.C.No.5667/2015 17/8/2015 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press this case.However, he prays that liberty be provided to file fresh application after a period of three months, if the trial is not completed.Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.In view of the above, this M.Cr.C. is dismissed as not pressed.However, liberty as prayed for, is granted.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 135 W.P.No.2270/2014 14/8/2015 Shri Ashish Sharma learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1to 4, 11 & 13/State.The petitioner was beaten by them 136 mercilessly; besides he was taken in custody.He has incurred disability in the lower part of the body and he was unable to walk.The medical papers and newspaper cuttings and C.D. were attached with this petition.This Court had on 5/5/2014 directed the Inspector General of Police to file the report regarding the outcome of the enquiry that was to be established in his office.Both the Counsel for the respondents have vehemently urged that the petition is not maintainable.However, I find that this Court had on 11/12/2014 directed the Dean, M.G.M. Medical College, Indore to provide proper medical treatment to the petitioner.Today also the case has been vehemently argued for admission.On perusing the report by Shri Vipin Kumar Maheshwari, Inspector General of Police, Indore Zone, Indore dated 13/1/2015, it is found that he has also noted several irregularities, lacuna and lapses on the part of the Police Officers and the petitioner has 137 become disabled after the incident and several irregularities that had occurred during the investigation have been pointed out by the report.In view of the above, I find that the petition is required to be admitted for final hearing.There are several I.As.pending consideration.The first I.A.No.2844/2014 dated 7/5/2014 is taken up for consideration.By this application, Counsel for the petitioner has urged that even today the petitioner is not being provided proper medical treatment.Counsel urged that at least compensation be awarded by the State Government to enable the petitioner to take proper medical treatment.At this juncture, Counsel for respondents/State Ms. Mini Ravindran has submitted that such compensation is not available nor directed by the Court.However, on considering the above, I find the 138 Dean, M.G.M. College, Indore has already been directed as above on 11/12/2014 that the petitioner could approach the Dean,MGM, College, Indore.Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Government hospital does not provide proper facility.Considering the above, submissions, the application is partly allowed.It is directed that the respondents/State Government/concerned Police Officers to see that the M.G.M.College, Indore and M.Y. Hospital,Indore shall provide proper medical treatment to the petitioner free of cost; primarily because it is only in the said medical college and also at M.Y. Hospital, Indore that the petitioner shall be able to avail such a good facility; considering the improvements that have been made recently at M.Y. hospital, Indore.In this light, the respondents concerned are directed to see that the case of the petitioner is properly recommended for proper medical treatment in 139 the M.G.M.College, Indore as well as M.Y. Hospital, Indore, as directed above.In view of the above, this application is partly allowed.List for consideration of the other I.As.after three weeks.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 140 W.P. No.4338/2015 and 4349/2015 10/8/2015 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners.These two petitions arise out the same impugned order and the same cause of action, and they have been filed by the two tenants against the common landlord, whereas W.P. No.4338/2015 pertains to civil suit No.6-A/15 and W.P. No.4339/2015 pertains to 5- A/15 and a common order has been passed under identical situation and hence both the petitions are taken up together.This common order shall regulate both the petitions.By these petitions under 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by order dated 5/5/2015 and15/6/2015 passed by the 29th Civil Judge Class- I,Indore in Civil Suit Nos.6-A/15,5-A/15 dismissing the application for eviction.The plaintiff has resisted the application submitting that the issue framed by the Court after considering the objection of the plaintiff as well as the respondents.And that such an application is not bonafide but made it with an intention to protract 142 the proceedings.The respondents had in fact resisted the suit and hence, the issue is required to be framed on the point.Similarly by order dated 15/6/2015 another application filed under Rule 6 Order 16 of the CPC by the respondents was also dismissed.This application has been resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that whenever the matter has been listed for evidence by one reason or another the respondents had tried to prolong the trial.This application was also pertains to the dilapidated condition of the accommodation.Besides the Court had observed that the respondent tenant has resisted the ground and hence, the issue No.3 had been framed and on this ground also no fault can be found with the Trial Court's order.However, the costs as imposed by the Trial Court are set aside.With the aforesaid observations, both the petitions are hereby dismissed as such.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 145 W.P. No.4349/2015 10/8/2015 In view of the detailed order passed by me today in W.P.No.4338/2015, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.A copy of the main order be retained in this File.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 146 147 W.A.No.210/2015 14/8/2015 Ku.Neetu Pokharan Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Advocate with Shri M.S. Dwivedi and Shri Akash Vijayvargiya, learned Counsel for the Caveator.Learned Counsel for the Caveator has placed an order dated 3/8/2015 passed by the Urban Development and Environmental Department, Bhopal indicating that the appellant's cause has been satisfied and she has been promoted and her transfer order has been cancelled and the lis has come to an end.Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has no more grievance and she has resumed the charge of CMO at Maheshwar, District Khargone In view of the above, the present writ appeal is disposed of.With the aforesaid, the petition bearing No.W.P. No. 3331/2015 is also hereby rendered infructuous and dismissed as such.No costs.as per rules.Shri Manoj Saxena, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the appellant and prays for time.List after four weeks, as prayed.Shri Manoj Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.None for the complainant.Although several allegations have been made in the application, Counsel for the respondent/State is directed to verify whether any police report has been filed by the complainant/objector.None appears on behalf of the complainant/objector to press this application.Last opportunity is granted to the complainant/objector.List after two weeks, as prayed.Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant prays for time.Prayer is accepted.List after two weeks, as prayed.Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for 153 the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Safaiwala (Sweeper) has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of permanent work charged or contingency paid 155 employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 156 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1933/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of cattle Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 159 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 160 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1932/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Bull Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 163 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 164 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1930/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of cattle Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 167 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 168 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1929/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Bull Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 171 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 172 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1927/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Bull Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 175 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 176 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1926/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Bull Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 179 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 180 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra); the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1260/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Bull Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 183 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 184 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra); the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.232/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2170/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.246/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2204/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.241/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2191/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.251/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2217/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.261/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2255/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.267/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2273/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.288/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2368/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.238/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.By this second application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., Madandas has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.52/2015 registered by police station Suwasara, District Mandsaur for offence under Sections 376, 506(II) of the I.P.C., u/s 3(II)(v) of the SC & ST Act and 3/ 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesCounsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a false case and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence.Counsel further submitted that it was an affair of heart and the applicant himself is 18 years of age and the prosecutrix had gone with the applicant on consent and on being recovered she turn around and implicated the applicant.Moreover, the prosecutrix has turned hostile 194 in Court.The parents of the prosecutrix have also not supported the prosecution case.Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and submitted that the prosecutrix was only 15 to 16 years of age, according to her mark-sheet.Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and looking to young age of the applicant, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of 195 Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.6449/2015 13/8/2015 Shri Imran Bangush and Shri Vivek Singh, learned 196 Counsel for the applicant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press this application.However, he prays for direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial as early as possible.Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.In view of the above, the M.Cr.C. is dismissed as not pressed.The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of one year from today.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1471/2011 13/8/2015 Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. 4934/2015, which is the 6th application for grant of suspension of jail sentence regarding the appellant.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application.However, he prays for early hearing of the appeal now the appellant is in custody for almost four years.Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.In view of the above, the application is dismissed as not pressed.List for final hearing in the last week of October, 2015, as prayed.Shri M.M. Bohra, learned Counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents.Counsel for the appellant undertakes to pay fresh process regarding the respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issue fresh notices to the respondents within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.List after service of notices on the respondents.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody for another offence.List on 26/8/2015, as prayed.Heard on I.A.No.5678/2015, which is an application for re-calling of the earlier order of non- bailable warrant issued against the sole appellant.Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant could not appear before this Court since he was in custody in another offence and his is still in custody at Mandleshwar jail.List on 26/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.5925/2012 13/8/2015 Shri Iqbal Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1,3 & 4/State.Counsel for the respondent No.2 prays for time to file reply.All the Counsel are directed to complete the pleadings.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 202 F.A.No.1057/2013 13/8/2015 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Santosh Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondents.The appeal is already admitted on 18/3/2014 for final hearing.Call for the record.List for final hearing in due course.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 203 M.C.C.No.687/2014 13/8/2015 Shri Prince Raghavan, learned Counsel for the applicants.None for the respondents.Counsel for the applicant undertakes to pay fresh process with correct address of the respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issue fresh notices to the respondents within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the case shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.443/2015 13/8/2015 Shri S. Polekar, learned Counsel for the appellants.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Notices have been served on the respondent No.1, but none appears today.Heard on admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Call for the record.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.C.c.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.1461/2015 13/8/2015 Shri Kailash Kuashal, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.It is a claimant's appeal.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List along with M.A.No.1463/2015 after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.C.C.No.619/2015 12/8/2015 Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.5976/2015, which is an 207 application for condonation of delay.248 days delay has occasioned in filing this application.Counsel for the applicant submits that due to ill- health and inadvertence of the applicant, the delay has occasioned and hence,Counsel prayed that the application be allowed and delay be condoned.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.This M.C.C. is taken up for final disposal.By this M.C.C., the applicant has prayed for restoration of W.P.No.7068/2014, which has been dismissed due to peremptory order regarding non- payment of Court fees in time.Counsel for the petitioner submits that the court fee could not be deposited in time due to financial constraints and she submits that now the applicant is ready to pay the court fees, according to the amended Court Fee Act and prayed that the petition be restored to its original number.Counsel for the respondents/State has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions, I find that the application needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed.However, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.250/- as costs in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence.A copy of the receipt shall be demonstrated in the Registry of this Court.Thereafter the Registry is directed to restore the petition to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.It is further directed that the Registry shall accept the process fee and issue notices to the respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks thereafter.Subject to compliance, list the writ petition after two weeks, as prayed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.748/2015 12/8/2015 Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for 210 the respondent No.1/State.Shri C.S. Panwar and Shri Harish Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 Heard.learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4Reserved for orders.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.1167/2015 12/8/2015 Ms. Sangeeta Choudhary, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri S.D. Lalwani, learned Counsel for the 211 respondent.Heard on admission.Although Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed for grant of stay since the case is almost at final stage and adjudication is necessary.In view of the above, the proceedings pending before the JMFC, Neemuch in Criminal Case No.1770/2010 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 212 moni Cr.120/2015 12/8/2015 Shri M.A. Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on I.A. No.4460/2015, which is an application for permission to serve notice on the respondent through humdast.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed.Registry is directed to prepare the notice regarding the respondent on payment of proper process and hand over the same to the Counsel for the petitioner within a week.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.4035/14 and 4331/2014 12/8/2015 Shri Akash Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Shri Ayushman Chowdhary, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4/Indian Oil Corporation.Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent/ Jay Nakoda Petroleum.He prays for time 214 to file reply.Last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.8755/14 & 605/2015 12/8/2015 Shri Vishal Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rakesh Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondents prays for time to file reply.Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the 215 respondents.Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.List after four weeks, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.246/15, 250/15 & 252/2015 12/8/2015 Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents/State and 216 prays for time to file reply.Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondents.List in the week commencing from 1/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.3770/14 and 3778/2014 11/8/2015 Shri Amit Panchal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the respondents.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time.List after two weeks on any Wednesday, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.7175/2014 11/8/2015 Shri Amit Pardeshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.778/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Vinay Saraf, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Nitin Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the appellant prays for time.Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the appellant to complete the pleadings.No further adjournment shall be granted.Interim relief to continue.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.1340/2015,1752/15,3953/15,3077/15,4195/15,4240 /15, 4263/15, 4265/15 and 4315/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Akshay Kelapure and Shri Ankit Kesharwani, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/State.Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that identical petition bearing W.P. No.3953/2015 is listed on 17/8/2015 and prays for analogous hearing with that petition.Prayer is accepted.List analogously on 17/8/2015 for consideration of I.A.No.3449/2015, as prayed.Interim relief, if any, granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.1488/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the petitioners/State.None for the respondent.Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file fresh process regarding service of notices to the respondent 221 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issued notices to the respondent within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.1588/2015 11/8/2015 Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the respondent.Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file fresh process regarding service of notices to the respondent 222 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issued notices to the respondent within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.1715/2015 11/8/2015 Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Rishabh Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for 223 the respondent No.2/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for a short time.List in next week , as prayed.Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.1589/2011 11/8/2015 Shri Benudahar Parida, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri M. Negi, learned Counsel for the respondent 224 No.3/Insurance Company.Suggestion of Counsel for the appellant that matter could be listed in the Lok Adalat, is dispelled since the respondent has filed cross-objection.In view of the above, list for final hearing after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A.No.526/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Gaffar Mohd., learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. No.5720/15,which is the second 225 application for grant of suspension of sentence.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application.The application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.325/2003 11/8/2015 Ms. Megha Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents though duly served.Heard on I.A.No.3496/13, which is an application 226 for bringing the Lrs.of the deceased respondent No.3 Bherusingh on record.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed and Counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary amendment in the appeal memo within a week.Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.324/2006 11/8/2015 None for the appellant.Bharti Lakkad, learned Counsel for the respondents.I.A. No.5992/15, which is an application filed by the respondents for vacating the stay.Last opportunity is granted to the appellant List in next Wednesday i.e.19/8/2015 , as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.3698/2006 11/8/2015 Shri M.S. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List tomorrow i.e. on 12/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.403/2010 11/8/2015 Mrs. Neelam Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the appellant.Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No.4 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.Call for the record.Appeal is admitted for final hearing in due course.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.669/2009 11/8/2015 Shri Manish Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.He prays for time to file application for reduction in valuation.Two weeks' time is granted.Subject to which, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.12343/2010 11/8/2015 Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned Counsel petitioner.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent prays for one last opportunity to file reply to the petition.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent, failing which, the petition shall be heard without the reply.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.365/2011 11/8/2015 Ku.Chitralekha Hardiya, learned Counsel appellant.None for the other respondents.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.6/State.Heard on I.A. No.5967/15, which is an application for bringing the Lrs.of the deceased respondent No.5 on record.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed and Counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary amendment in the appeal memo within a week.Counsel for the appellant is also directed to pay process regarding the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issue notices to the respondent Nos.3 & 4 afresh within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.1586/2011 11/8/2015 Shri Gaurav Shriavastava, learned Counsel appellant.Two weeks' time is granted to do the needful.Other respondents are duly served and represented by 234 their Counsel.Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.3962/2011 11/8/2015 Shri Aviral Vikas, learned Counsel petitioner.Shri R.P. Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the petition submits that the reply is ready to the application for vacating of the stay 235 granted earlier and prays for time to file the same during the course of the day with copy to the respondents.Subject to which, list in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.6032/2012 11/8/2015 Shri Harish Joshi, learned Counsel petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.2022/2015, which is an application for interim relief.Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is in the connected petition bearing W.P. No.6053/2012, 236 which is listed today along with this petition, interim relief has already been granted.And hence, Counsel prayed that the same relief may also be granted to the present petitioner.The relief granted in the said petition i.e. W.P. No.6053/2012 thus:"Any allotment made by the respondents shall be subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition."In view of the above, the same direction is also given in the present petition and the allotment shall be subject to the final outcome of the present petition.In the meanwhile, the respondents may file rely.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 237 moni W.P.No.11723/2013 11/8/2015 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Respondent No.2 Deepak Kasliwal is present in person.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of one week's time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to do the needful.List after a week, as prayed.The respondents are free to proceed regarding the violation.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 241 W.P.Nos.11966/12 and 470/2013 11/8/2015 Shri Ankit Kesharwani, learned Counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.3870/2015, which is and application for taking additional documents on record.Counsel for the respondent submits that if any consequential amendments are required, the same be allowed.In view of the above, application is allowed.The documents are taken on record.However,the respondents are free to file any additional reply, if they deem necessary and which shall be considered at the time of final hearing.List for final disposal in the last week of September, 2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 242 M.A.No.754/2013 11/8/2015 Shri V.S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on I.A.No.5363/2015, which is an application for amendment in the cause title regarding reduction in valuation.Counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary amendment in the application within a week.Registry to verify the same.Although the appeal has been admitted on 19/6/2015; appropriate Court fees has not been paid.Registry is directed to verify as to whether necessary Court fee has been paid or not?(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 243 W.P.No.5341/2015 10/8/2015 Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Gaurav Chhabra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Counsel for the respondents prays for a short time to seek instructions in the matter.List on 4/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.5351/2015 10/8/2015 Shri Sumit Samvatsar, learned Counsel for the 244 petitioner.Heard on admission.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Issue notice to this I.A. also.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 245 W.P.No.5354/2015 10/8/2015 Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week, failing which the present petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.At this juncture, Counsel for the petitioner prays for stay over the proceedings pending before the First Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore.In view of the above, the proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.List after service of notices on the respondent.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 246 W.P.No.5363/2015 10/8/2015 Shri Pankaj R. Sohani, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents/State.Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated without giving opportunity of hearing.Hence, Counsel prayed that the same benefit be granted to the present petitioner also.In view of the above, the impugned order shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week, failing which the present petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 248 W.P.No.5345/2015 10/8/2015 Ku.Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Both the Counsel pray for analogous hearing with W.P.No.5309/2015 tomorrow.List accordingly, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.447/2015 10/8/2015 Ms. Bhavna Sahu, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Shri V.S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the appellant.It is a claimant's appeal.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 250 Second Appeal No.324/2011 Order passed on I.A. No.5060/2015 11/8/2015 By this application, appellant Kimtilal Jain is seeking for permission for repairing of the disputed property.Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the disputed property i.e house No. 95, Mahavir Nagar, Indore is in a dilapidated condition.Due to rainy season the water is logging in the passages and due to unprecedented rain on 21/6/2015 the parapet of the first floor had broken down and fell on the ground floor and it has become dangerous to human life and the property.On 24/1/2015 when the appellant was showing the property to the engineer for carrying out repair work, the respondent No.10 Nirdosh Kumar started quarreling with the appellant and threatened him and warned the appellant not to undertake any 251 repair work.And hence the appellant has moved an application before this Court and photographs of the recent position of the disputed property are also filed along with the application.Counsel submitted that an application has also been moved before the trial Court for seeking repair, but the same was disposed of with the direction that since the matter was pending before this High Court the order should be sought from the same.Hence, Counsel prayed that the application be allowed and the appellant is willing to bear the cost and repairs and to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and also in case of failure of this appeal, the appellant will not claim any compensation.Counsel vehemently urged that it was utmost priority to carry out the repair work and hence the application be allowed.Counsel for the respondents, per contra, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the appellant and submitted that the application was 252 without merit; primarily because it was prima facie proved by the photo that the parapet wall was broken by the appellant himself and he has put forth a different story for sympathy whereas the appellant has deliberately broken the parapet wall with an intention of creating a new situation in the garb of repairing the parapet wall.Besides more importantly Counsel opposed the construction stating that the answering respondent would be prevented to use the washroom/toilets constructed in back side of the disputed house.However, when the respondent stopped the appellant from making the construction, he quarreled with the respondent and hence the respondent has moved an application for grant of temporary injunction before trial Court.Although the application was rejected by the trial Court, the appellate Court was pleased to restrain the appellant from interalia changing the nature of the disputed property.Counsel also urged 253 that the appellant was further restrained from obstructing the path of the answering respondent to the wash rooms constructed in the back side of the disputed house.Hence Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions and considering the evidence on record, I find that any relief granted to the appellant would amount to affecting the merits of the case.Besides too many disputed facts have been raised by both the parties.Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that further construction would be required and he is willing to remove the construction if the respondent is found to be incorrect and loses the appeal.Considering the said submissions, I find that the application cannot be allowed at this stage and it creates further complications and multiplicity of proceedings and right of both parties are likely to be 254 affected.In this light, this application is dismissed as such.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 255 W.P. No.5091/2014(O) 04/08/2015 Shri J.B. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri S.K. Chourasiya, learned Counsel for the respondent.Briefly stated the facts of the case, Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the respondent, was not noticed regarding the application moved for conducting the suit as an indigent person.The impugned order, permitting the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person, was passed without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/respondents.The petitioners Raju Kaushal and Shashi Kaushal, are the younger brothers of Yashpal Kaushal, who died early, and the present respondent Smt. Sumitra Bai is the widow of Yashpal Kaushal.The petitioners were living on rental basis in these two rooms and on the death of Yashpal Kaushal, Smt. Sumitra, the present respondent took over the house and being the close legal heirs the petitioners/respondents Raju Kaushal and Shashi Kaushal were paying Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- per month respectively.Subsequently due to irregularities in payment of the rent respondent Smt. Sumitra asked them to vacate the premises.Hence, plaintiff Smt. Sumitra did not wish to continue their tenancy.She also stated that the rent of Rs.3,000/- per month, which was paid to her husband Yashpal Kaushal, is stopped by the petitioners/respondents.However, on the presentation of the plaint, the plaintiff has also stated that she is a widow lady and there is no income for her livelihood and hence she prayed for exemption from payment of the Court fee on the basis of the M.P. State Government Notification No.9-1-93-B-21 dated 1/4/1983, according to which any female person earning less than Rs.6,000/-per year is exempted from payment of the Court fee.Counsel however, urged the fact that no application has been moved by the plaintiff to sue an indigent person despite the order of exemption from payment of court fee.Counsel submitted that misstatement has been made by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is an indigent person.A report is not being called and straightway the plaintiff has been allowed to sue an indigent person.Counsel 258 submitted that such an order is contrary to the provisions of law which requires at least preliminary enquiry be held and it should be considered that whether the plaintiff was an indigent person, but nothing has been done.Counsel prayed that the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC have not been complied with, despite objection, by the petitioners/respondents and the impugned order has been passed.The certificate of the Tehsildar relied on by the plaintiff as well as the Trial Court was not very reliable and no opportunity of cross-objection has been given to the present petitioners/respondents.Hence, Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside.Plaintiff belonging to one of the categories mentioned in the Notification is required to present the plaint by making such a declaration in the plaint itself for grant of exemption and need not file the suit as indigent person along with application seeking exemption from payment of Court fees."Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition.On considering the above submissions, I find that the single question for adjudication as whether the impugned order is correctly discarded the objection of the present petitioners regarding the plaintiff not having fulfilled the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC as to sue an indigent person? I find that the contention of the Counsel for the petitioners is contrary to the facts of the case.The application did not call to sue as an indigent person, but the applicant 261 claims for exemption from court fees as per the Notification dated 4/1/1983 and proper certificate of the Tehsildar has been filed.In view of the above, I find that the pleas of the petitioners are way off the question in hand.The order passed by the Trial Court is in accordance with Section 35 of the Court Fees Act and the Notification issued by the State Government.Besides, there is also competent certificate of the Tehsildar regarding the earning capacity of the plaintiff being below Rs.6,000/- per year and this light also the order does not call for any interference.With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is dismissed as without merit.C.c.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 262 W.P.No.8549/2014 05/8/2015 Shri Manoj Manav, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent No.9/State.By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26/9/2014 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Dewas granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and restrained the petitioners/defendants to enter into the property.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners/respondents are the local residents of Dewas district and a Civil Suit was filed before the Civil Judge Class-II, Dewas for declaration and permanent injunction in respect the land and house situated in survey No.529 and 540 area 1.02 hectares and 0.30 hectares respectively.The land in question was owned by their predecessor in title of both the petitioners and the respondents.The petitioners had filed a written reply to the inunction application.That by order dated 6/8/2014 the Trial Court has dismissed the application with a specific finding of plea of adverse possession is not applicable against the co-owner of the property, because in second application, the respondents have taken the plea of adverse possession.Besides, the names of the 265 petitioners as well as the respondents were jointly recorded in the revenue records and hence, it cannot be said that the respondents are the absolute owner of the property in question.The revenue records also clearly negated the name of the petitioners that they were the co-owners of the property.Besides, the plea of the present petitioners was not considered.The impugned order dated 26.9.2014 is hereby set aside.Needless to say that it is directed that both the parties shall not alienate the property further and status-quo regarding the property as it exists today shall be maintained by both the parties; till the decision of the application afresh; by the trial Court on the ground of possession within a period of three months from today.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.5274/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Ashish Kanungo, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondents/State.With the consent of both the Counsel, this writ petition is heard and disposed of finally.ORDER By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the in-action on the part of respondents in granting the benefit of regular pay scale of Adhyapak Samvarg in the post of Senior Teacher, Teacher and Assistant Teacher in the pay scale of Rs.5000-175-8500, 4000-125-6500 and 3000-100-5000 respectively after completion of seven years of service."Today when the matter came up for hearing the only prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is to dispose of this petitioner directing the respondents to consider and take appropriate decision keeping in view the Circular dated 21.6.2001 (Annexure P/4) as Rule-7 of the Rules.The prayer appears to be reasonable.Accordingly without commenting upon the merits of the matter, I am inclined to dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed representation with supporting documents before the Competent Authority of the respondents.On receipt of such representation the Competent Authority of the respondents shall take an appropriate decision on the said representation and pass appropriate orders in 272 regard to the petitioners' claim within a period of six months form the date of receipt of such representation.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is disposed of.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.C.C.No.607/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Avinash Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Manoj Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company.None for the respondent Nos.1 & 2/ driver & 273 owner.Heard on I.A.No.5960/2015, which is an application for condonation of 81 days delay in filing this application.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A.is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.This M.C.C.is taken up for final disposal.By this M.C.C. under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC, the applicants have prayed for restoration of Miscellaneous Appeal No.2403/2014, which has been dismissed due to peremptory order regarding non- payment of Court fee.Counsel submits that the liability of the Insurance Company is not disputed and the appeal is a claimants' appeal for enhancement.However, the court fee could not be deposited in time due to financial constraints.Counsel submits that now the applicants are ready to pay the court fee according to the amended Court Fee Act and prayed that the appeal be restored to its 274 original number.On considering the above submissions, I find that the application needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed.However, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.250/- as costs in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence.A copy of the receipt shall be demonstrated in the Registry of this Court.The Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.Subject to compliance, list the appeal after two weeks, as prayed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 275 M.C.C.No.609/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Avinash Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Anil Goyal, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.None for the respondent No.1/driver & owner.Heard on I.A.No.5958/2015, which is an application for condonation of 53 days delay in filing this application.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A.is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.This M.C.C.is taken up for final disposal.By this M.C.C. Under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC, the applicants have prayed for restoration of Miscellaneous Appeal No.1133/2014, which has been dismissed due to peremptory order.However, the court fee could not be deposited in time due financial constraints.Counsel submits that now the applicants are ready to pay the court fee according to the amended Court Fee Act and prayed that the appeal be restored to its original number.On considering the above submissions, I find that the application needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed.However, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.250/- as costs in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence.A copy of the receipt shall be demonstrated in the Registry of this Court.The Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.Subject to compliance, list the appeal in the next week, as prayed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 278 W.P. No.3734/2015 07/8/2015 Shri M.R. Sheikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.By this present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 72(1)(a) of the M.P. Motor Vehicle Act, petitioner Suresh s/o late Shri 279 Basant Kumar has come to the Court with a limited prayer for issuance a writ of mandamus to the respondent to decide the petitioner's application for the change of time table of Regular Stage Carriage Permit SCP No.19/14/Dhar for the route Dhar to Indore via Lebad, Betma.The application was filed on 15.05.2015 and is still pending consideration.Considering the above submissions, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to decide the petitioner's application by passing a reasoned order in writing as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Needless to say that this Court is not making any observation on the merits of the case.as per rules.Shri Shailendra Mukati, learned Counsel for the applicant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.5965/2015, which is an 281 application for condonation of 141 days' delay in filing this petition.Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply to this application.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.331/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Satish Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.List after receipt of the record.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni S.A. No.345/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Manuraj Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/State.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the appeal shall stand dismissed without 283 reference to this Court.In view of the above, status-quo regarding the disputed property as it exists today shall be maintained till the next date of hearing.List after service of notices on the respondents.In the meanwhile, call for the record.C. c. as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni S.A. No.352/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Sandeep Kochatta, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.In view of the above, status-quo regarding the disputed property as it exists today be maintained till the next date of hearing.List after service of notices on the respondents.C. c. as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni CONC No.494/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Chetan Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within 285 a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.937/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within 286 a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.4024/2015, which is an application for stay.Counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory amount has already been paid and the receipt of the same is appended with the File.In view of the above, subject to deposition of half the awarded amount within a period of six weeks from today, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to abide by any of the condition within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 287 M.A.No.1496/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Manoj Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.5998/2015, which is an application for stay.Counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory amount has already been paid and the receipt of the same is appended with the File.In view of the above, subject to deposition of half 288 the awarded amount within a period of one month from today, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to abide by any of the condition within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.1756/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Anand Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Milind Phakde, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has 289 filed the rejoinder of the reply filed by the respondents.List after two weeks for disposal, as prayed.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.2589/2015 07/8/2015 None for the petitioner.List after four weeks.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 290 W.P.No.3030/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Milind Phakde, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter could be disposed of since it pertains to measurement of the disputed land.Counsel for the respondent prays time to seek instructions.List on 14/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 291 W.P.No.5157/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Arjun Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner.List analogously, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.5188/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Yogesh C. Markan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State.None for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 despite 292 having supplied advance notice by the petitioner.In view of the above, nothing coercive shall be done against the petitioner.List for confirmation of interim relief on Tuesday i.e. 11/8/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.5185/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Yogesh C. Markan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State.None for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 despite 293 having supplied advance notice by the petitioner.In view of the above, nothing coercive shall be done against the petitioner.List for confirmation of interim relief on Tuesday i.e. 11/8/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.5211/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Sameer Athawale, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within 294 a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.At this juncture, Counsel for the petitioner prays for interim relief.Issue notice to the interim relief also.At this juncture, Counsel for the petitioner submits that in addition he is willing to serve 'hamdast' notice.Prayer is accepted.Registry is directed to prepare the notices on payment of proper process fees and hand over the same to the Counsel for the petitioner within three days.Subject to compliance, list thereafter, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 295 W.P. No.5283/2015 06/8/2015 Shri Abhishekh Tugnawat, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents/ State.With the consent of both the Counsel, this writ 296 petition is heard and disposed of finally.We find that the Supreme Court in the said judgment has observed the directions contained in the case of 298 Syed Abdul Qadir (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Col. B.J. Akkara (2006) 11 SCC 709 as also in the case of Shyam Babu Verma 1994(2) SCC 521 and Sahib Ram 1994(2) SCC 52 wherein the department is restrained from recovery of excess amount keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the beneficiaries had either retired or were on the verge of retirement and so as to avoid any hardship to them.In the present case also the benefit extended to the writ petitioner was sought to be recovered on his retirement.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition is disposed.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A.No.667/2013 06/8/2015 Shri P.K. Shukla and M.S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. No. 4475/2015, which is the third application for grant of suspension of jail sentence regarding appellant Kapil @ Golu.Therefore, an affidavit has been filed by Shri Premchand Ratnakar, who is an Advocate himself and maternal uncle of the appellant and he submits that the entire expenses of the operation shall 301 be borne by him and the appellant be granted at least temporary bail.On considering the above submissions, I find that the prayer for temporary bail needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and and it is hereby allowed.It is ordered that the appellant be released on bail temporarily for a period of three months from today on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his surrender before the concerned trial Court on or before 6th of November, 2015, under intimation in writing to this Court.In case of failure to do so and the appellant shall be liable to be arrested immediately by the police without reference to this Court.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge 302 moni W.P.No.5278/2015 06/8/2015 Shri Sameer Athawale, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Ashok Airen and Shri Kamal Airen, learned Counsel for the respondents/Caveator.Counsel for the respondents has opposed the 303 submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner.Counsel for the respondents is directed to file reply to the petition within a period of 15 days from today.List in the week commencing from 24/8/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.C.C.No.586/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Dinesh Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishekh Tugnawat, learned Counsel for the respondents, submits that he has filed the reply.After considering the submissions, this M.C.C. needs to be admitted and it is hereby admitted.List analogously with S.A. No.1513/2005, as prayed.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder.Two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.2162/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Avinash Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Jitendra Jhala, learned Counsel for the respondents.Heard on admission.List for final hearing in due course.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.8108/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Sachin Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the respondents though duly served.List for final disposal in the week commencing 307 from 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.9050/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Prasanna J. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.Order passed in separate sheets.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.9050/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Vijay Assudani, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.I find that the matter can be disposed of finally.List for final disposal after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.9315/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder.Subject to which, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 309 W.P.No.5219/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Padmnabh Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents/State, on advance notice.By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 14/7/2015 (Annexure P/4) by which without giving any opportunity of hearing to them, the respondents have issued direction to recover the amount and all the benefits given to the petitioners, which was given under the compliance of the order of this Court.Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court towards the order passed in Writ Petition No.9082/2013 (Lokendrasingh vs. State of M.P.and 310 others) dated 31/10/2014 and he vehemently urged that no recovery can be ordered against the present petitioners, without granting any opportunity of hearing to them.Keeping in view the aforesaid, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to follow the principle of natural justice and fair play, in case recovery is being ordered against the petitioners and the respondents shall also keep in 311 mind the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Lokendrasingh (supra), while passing any order of recovery.With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) moni Judge 312 M.C.C.No.265/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Sanjay Patwa, learned Counsel for the applicant.None for the respondent No.2 though duly served and power has been filed.The application is however, taken up for final disposal.By this M.C.C. Under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC, applicant Smt. Shantabai has prayed for restoration of Miscellaneous Appeal No.176/2007 which has been dismissed for want of appearance of the appellant.and there was no delay in filing this application for restoration.Hence, Counsel prayed that the appeal be restored to its original number.On considering the above submissions, I find that the mistake is bonafide and the application needs to be allowed.However, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.200/- as cost in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence, the application is allowed.A copy of the receipt shall be demonstrated in the Registry of this Court.The Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.Subject to compliance, list the appeal after two weeks, as prayed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) moni Judge M.C.C.No.613/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Dheeraj Singh Panwar, learned Counsel for the applicant.By this M.C.C. applicant Vinod Kumar has prayed for restoration of First Appeal No.173/1999 which has been dismissed due to peremptory order dated 22/7/2015 for non-appearance of the Counsel.Counsel for the applicant submits that there was no delay in filing this application for restoration.Hence, Counsel prayed the appeal be restored to its original number since the matter has been remanded as per direction of the Apex Court in SLP (C )No.On considering the above submissions, I find that the mistake is bonafide and the application needs to be allowed.However, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.250/- as cost in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence, the application is allowed.A copy of the receipt shall be demonstrated in the Registry of this Court.The Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.Subject to compliance, list the appeal after two weeks, as prayed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 316 S.A. No.348/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Ritesh Inani, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.The proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the stay granted today shall automatically be vacated and appeal shall also stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.5230/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner.List analogously on 7/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni C.R.No.216/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Sandeep Kochatta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition 318 has been rendered infructuous and he prays for withdrawal of the petition.In view of the above, the present Civil Revision is dismissed as rendered infructuous.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.8549/2014 05/8/2015 Shri Manoj Manav, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent No.9/State.Order passed in separate sheets.Status-quo as it exists today shall be maintained.Both the parties shall not be alienated the property.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.9090/2014, 9160/2014 and 9310/2014 05/8/2015 Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.He may do so within two weeks.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.List after two weeks, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.9300/2014 05/8/2015 Shri S. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned Counsel for the respondent.He prays for time to file reply.List on 19/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 321 CONC No.53/2015 05/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been substantial compliance of the order and hence the petition has been rendered infructuous.In view of the above, list in the next week for disposal, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.97/2015 05/8/2015 322 Shri Manish Manana, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the respondents.Counsel for the petitioner submits that the process has been paid, but there is no report.Registry to verify the same.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.List after two weeks, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni CONC No.166/2015 05/8/2015 323 Shri G.K. Patidar, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri Vishal Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the proposed contemnor.Counsel for the contemnor submits that he is unable to keep the Collector, Ratlam present before this Court today due to flood in the City.In view of the above, last opportunity is granted to the respondent/contemnor.List on 26/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.166/2015 05/8/2015 324 Shri G.K. Patidar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent to file the reply.List on 26/8/2015 along with Conc No.166/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.262/2015 05/8/2015 325 Shri M.K. Chowdhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file reply.She is directed to do so positively within two weeks since there is a complaint that the money deposited has not been placed before the trial Court and the petitioner and hence the benefit is not accrued to the petitioner.Counsel for the respondent is also directed to verify whether the amount has been withdrawn by the present petitioner or not?(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.650/2015 05/8/2015 326 Shri S. Choubey, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Shri A. Tugnawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner.List analogously after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.814/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Arjun Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply to the petition.By way of indulgence, last week of four weeks' 327 time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent to file reply.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.927/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Rakesh Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant.Both the Counsel pray for time.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 328 Contempt Petition No.882/2014 04/8/2015 Shri Subhash Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Counsel for the State has no objection to such a prayer.Keeping in view the aforesaid, contempt petitioner is disposed of by granting further one month's time to the respondents from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order to comply 330 with the directions already issued in the aforesaid writ petition."In view of the above, this petition is also disposed of with a direction to the respondents to comply the order already passed in W.P. No.4330/2013(s) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1199/2014 04/8/2015 Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.G.A. for the respondents/State.Intervenor Shri Deepak Kasliwal is present in person.Shri Vivek Phadke, learned Counsel on behalf of 331 another intervenor Shri Bharat Modi.Reply has been filed by the Counsel for the petitioner.All the Counsel submit that the pleadings are complete and the matter can be taken up for final disposal.In view of the above, list in the last week of September, 2015 for final disposal.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.2539/2014 04/8/2015 Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Dinesh Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.All the Counsel submit that the matter can be disposed of.In view of the above, list in the week commencing from 24/8/2015 for final disposal, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.2854/2014 04/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.G.A.for the respondent/State.He prays for time to file reply.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.6373/2014 04/8/2015 Shri V.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.G.A.for the respondent No.1/State.All the Counsel submit that the matter can be disposed of and prays for time.List in the week commencing from 24/8/2015 for 335 final disposal, as prayed.No further adjournment shall be granted.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.6950/2014 04/8/2015 Shri Shailendra Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the other respondents.Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to pay fresh process regarding the unserved respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issue notices to the unserved respondents within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.In the meanwhile, Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 6 is directed to file reply.List after service of notices on the respondents, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.7439/14,7441/2014 and 7450/2014 04/8/2015 Shri Preteek Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.He submits that identical petition bearing W.P. No.7410/2014 has already been disposed of .In view of the above, let these petitions be also admitted for final hearing.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two 337 weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.572/2012 04/8/2015 Shri Sandeep Kochatta, learned Counsel for the appellants.Heard on admission.This Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List along with S.A. No. 571/2012 after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 339 S.A.No.571/2012 04/8/2015 Shri Sandeep Kochatta, learned Counsel for the appellants.Heard on admission.This Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-Whether the learned Courts below had erred in holding that the respondents/defendants have constructed their house according to the registered Sale Deed; whereas the Commissioner's report is 340 contrary to this fact?Whether the Courts below had erred in considering the fact that the open land left between the dimensions would also devolved upon the purchaser?Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 341 C.R.No.63/2014 04/8/2015 Ku.Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned Counsel for the respondent.He prays for time.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 342 M.A. No.140/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Akhil Godha, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Counsel for the appellant submits that appropriate Court fee has already been paid.Registry to verify the same.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Contempt Petition No.143/2015 04/8/2015 Shri P.R. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List along with CONC No.360/2015 after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Contempt Petition (Civil) No.183/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Viraj Godha, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without 345 reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Contempt Petition No.395/2015 04/8/2015 Shri M.M. Bohra, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.At this juncture, Counsel for the applicant 346 submits that he is willing to serve 'hamdast' notice.Prayer is accepted.Registry is directed to prepare the notices on payment of proper process fees and hand over the same to the Counsel for the applicant within three days.Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) moni Judge Contempt Petition No.462/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Rajeev Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without 347 reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Contempt Petition (Civil) No.479/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Chetan Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without 348 reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.C.C.No.574/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Vivek Sharan, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.5623/2015, which is an application for stay.The proceedings pending in HMA Case No.395/15 before the Family Court at Indore shall 349 remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.1401/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.5649/2015, which is an application for stay.In view of the above, subject to the appellant depositing half of the awarded amount within a period of one month from today, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to abide by any of the condition within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 351 M.A.No.1407/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Manoj Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.5662/2015, which is an application for stay.Counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory amount has already been paid and the receipt of the same is appended with the File.In view of the above, subject to the appellant depositing half of the awarded amount within a period of one month from today, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to abide by any of the condition within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 353 W.P.No.2716/2015 04/8/2015 Smt. Neelam Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without 354 reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.G.A. for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4,5 & 6 and Counsel for the petitioner pray for time.List after two weeks, as prayed.

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard on this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Manti Kushwaha in Crime No.33/2017 registered by P.S. Devlond, Tahsil Beohari, District Shahdol under sections 294, 323, 506/34 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.As per the prosecution case, at about 06:00 a.m. on 03.03.2017 petitioner Manti Kushwaha was sweeping her house and pushing the trash towards the house of complainant Mamta.When the complainant protested, the petitioner started to hurl filthy abuses at her.At that time Kashinath Kushwaha, husband of petitioner Manti came out, armed with a stick and started to beat complainant Mamta.Mamta's husband Praveen interceded on behalf of his wife; whereon, Manti's son Ramlakhan armed with an axe arrived and assaulted Praveen.Thereafter, Jammu Bai, Kodu and Anchal etc. intervened in the matter.The First Information Report was lodged under Sections 323, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, however, three days later i.e. 06.03.2017 Praveen succumbed to his injuries; therefore, an offence under Section 302 of the IPC has registered.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the role that has been ascribed to petitioner Manti is limited to hurling filthy abuses at complainant Mamta.That apart, no act on the spot has been attributed to her.The incident arose out of trivial altercation.Therefore, it has been prayed that petitioner be released on bail.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the nature of incident and the role ascribed therein to the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Manti Kushwaha, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE taj

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SPE/CBI/ACD, Chennai. ... Respondent/Complainant in Crl.The period of imprisonment already undergone shall be set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C.The charge against the appellant is that A1[Rakesh Malhothra], while working as Senior Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road, Chennai entered into criminal conspricy with A2 [V.Ganesh] to do illegal act viz., to cheat the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road, Chennai and to commit criminal misconduct.In pursuant to the conspiracy A2 [V.Ganesh] opened Current accounts in Oriental Bank of Commerce in the name of M/s.Golden Harvest Trading Corporation, Chennai and M/s.Super Capital Marketers and Associates on 15.06.1992 and 22.07.1992 respectively.In his capacity as the branch Manager, these two accounts were introduced by the Rakesh Malhothra [A1].On 21.12.1992 V.Ganesh [A2] presented a conditional letter of credit bearing No.DPC-OCB-205864 dated 11.12.1992 for US $ 2 Million by M/s. Global Trade Insurance and Management Pvt.Ltd, Singapore with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road, Chennai drawn at Hong Kong and Shangai Banking Corporation, Singapore.The condition on the letter of Credit was that M/s. Super Capital Marketers and Associates was to comply the requirements of the conditions of the transaction viz., M/s. Super Capital Marketers and Associates should open a back to back Letter of Credit in favour of M/s. Global Trade Insurance for US $ Rs.2.84 million.Pursuant to the conspiracy [A1] Rakesh Malhothra knowing fully well that the documents presented by A2 [V.Ganesh] were incomplete without the condition of Letter of credit by M/s. Super Capital Marketers and Associates, however Suppressing the fact had forwarded the application to the Regional Manager with recommendation for discounting the Letter of Credit.In view of the recommendation made by A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] the Regional Manager had permitted the LC discount facility to M/s.Super Capital Marketers and Associates, on condition, the bill should be discounted only after the bank get confirmation from the Hong Kong and Shangai Banking, Singapore and acceptance to the effect that the bills should be paid on due date.The HSBC Singapore on 08.01.1993 conveyed its conditional acceptance of the documents subject to the confirmation of M/s. Super Capital Marketers and Associates opening an irrevocable letter of Credit within 30 days acceptable to M/s. Global Trade Insurance, Singapore.Without complying the requirement stipulated by Regional Office, A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] Branch Manager had released a sum of Rs.5,41,95,655/- into the account of M/s.Golden Harvest Trading Corporation owned by A2[V.Ganesh].To mislead Hong Kong and Shangai Banking, Singapore, without any authorization A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] had sent two Telex messages to Hong Kong and Shangai Banking, Singapore on 21.01.1993 and 27.01.1993 stating that M/s.Super Capital Marketers and Associates, Chennai would open an LC for US $ 2.84 Million Dollars favouring M/s. Global Trade Insurance, Singapore after 180 days.Induced by the said messages Hong Kong and Shangai Banking, Singapore had in turn conveyed the conditional acceptance of the documents.He has identified the Ex.P.2, the Telex to Mount Road Branch in which A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] was Senior Branch Manager.Along with the invoice a request for negotiating the document is given by A2 [V.Ganesh].He had also executed the bill of exchange on the same day.The said bill of exchange is marked as Ex.The said covering letter which is marked as Ex.P.14 indicates that Overseas Branch has requested HSBC Singapore to remit the proceedings in their International Account No.41-143156-1121 with the Bank of California International New York, USA.On the part of A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] as Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road Branch, Chennai on presentation of LC by A2 [V.Ganesh] had duly forwarded the same to the Overseas Branch disclosing all the facts including non-enclosure of 'applicant certificate'.Admittedly, he had enquired with HSBC Bank at Singapore about the credit worthiness of M/s. Gobal Trade Insurance Management Private Limited, Singapore and in response to his letter which is marked as Ex.P.15, the HSBC Bank, Singapore has forwarded the confidential report about the credit worthiness of M/s.P.19, Ex.P.20, Ex.P.8 dated 21.12.1992, the words, will be received by you directly, written in hand after, 'Applicants certificate' issued through issuing bank via tested Telex to your good selves found in Ex.In this letter A2 [V.Ganesh] has stated that he has complied all the request and enclosed the application form for the necessary Foreign Uses Documentary Bills Purchase Limited [FUDBP].When the request [FUDBPL] from the customer namely A2 [V.Ganesh] was received by the A1 [Rakesh Malkothra] only on 04.01.1993, surprisingly A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] through Ex.P.18 has recommended for extending the facility to A2 firm on 13.12.1992 itself.Further, in the letter of 2nd accused dated 04.01.1993 addressed to A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] the accused [A2] has specifically stated that he has submitted all the documents required for ILC bill to A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] for negotiating the ILC Bills.This statement of A2 [V.Ganesh] found in his letter addressed to A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] is apparently a false statement.Since, A2 [V.Ganesh] had never produced any applicant certificate which is very essential for completing the formality of honouring the Letter of Credit to HSBC, Singapore his assertion in Ex.P.25 has mislead the Bank.A-1 who as Branch Manager though had knowledge about the falsehood found in Ex.P.25 did not care to alert the Regional Bank for obvious reason.From this point onwards it would been seen that despite non production of applicant certificate, A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] has recommended for extending the ILC bill purchase facility.A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] had recommended even before formal request made by A2 [V.Ganesh].This conduct of A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] favouring A2 [V.Ganesh] indicates that there is element of indiscretion and excessive exercise of power and not mere error of judgment.On perusing the Ex.P.30, this Court finds that HSBC, Singapore through its telex Message dated 06.01.1992 had informed the Oriental bank of Commerce, Mount Road Branch that the documents forwarded in connection with the LC containing following discrepancy. Applicant's Certificate issued through issuing Bank to advising Bank confirming compliance fulfilment of terms not presented.With the above said modification the Criminal Appeal Nos.91 & 5 of 2007 are disposed of.The appellants herein are directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of 30 days, failing which the Trial court shall execute the warrant and secure the appellants to under the remaining period of sentence.21.02.2018Index:yes/noInternet:yes/nobsmToThe Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai..A.No.5 of 2007A.Nos.5 & 91 of 2007: Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.58 of 2000, dated 29.12.2006 on the file of the learned Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.In pursuant to the conspiracy to cheat the bank a sum of Rs.4.6 crores was released to the demand loan account of M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation owned by A2 [V.Ganesh] by A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] before acceptance of documents and without any application for the said demand loan from A2 [V.Ganesh].This loan amount was released on 09.02.1993, later transferred to M/s. Ispat Profiles India Limited to which A2 [V.Ganesh] owned a sum of Rs.1,55,71,000/- later the HSBC Singapore, refused the payment on the LC due to non compliance of condition.Thus knowing fully well A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] and A2 [V.Ganesh] pursuant to their conspiracy to cheat, they have made to believe the Oriental bank of Commerce, Chennai that the LC of Rs.2 Million USD is accepted and confirmed by Hong Kong and Shangai Banking, Singapore and siphoned a sum of Rs.5,41,95,655/- thereby committed offence of conspiracy, cheating, and misconduct by a public servant.Finding of the trial Court and the defence put forth by the appellants:-Based on the reliable information, C.B.I has registered the First Information Report which is marked as Ex.P.57 on 23.03.1995 and taken up the investigation.On completion of investigation, final report has been laid against [A1] Rakesh Malhothra, Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road Chennai and [A2] V.Ganesh, proprietor of M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation.To prove the charge of conspiracy and cheating as against both the accused and misconduct of public servant against A1, the prosecution as examined 11 witnesses, 65 Exhibits were marked on behalf of the prosecution.Before the Trial Court while the prosecution canvassing the case of conspiracy and cheating relied upon the documents and evidence let in by them to prove A1 being the Senior Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road Branch, Chennai between 1991 to 1995 in connivance with A2 [V.Ganesh], Proprietor of M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation and M/s. Super Capital Marketing Association in connection with the service charges payable to M/s. Super Capital Marketer and Associates, M/s. Global Trader Insurance and Management Private Limited, Singapore opened conditional letter of credit for 2 million US Dollars on 11.12.1992 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road Branch, Chennai in favour of M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation through HSBC Banking Corporation, Singapore.The letter of credit was opened with condition that M/s. Super Capital Marketer and Associates should open back to back LC in favour of Global Trader Insurance and Management Private Limited for 2.84 US Million Dollars.The requirement that certified issued by Global Trader Insurance and Management Private Limited, Singapore through HSBC Banking and Corporation, Singapore viz., tested telex by oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road branch, Chennai though not received, when the conditional LC was received at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chennai, A1 and A2 conspired together to credit the amount without fulfilling the conditions and with dishonest intention to cheat the bank with draw the same.In defence, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st appellant would contend that the amount was transfer to M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation only after the approval of the Regional Office and Overseas Branch, hence he has not committed any offence.As far as A2 [V.Ganesh] is concerned he had canvassed before the Trial Court that the letter of Credit was opened by consent of parties and same was approved and confirmed by HSBC, Singapore.Later, they refused to honour their commitment leading to default in payment to Oriental Bank of Commerce.For the recovery the debt, the bank has already initiated proceedings before the debt recovery tribunal which is pending.Hence the charge in respect of transferring Rs.4.5 crores in favour of M/s.Ispat Profiles India Limited is unsustainable.12. A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] has relied upon the order of the appellate authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act which has been marked as Ex.D.1 to impress upon the Court that the competent authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act has found A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] is not liable for any crime and had acquitted it.While the entire transaction is pure and simple money lending, it is a civil dispute which has been given colour of Criminality.The Trial Court relying upon the letter of A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] dated 30.12.1992 which is marked as Ex.P.18 and the letter of 2nd accused dated 04.01.1993 which is marked as Ex.P.19 has held that A2 [V.Ganesh] falsely written that he has enclosed 'applicant certificate'.On 05.01.1993, the Oriental bank of Commerce has forwarded the advice to bank of California.A day before i.e., on 04.01.1993 M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation [A2] had sent a letter Ex.P.25 to Oriental Bank of Commerce seeking loan with self declaration.Without fulfilling the conditions of LC.[A1] has recommended discount of LC in order to help A2 [V.Ganesh].Though the Regional Office has permitted to discount the LC with condition that it can be discounted only after the acceptance and confirmation from HSBC, Singapore, the LC was discounted without proper acceptance and confirmation.The sanction order of the Regional Office which is marked as Ex.P.45 extracted by the Trial Court and has held that A1 and A2 without complying the condition of LC 11.12.1992, in collusion had issued credit voucher for a sum of Rs.6 crores, after retaining 10% margin deposit money and interest, a sum of Rs.5,41,95,655/- had been credit into the account of M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation.The Trial Court has relied upon the evidence PW.3 [R.Krishnamourthy] that he passed Ex.P.1 credit voucher for Rs.5,41,91,655/- under the Telephonic instruction from A1 [Rakesh Malhothra].The letter written by A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] as Senior Manager to the Overseas Branch on 23.03.1993 which is marked as Ex.P.32 wherein, A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] has informed that all the terms and condition had been complied in the matter of bill purchase under LC for sum of Rs. 2 Million USD Dollars.Taking into considering the other evidences as corroboration to the case of the prosecution, the trial Court has held both the accused guilty and convicted them.P.1, credit voucher 08.01.1993 was pursuant to the sanction order accorded by the Regional Office under Ex.In the letter sent to the Overseas Branch, on 23.12.1992, the Mount Road Branch Office has specifically mentioned that 'applicant certificate' is not enclosed and the same will be submitted by the party directly.Only after disclosure of the above fact, the bill was forwarded to Overseas Bank for collection.This letter signed on behalf of Senior Manager [A1] had specifically made clear to the Overseas Bank that 'applicant certificate' is not furnished by the party.Though it was not enclosed along with the bill, the party has given an undertaking that it will be submit directly.Following this letter, [A1] Senior Manager wrote another letter dated 13.12.1992 to the Regional Manager which is marked as Ex.P.18, forwarding fresh proposal of M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation for discounting the LC value of Rs.2 Million US dollars which was presented earlier and referred in Ex.In this letter, A1 has specifically mentioned that the proposal to discount the bill will be subject to acceptance of Regional Office.In this letter Senior Manager [A1] has also assigned reason for extending the discount facility to M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation.When a Branch Manager being satisfied about the customer who has deposited a sum of Rs.3.60 crores in the bank and had helped the bank to get FCRN deposit to an extent of Rs.5 crores, in his wisdom had thought the LC presented by the customer for sum of 2 million USD could be purchase, provided the regional office accept the proposal.In the said contest, on 08.01.1993 he had allowed the credit voucher which is marked as Ex.P.1 for a sum of Rs.5,41,95,655/-.Till 09.02.1993 the purchase money of bill discounted was laying in the account of M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation.Had the Regional Office informed him about the Telex Message of HSBC, Banking Corporation dated 06.01.1993 [Ex.P.30] which informs that the 'applicant certificate' issued through issuing bank to advise the bank confirming compliance fulfilment of terms not presented and they refused the document and for time being they hold the documents at their risk and disposal, the branch office could not have discounting the bill and credited the amount in the account of Golden Harvest Trading Corporation.Apart from A1 it is collective responsibility of the banking Officials who had dealt the letter of A1, to exercise due diligence.For the purchase of Bill on receipt of sanction from the Regional Office, unknowing the refusal of HBSC to honour the same, the accused A1 cannot be held criminally liable.The Trial Court without proper appreciation of evidence and the role of A1 in the given circumstances had erroneously held them guilty which requires interference.The HSBC Banking Corporation had all time confirmed its genuineness and also accepted the same.Because the 'applicant certificate' was not enclosed along with the bill, subsequently they have refused to honour the bill.The party likely to be aggrieved in this case is the Oriental Bank of Commerce.The enforcement agency which takes care of Foreign Exchange Regulation had also come to a conclusion that there is no Foreign Exchange violation and had exonerated the persons alleged to have been involved in the subject transaction.In a genuine and bonafide trade transaction.PW-2 has perused the Ex.P.2 on 12.02.1992 and had put his initial and written Test to be authenticated. To know the authenticity of the message, he wanted to confirm the test code through his Bombay office.Therefore, 30.12.1992, the Overseas Branch has sent a message to Bombay Branch to confirm the correctness of the test code.The said communication is marked as Ex.In response to this Communication, the Bombay Branch has informed by way of Telex on 05.01.1993 confirming the Test Code found in LC is correct.The said message of Bombay branch is marked as Ex.This confirmation according to PW.2 was after contacting the HSBC Bank, Singapore and verifying the authenticity of the LC.Before getting the confirmation about the genuineness of the LC from the HSBC, Singapore through the Bombay Branch, the Overseas Bank on the receipt of Ex.P.2, had advice the GHTC on 14.12.1992 that the LC will be processed.In response to the said communication Ex.P.5 dated 14.12.1992, Mount Road Branch has informed the Overseas Branch vide letter dated 23.12.1992 which is marked as Ex.From the Exhibits as well as from the deposition of PW.2 it appears that the branch office at Mount Road Branch while requesting the Overseas Branch to negotiate the bill in dispute had also informed the Overseas Branch that the party has not enclosed applicant certificate which is mandatory for negotiation and also placed on record that the party has promised to submit the applicant certificate directly.This letter is signed by A2 as President of GHTC.It is addressed to Mount Road Branch, Oriental Bank of Commerce.P.9 is invoice of the GHTC raised for the service rendered to M/s.The LC referred in Telex marked as Ex.As its President A2 had given a certificate that M/s.Golden Harvest Trading Corporation had fulfilled the terms and condition in respect of the contract for sale and purchase of scrap metal with M/s. Gobal Trade Insurance Management Private Limited.Being satisfied with the genuineness of these documents namely Ex.P.8, Ex.P.9, Ex.Only after making preliminary enquiry about the credit worthiness of the Oriental bank of Commerce at Singapore and getting confirmation about the genuineness of LC. A1 has sought permission of the Regional Office for purchasing the bill.In his request dated 13.12.1992, he had assigned the reasons for his proposal to purchase the bill.Super Capital Marketers and Associates both firms held by [A2] have deposit to a tune of Rs.3.6 crores and they have helped the bank to get FCRN deposits to the extent of Rs.5 crores is not disputed.A1 has also indicated that he will discount the bill only after acceptance by Overseas Branch.The Zone of suspicion against A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] and A2 [V.Ganesh] commences at this stage.When the negotiation of the bill itself was under process, through Ex.P.18 Letter A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] had expressed his intention to purchase the bill.Though the facility of purchasing International LC was not provided for M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation or to M/s. Super Capital Marketers and Associates, A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] has recommended bills purchase facility for the reason stated in its letter which is marked as Ex.Thereafter, A2 [V.Ganesh] had furnished another set of request letter for negotiating, along with the documents like bill of exchange and invoice which is marked as Ex.In Ex.P.19 dated 04.01.1993 which is the request letter for negotiation, though it is almost same that of the Ex.In accordance with Article 16 of UCP400 We have to refuse the documents at this time, and we hold them at your risks and disposal.However, We will refer the discrepancies to the applicant.In the meantime, please forward your instructions, if any, for attention GUAN quoting our Ref.COL:USD2, 000,000.00=01060604Again on 08.01.1993, another telex Message which is marked as Ex.P.31 had been sent to Oriental bank of Commerce, Mount Road Branch wherein the HSBC Bank, Singapore has informed the Mount Road branch as under: Further to UR Telex Message Dated 05Jan93 Advising you on discrepancies noted on the above documents, applicant advises that documents are accepted subject to acceptable to issuance of confirmed irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to applicant.Opened by Super Capital Marketers and Associates and Received by us (Hongkong and Shanghai and Received by us within 30 days from today.Meanwhile, we hold documents at your disposal.In spite of intimation and discrepancy made known to A1 [Rakesh Malhothra], suppressing the information found in Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31 had informed the Overseas Branch on 23.01.1993 that HSBC, Singapore had confirmed they have obtained the necessary documents and all the terms and conditions have been complied with.This letter which is marked as Ex.Informing the Regional office that A2 [V.Ganesh] has produced all necessary documents and had complied all terms and condition, in spite of receiving the Telex Message, from HSBC Singapore on 06.01.1993 and 08.01.1993, reporting about non-compliance of condition.In the light of the above discussion this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the case against the A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] and A2 [V.Ganesh] that there was meeting of mind to cheat the Oriental Bank of Commerce by recommending ILC facility knowing full well that the LC offered by A2 [V.Ganesh] has been refused to be hounoured by HSBC, Singapore as early as 06.01.1993 and reinforced through the Telex on 08.01.1993 which are marked as Ex.P.31 and Ex.In spite of his knowledge about these two telex messages, A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] has forwarded the letter Ex.P.31 dated 23.01.1993 to Overseas Branch as if A2 [V.Ganesh] had complied all the terms and condition.Conspiracy normally hatched in secrecy.The act done in pursuant to the conspiracy would be manifestly seen only through the result of the conspiracy.In this case prosecution has proved through evidence that, in spite of restricted permission granted by Regional Office to extend the loan facilities, A1 [Rakesh Malhothra], without compliance of the pre-condition by A2 [V.Ganesh], had extended the loan knowing fully well that A2 [V.Ganesh] has not complied the condition.The manner in which he has recommended for extending the facility even before formal application from A2 [V.Ganesh] and discounting the LC which was refused to be honoured, clearly indicates the intention of cheating and the meeting of mind between A1 and A2 to cheat the bank.In this case the prosecution has projected offence of cheating pursuant to conspiracy.Therefore Ex.Having held that the both the accused are guilty of cheating pursuance to conspiracy.He had abused his power to show undue and illegal pecuniary advantage to A2, which holds him liable for offence under section 13(1)(d) of PC Act punishable under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.Likewise omission to sentence the offenders for the substantive offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC does no way prejudice the offenders who are the appellants herein.While the prosecution has proved the case of conspiracy to cheat, omission to give separate finding and sentence for the offence of cheating is a curable defect and will not vitiate the trial or the judgment.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SPE/CBI/ACD, Chennai.The learned Additional Special Judge (CBI), Chennai.The Special Public Prosecutor,(CBI) High Court, Madras.G.Jayachandran,J.BsmPre-delivery judgment made inCriminal Appeal Nos.5 & 91of 200721.02.2018

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code") against the judgment dated 31/10/2018 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sonkatch, District Dewas in Cri.Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on 28/08/2013 at about 7.00 to 8.00 pm, complainant-Reenabai along with her mother-in-law Munnibai and her daughter-Chanchu, aged about 2 years went to attend nature's call at Pipalrawa Road, at that time the applicant came there by driving a motorcycle rashly and negligently and hit complainant's mother-in-law, who fell down and became unconscious.Thereafter he also knocked the complainant's daughter whose leg got trapped in the leg guard of the motorcycle.When complainant went to rescue her daughter, then the applicant fled away from the spot by dragging complainant's daughter along with Cr.R. No.5672/2018 2 the motorcycle.Complainant narrated the incident to her husband and lodged a complaint at police station Pipalrawa.On the basis of which, police registered F.I.R bearing crime No. 159/2013 for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 of IPC against the applicant.During investigation complainant's daughter was found lying dead in a field then offence under Section 304-A of IPC was also added.After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the applicant for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC.R. No.5672/2018 2Trial Court, while passing the judgment, convicted the applicant for offence punishable under Sections 337 (2 counts) and 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 months (2 counts) and 2 years R.I and fine of Rs.500/-(2 counts) and 1,000/- respectively, with usual default stipulation.Even her mother-in-law Munnibai (P.W.2) who accompanied the complainant and the deceased failed to identify the present applicant and other prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story.Cr.R. No.5672/2018 3In view of the aforesaid and on the basis of the material available on the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Courts below have not committed any illegality in convicting the applicant for offence under Sections 337(2 counts) and 304-A of IPC.The applicant has not challenged the sentence awarded for offence punishable under Section 337(2 counts) of IPC, therefore, the aforesaid sentence is hereby affirmed.So far as the period of sentence for offence under Section 304-A of IPC is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that looking to the fact that the the applicant is the first offender and was facing the trial for more than 5 years therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period of 1 year R.I. under Section 304-A of IPC and the fine amount is enhanced to Cr.P.C With the aforesaid modification the criminal revision stands partly allowed and disposed of.R. No.5672/2018 4A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with record for information and compliance.Certified copy as per Rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2019.01.05 16:33:15 +05'30'

['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

In case the answer to column No. 20 was in the negative, an affidavit had to be submitted.Under Column No. 21 of the application form, the petitioner was required to furnish any other information.JUDGMENT Saroj Bala, J.The petitioner further seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to revive the letter of appointment dated 10.05.2002 and to permit him to commence business of dealership of petrol/diesel at Ambari, Tehsil Phulpur, District Azamgarh.The factual matrix emerging from the record of the writ petition is as follows:-In pursuance of an advertisement, made sometime in the year 2001 for dealership of retail outlet of petrol/diesel at different places including Ambari, District Azamgarh, the petitioner applied for dealership on the prescribed application form, which accompanied the copy of the brochure.After interview, the respondent Corporation issued a letter of intent dated 6.05.2002 for dealership of retail outlet at Ambari (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) subject to certain conditions.On 10.5.2002 vide letter (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the petitioner was required to submit an affidavit stating that no criminal proceedings are pending against him in any Court in India and to submit a Character Certificate from not less than S.P. Police.On the same day i.e. May 10, 2002, a letter of appointment for dealership of retail outlet (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) was issued by the Corporation.On 29.05.2002 a show cause notice (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) was issued by the Corporation to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why letter of intent dated 6.5.2002 and letter of appointment dated 10.5.2002 be not withdrawn and cancelled for suppression of material information about conviction and sentence in Sessions Trial No. 391 of 1997 under Sections 302/149/148 and 506(ii), I.P.C., P.S. Pawai, District Azamgarh against which a Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2000, Santosh Kumar Yadav and Ors.v. State of U.P. was preferred before the High Court and the petitioner was released on bail.The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice together with an affidavit (Annexures 5 & 6 to the writ petition).The petitioner in the reply admitting his conviction in the aforesaid murder case stated that his involvement in the said offence does not amount to moral turpitude.After taking into consideration the reply of the petitioner, the respondents withdrew the letter of intent and cancelled the letter of appointment on the ground that Column Nos. 20 & 21 of the application form, wherein the petitioner had to make a disclosure about his conviction for any criminal offence, were deliberately and intentionally left blank.In the opinion of the Corporation, the criminal act attributed to the petitioner amounted to moral turpitude.The order of withdrawal of letter of intent and cancellation of letter of appointment have been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds inter alia that conviction for the offence of murder does not fall within the definition of moral turpitude.According to the petitioner the disclosure about the conviction for the offence of murder, was not made by him, as it was not an offence involving moral turpitude.The contention of the petitioner is that his conviction not being for an offence involving moral turpitude, his case does not fall within the purview of Clause 10 of brochure and condition of column 20 of the application form.We have heard Shri Ravi Kant, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri M.K. Pandey, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs. 5,000/-.

['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2

['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(a) In E.O.C.C.Nos.563 of 1984 and 1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.A6 in E.O.C.C.Nos.563 and 564 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.Nos.895 and 896 of 1995 and A7 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985 was the Lower Division Clerk working in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras (JCC I & E).A7 in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.896 of 1995 and A6 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.A.No.897 of 1985 was the Upper Division Clerk working in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras (JCC I & E).A8 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.A.No.897 of 1995 was Class IV employee in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras, assisting A6 and A7 in handling the files.(b) Cash compensatory support is given by the Government of India to eligible exporters and they are eligible at 10% of the export value.The exporter should be eligible member in the Handloom Export Promotion Council and it should have been a registered firm as exporter.A declaration in the prescribed form is to be submitted along with application that no such application was preferred for grant of cash compensatory support with details of invoice, exported goods value and the name of the party to whom they have exported, the particulars as to the ship through which they were exported, income tax declaration, membership certificate issued by the Handloom Export Promotion Council(HEPC) and the registration certificate issued by the said Council, bank certificate in original in the prescribed form and shipping bills giving the details of the cargo.Cash compensatory support should be given only through the bank negotiated or the bank nominated by the firm, if the firm applies for the first time for payment of cash compensatory support.(c) In E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.895 of 1995, A1 firm applied on 30.3.1983 to the JCC I & E, Madras for cash compensatory support to the tune of Rs.91,940/- as if they have exported handloom clothes to the value of Rs.9,91,400/-.A6 prepared voucher in 'C' form which contained all the particulars relating to the issue of cash compensation to A1 firm.A cheque for Rs.91,940/- was issued in favour of the Indian Overseas Bank, Madras for payment to A1 firm.A2 gave a receipt in the letter-head of Shri Krishna Kumar Textiles for Rs.91,940/- and has signed as Krishnakumar in the letter-head of A1 firm.Account was opened in the Indian Overseas Bank, Washermanpet, Madras by A3 as Krishnakumar.A4 and A5 accompanied A3 to the Bank when account was opened.A3 operated the account by signing as Krishnakumar and withdrew the money.Thus, A1 to A6 entered into a criminal conspiracy and A2 produced false and forged documents and in pursuance of the conspiracy A3 opened account in the fictitious name and A6 having prepared 'C' form with false particulars she abetted the other accused.(d) In E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.896 of 1995, A1 firm applied for cash compensatory support on 31.10.1982 for Rs.96,160/-, on 20.12.1982 for Rs.93,910/- and on 3.1.1983 for Rs.96,160/-, on 29.11.1982 for Rs.92,410/- and on 22.3.1983 for Rs.91,660/-.These applications were processed by A6 and one application by A7 in the office of the JCC I & E, Madras.On these applications payments were made by cheques and the cheques were despatched by registered post to A1 firm.All these cheques were despatched in the account No.301 opened in the Bank of Madura Limited, Triplicane, Madras, in the name of M/s. Rajaram Textiles (A1).The amounts were withdrawn from the above account and deposited in the account of S.Ramkumar opened by A3 and they were later withdrawn.Thus A2 to A5 with the active connivance of A6 and A7 entered into criminal conspiracy, submitted false claims to the JCC I & E office towards cash compensatory support to the total sum of Rs.4,70,290/- and obtained the same for which they were not entitled to and that A6 and A7 failed to prepare the cheques in the name of the bank and enabled the cheques to be despatched to A1 firm.(e) In E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.Some of the applications were processed by A6 and some of the applications by A7 in the office of the JCC I & E, Madras.After perusing all the papers, payments were made by cheques and the cheques were despatched by registered post to A1 firm.All these cheques were despatched in the bank and amounts were withdrawn.JUDGMENT S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1.The appeal in Crl.The appeal in Crl.The appeal in Crl.Since the offence involved in all the three matters are similar in nature and some of the respondents/accused and the appellant are also one and the same, all the three cases have been taken for joint hearing and disposed of by this common judgment.The brief facts that led to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-Thus, A2 to A5 with the active connivance of A6 to A8 entered into criminal conspiracy, submitted false claims to the JCC I & E office towards cash compensatory support to the total sum of Rs.4,62,300/- and obtained the same for which they were not entitled to and that A6 and A7 failed to prepare the cheque in the name of the bank and enabled the cheques to be despatched to A1 firm.In all the three cases separate evidence was let in before the trial Court.In E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984, subject matter of the appeal in Crl.As per trial Court judgment, when the accused in E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984 were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating evidence made available against them, A1 to A5 have stated that they do not know anything, A6 has stated that she was attached to the despatch section and she was asked to attend to this work and therefore she filled up the 'C' form and thereafter she handed over the file to the Dealing Assistant.When questioned A2, A3 and A6, they pleaded not guilty to the charges.Then after further cross-examination of all the witnesses, A2, A3 and A6 were questioned under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C. and they stated that they have nothing to do with the case.Eventhough they stated that they have got witnesses to be examined in defence, they did not examine any witness.As per trial Court judgment, when the accused in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984 were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating evidence made available against them, A2 to A5 have admitted that they were partners of M/s.Ranganayaki Extraction Company, Kumarapalayam and the transaction with regard to that company with Bank and other offices and they have denied all other evidence against them.A6 and A7 admitted having prepared the 'C' forms and they stated that they have nothing to do with the cases.When questioned A2, A3, A6 and A7, they pleaded not guilty to the charges.Then P.Ws.43 and 44 were examined on the side of prosecution and the accused were given opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses.Thereafter accused were questioned under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C. and they stated that they have nothing to do with the case.The accused did not examine any witness in defence.As per trial Court judgment, when the accused in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985 were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, A2 to A5 have admitted that they were partners of M/s.Ranganayaki Extraction Company, Kumarapalayam and the transaction with regard to that company with Bank and other offices and they have denied all other evidence against them.A6 stated that the applications will be checked at the Special Counter and then only they will be sent to him.A7 stated that she is only attached to despatch and that since the Dealing Assistant was not available she was asked to attend the preparation of 'C' forms.A8 also denied the evidence against him.When questioned A2, A3, A4 and A6 to A8, they pleaded not guilty to the charges.Then P.Ws.34 and 35 were examined on the side of prosecution.Thereafter accused were questioned under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C. and they stated that they have nothing to do with the case.The accused did not examine any witness in defence.The trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced on either side, by recording finding that A2, A3 and A6 in E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984; that A2, A3, A6 and A7 in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984 and that A2 to A4 and A6 to A8 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985 are not guilty in respect of the charges levelled against them, acquitted them by separate judgments.Challenging the said judgments, these appeals are filed by the Complainant.He further submitted that the trial Court is not correct in rejecting the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 16 showing that A6 was privy to the obtaining of cash compensatory support by fraudulent means by the other accused in the case.14.With regard to E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984 subject matter of Crl.A.No.896 of 1995, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases for the appellant/complainant vehemently contended that the finding of the trial Court not considering the evidence of P.Ws.2, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12 with regard to the identity of the accused, is not correct, in that the above witnesses had ample opportunities to see the accused earlier for identifying the accused in the Court and as such, the test identification parade was not at all necessary to identify the accused.He also submitted that the trial Court is not proper in rejecting the evidence of P.W.34, Handwriting Expert that there were dissimilarities in the writing compared by the Expert, though Expert has given evidence that there are no dissimilarities.He further submitted that the trial Court is not correct in rejecting the evidence of P.Ws.23 and 26 showing that A6 and A7 were privy to the obtaining of cash compensatory support by fraudulent means by the other accused in the case.With regard to E.O.C.C. No. 1410 of 1985 subject matter of Crl.A.No.897 of 1995, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases for the appellant/complainant vehemently contended that the finding of the trial Court not considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 28, 30 and 31 with regard to the identity of the accused, is not correct, in that the above witnesses had ample opportunities to see the accused earlier for identifying the accused in the Court and as such, the test identification parade was not at all necessary to identify the accused.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

C c as per rules.Heard on the question of admission.This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is admitted for final hearing.Learned P.L takes notice of this admission and undertakes to produce the case diary at the time of final hearing.Heard on IA No. 8688/10, an application for grant of ad interim anticipatory bail to the applicant as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No. 14/10, registered at Police Station AKJ, Narsinghpur, for the offence under Sections 294, 452, 506-B, 34 of IPC.It is further directed that at the event of the arrest to the applicant in the above mentioned offence on depositing his licenced rifle with the police and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000- (Rs. ten thousand) alongwith one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority by the applicant, he shall be released on bail.Such release shall be subject to terms and conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

JUDGMENT Sharief-Ud-Din, J.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of Mr. S. M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, dt. 14th March 1984 convicting the appellant of the offence under S. 302 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to the payment of a sum of Rs. 500/- as fine.In default of payment of fine the appellant was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.The facts are few and they are as follows.Complainant in the case is one Kharak Bahadur, resident of Nepal, who on the date of the incident which is, 4th January 1982 was working in Delhi and was residing at E-C, Railway Quarters, Patel Nagar, where Man Singh had come to see him and his nephews Bomb (illegible) Bahadur and Dil Bahadur who were staying with him.The prosecution case is that they left for Kirti Nagar to see one Nar Bahadur working at 9/56 (illegible) Woollen Mills, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area.It is said that when they reached near the Jhuggies (illegible) Crepes Floor Mill, they noticed the appellant Bhavi Ram together with his accomplice Bal Bahadur Rana, a proclaimed offender now and with whom we are not concerned, standing near the Jhuggis.On seeing Kharak Bahadur Bhavi Ram is stated to have called him whereupon he and Dil Bahadur deceased came near him.Man Singh, and Bomb Bahadur remained at a distance.Bhavi Ram is stated to have protested to Kharak Bahadur for having abducted his wife about six months earlier and he expressed a grievance that Kharak Bahadur was persisting in paying visits to his place.Kharak Bahadur thereupon tried to put him off by saying that his wife had voluntarily joined him and that he had sent her back after a couple of days.It is at this stage that the proclaimed offender Bal Bahadur Rana is stated to have caught hold of Kharak Bahadur by his neck and when the deceased Dil Bahadur rushed forward to rescue Kharak Bahadur, the appellant Bhavi Ram is stated to have proclaimed that they would deal with the deceased Dil Bahadur first.Immediately, thereafter he is stated to have dealt two or three blows on the head of Dil Bahadur with a small lathi which he was holding in his right hand.Meanwhile, Bal Bahadur, the proclaimed offender, is said to have left Kharak Bahadur and caught hold of the deceased Dil Bahadur deceased, however, on receiving the fatal blow bled profusely from his head and fell on the ground.He is said to have died on the spot.In the meanwhile, Man Singh was sent to inform the police and the appellant together with his accomplice were overpowered by Bomb Bahadur and Kharak Bahadur.At the instance of Man Singh a D.D. report No. 78-B (Ex. P.W. 7/A) which was recorded on a telephonic message given by Man Singh at 7.30 p.m. on 4th January, 1982 came to be recorded at police station Moti Nagar.This was handed over to Sub-Inspector Dalip Singh who came on the spot, took possession of the accused as well as the weapon of the offence.He also took into possession some blood, blood soaked earth and control earth and secured and sealed all these exhibits properly.The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Bharat Singh who noticed two injuries on the person of the deceased which he opined to be ante-mortem.He further opined that injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and death was due to coma resulting from head injuries.He was further of the opinion that the lathi seized could cause the injuries noticed on the person of the deceased.We may notice the two injuries sustained by the deceased which are as follows :-(1) One lacerated wound on the right front of parietal area, placed anterio posteriorly.Size of the wound was 1" x 1/2" x Scalp deep.Margins of the wound were irregular and swollen wound was covered by clotted blood.Right side of skull was also covered by clotted blood surrounding the injury.(2) Abrasion on the left zionistic area.Size 1" x 1/2", brown in colour.This would go to show that injury No. 2 was in the nature of abrasion while it was actually injury No. 1 which was fatal.The prosecution case is, in fact, based on the testimony of Kharak Bahadur (PW 10) on whose statement (Ex. PW 10/A) FIR No. 5 of 1982 police station Moti Nagar was recorded at 9 p.m. In fact, the incident has taken place at 7 p.m. and the statement of P.W. 10 Kharak Bahadur was recorded somewhere between 7 p.m. and 8.45 p.m. as it has been actually dispatched from the spot at 8.45 p.m. The formal FIR was registered at 9.00 p.m. The prosecution case is also supported by Bomb Bahadur (PW 4) and Man Singh (P.W. 12), all of them being eye-witnesses to the incident.The common case of the parties is that Smt. Gian Kumari wife of the appellant Bhavi Ram had gone to stay with Kharak Bahadur (P.W. 10) for a couple of days a few months prior to the incident.The stand of the accused, however, is that on the day of the incident Kharak Bahadur, Bomb Bahadur, Man Singh and the deceased Dil Bahadur had come towards their Jhuggis in an intoxicated state with the intention to abduct his wife.Smelling the presence of the appellant with his wife in his Jhuggi, they entered the Jhuggi of Dharam Singh and tried to molest his wife, that on an alarm being raised by her, her brother rebuked Kharak Bahadur resulting in an altercation during which Dharma Singh's wife's brother was slapped by the deceased Dil Bahadur.At this he alleges, that Dharma Singh's brother-in-law in a sudden rage hit the deceased Dil Bahadur with a danda on his head.The appellant is stated to have asked Kharak Bahadur as to why he had abducted his wife, and why he was persisting in paying visits to her again.Apparently, there was some exchange of hot words in which Kharak Bahadur was caught by the neck by the accomplice of the appellant and then Dil Bahadur came to rescue him.There was an altercation and in that altercation the appellant inflicted one fatal blow on the head of the deceased Dil Bahadur.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

CRA.11057/2019 (MAHENDRA @ PAPPU v/s.STATE OF M.P.) Indore dt.24.8.2020 Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Mrs. A. Kher, Dy.Advocate General for Non-applicant/State.Per S.C. Sharma, J :-I.A.No.4863/2020, is an application for urgent hearing.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the same stands allowed.Heard on I.A.No.4862/2020, which is first application filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant (Mahendra Gurjar), who has been convicted by the Sessions Judge Neemuch in S.T.No.100/13 vide judgment dated 12.12.2019 and sentenced as under :-S.No Conviction under Sentence the provisions of Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment IPC.in lieu of fine 1 302 of IPC Life Rs.300/ 1 year RI Imprisonment 2 120B of IPC Life Rs.100/ 1 year RI Imprisonment 3 193 of IPC 5 years RI Rs.100/ 6 months RI The prosecution story in short that one of the co-accused person namely Ghanshyam against whom arrest warrants had been issued in NDPS Acts cases, tried to escape prosecution in NDPS cases by showing himself to be dead.He hatched a conspiracy with other co-accused persons including the present appellant and in pursuance of the conspiracy, he killed a man and placed his voter ID Card, Photograph, Mobile and purse in the pocket of the dead person, so that it may be concluded that now Ghanshyam was dead and cases ... 2 ... CRA.No.11057/2019 which have been registered against him may be closed on this account.The accusation against the present appellant Mahendra Gurjar was that it was he who had kept the photograph of Ghanshyam and a voter card of Ghanshyam in the pocket of the deceased.As per prosecution story, Ghanshyam had provided to him the photograph and voter ID card and one photograph of Ghanshyam and the copy of the voter ID card was seized from the possession of Mahendra as per his memorandum.Considering this evidence, the learned trial judge found appellant Mahendra Gurjar to be involved in the conspiracy and found the charges proved against him under Section 193 of IPC, which is regarding giving of fabricating false evidence also found proved against him.Learned Senior counsel has submitted that Mahendra Gurjar has been falsely implicated and the aforesaid voter card and photograph of Ghanshyam Dhakad was implanted upon him by the investigating officer.There is no evidence on record that Mahendra knew Ghanshyam and the meeting of mind, which is pre requisite for hatching of conspiracy has not been proved.Learned Senior counsel submits that it is unfathomable to assume that appellant would retain incriminating evidence with him.He submits that the body of the deceased person as Ghanshyam was identified by co-accused Babulal and Banshilal and not by the appellant, on this ground suspension of jail sentence has been sought.Written reply has been submitted on behalf of the prosecution in which it has been submitted that the factum of memorandum and seizure from appellant shows his involvement as co-conspirator.Submissions were heard and documents were perused.The main accused Ghanshyam in his memorandum Exhibit P/12 has stated that he used to talk on mobile phones to present appellant and co-accused Banshi Gurjar.However, the police has not ... 3 ... CRA.No.11057/2019 obtained the call records of Ghanshyam, present appellant and Banshi Gurjar in order to prove communication between them.Ghanshyam has further stated that he had given more than Rs.13.00 lacs to Banshi Gurjar and the present appellant for making arrangements in order to proclaim him dead, but no efforts have been made by Investigating Officer to recover any amount from the present appellant.In his memorandum dated 26.9.2012, Ghanshyam has stated that he gave two photographs and two voter ID cards to the present appellant, but in his memorandum, he does not state that the present appellant has kept the photograph and voter ID card in the pocket of the deceased.He states that the photograph and ID card were placed in the pocket of the deceased as per instructions of the present appellant.There is substance in the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that why the appellant would keep photograph and voter ID of Ghanshyam with himself which would have been extremely dangerous.A suggestion has been given to Basant Shrivastava (PW31) the Investigating Officer that he in fact, has implanted the aforesaid photographs and voter card on the person of the appellant.This suggestion has been denied.It can be seen that when the police arrived and searched the body of the deceased, it found photograph and voter card in the pocket of the deceased which were given to Mahesh Dhakad, the brother of Ghanshyam and later on vide Exhibit P/71, the same photograph and voter I.D. card were seized from Mahesh Dhakad.Hence, the suspension application deserves to be allowed.Accordingly, I.A.No.4862/2020 is allowed and it is directed that on depositing the fine amount and on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, the substantive jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail, for his regular appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20.10.2020 and all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed in this behalf by the Office/Registry of this Court in this behalf.List the matter for final hearing in due course.

['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Petition allowed.

['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the proceeding pursuant to the charge sheet dated 14.7.2019 whereupon cognizance has been taken against the applicants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Auraiya in Criminal Special No.168 of 2019 arising out of case crime no.323 of 2019, under Sections 354-Ka,323,504 IPC and Section 3(1)(da),(dha) & (ba) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Bidhuna, District Auraiya.The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue.In S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

2.The facts of the case are as follows:(a).The first appellant Mr.S.Thuraisingam, proprietor of M/s.Bharathi Gems and Jewels floated advertisements promising attractive offers under the following schemes viz., A.Bharathi Gems and Jewels; B.Bharathi Subhayagam; C.Bharathi Hire Purchase Scheme; D.Bharathi Saving Scheme; E.Bharathi Gems and Travels.By means of the above schemes, the first respondent dishonestly induced the depositors to part with various amounts.The allegation made in the said complaint is that the complainant had invested in various schemes with the first appellanthttp://www.judis.nic.in and on maturity of the deposits, cheques were issued towards payment 4 of the sum due to him, however on presentation those cheques were dishonoured.Thereafter, number of depositors came forward alleging that their deposits were not repaid.While few cases were compounded/withdrawn on payment of the defaulted sums, presently three cases viz., C.C.No.8038/2001 and C.C.No.6028/2001 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and C.C.No.155/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai are pending trial.(c).After registration of cases, Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act was enacted and as per Section 3 of the said Act, the 5 respondent Competent Authority was empowered to attach the properties of the defaulting accused and the properties purchased out of the sums collected from the depositors.The relevant provisions of the said Act reads as follows:"3.Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force:-(i)where, upon complaints received from a number of depositors, that any Financial Establishment defaults the return of deposits after maturity, orNo.918, Home (Courts II A) Department, dated 16.07.1998 interim attachment ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in movable and immovable properties were made and subsequently, the 6 interim attachment was made absolute by the order of the Special Court for TNPID Act, Chennai.(e).Even prior to the order of absolute attachment u/s 7 of TNPID Act, the first appellant S.Thuraisingam entered into a Memorandum of Undertaking with the depositors association represented by one Mr.G.E.Krishnan and approached this Hon'ble Court praying for permission to reopen the business premises to revive the business.This Court by an order dated 20.03.2003 made in C.M.A.No.1632/2001 permitted the first appellant to open the business premises and possession of some of the properties under interim attachment were handed over to him.The first appellant re-opened the showroom on 10.10.2003, but he was not able to revive the business and thus was not able to fulfill the obligations made under the Memorandum of Understanding with the depositors association.(g).In the said circumstances, the Competent Authority sought and obtained permission of this Court for sale of the immovable properties 7 and thereafter by auction sale of the properties, a sum of Rs.12,65,25,000/- was realized and the same was deposited into State Bank of India, PWD Branch, Chennai by the Competent Authority.Pursuant to the orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated 16.09.2008, the Competent Authority was directed to issue Sales Certificate to the auction purchaser – Elite Builders and Constructions.Thereafter, on the orders of this Court, the Competent Authority gave paper publication in all the leading news papers on 21.09.2008, 24.10.2008, 02.12.2009 and 03.12.2009 calling upon the defaulters to make their claim.Pursuant to the paper publication, the depositors claim was arrived at Rs.14,81,32,450/- after scrutiny of the deposit receipts made with the claims.(h).Again the Competent Authority approached this Court for necessary directions for disbursal of the amount to the depositors and as per the order passed by this Court, the eligible depositors received the deposits without interest on Pro-rata basis which was arrived at 90% and 3722 depositors were paid by the Competent Authority.(i).The Competent Authority also paid the statutory dues of the first appellant, viz., a sum of Rs.1,18,62,719/- to the commercial tax department and Rs.23,31,596/- to the income tax department.(j).Subsequently, by August 2010, another 400 depositors came forward seeking repayment of their deposits.At this stage, the present appealshttp://www.judis.nic.in came to be filed by the appellants seeking compounding of the pending three cases other than the cases compounded earlier on payment of the 8 defaulter claims and also seeking payment of Rs.29,34,500/- towards rent, food, maintenance and defence charges from the year 1996 to 2009, as per Sec.10(a) of TNPID3.The appellants filed the application in O.S.No.16 of 2009 under Section 5A of TNPID Act, 1997 to direct the competent authority to collect the various amounts available and to bring everything to the account and disburse the statutory due, after negotiation and then arrive the amount and the same to be disbursed to the depositors on proportionate basis and also direct the Respondents 1 & 3 therein to compound the offence stated to have been committed by the appellants/accused and discharge them from the case.5.The evidence was recorded based on the pleadings filed by both the parties and finally, both the applications were dismissed holding that the cases in C.C.No.6028/2001 and C.C.No.8038/2001 have been transferred and pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the case in C.C.No.151/2002 has been pending on thehttp://www.judis.nic.in file of the Judicial Magistrate No.Moreover, the matter has been seized of by the High Court and therefore, the appellants were directed to approach the proper form and the Special Court refused to give any directions.These two orders are now being challenged before this Court.7.This Court perused the entire records and various reports filed by the third respondent/Investigating Agency.As per the order of this Court, the third respondent published notice in the newpapers calling for the claims.Further, various reports have been filed by the competent authority.8.By an order dated 08.11.2017, this Court directed the authorities to make paper publication to be effected in one of the issue of "Malai Murasu", tamil daily and "News Today", English daily informing the depositors to approach the Investigating Officer in the above case within a period of 10 days from the date of publication, failing which no claim application wouldhttp://www.judis.nic.in be entertained, even if the depositors are found to be genuine.When the matter was listed on 21.12.2017, it was represented before the Court that 180 claims have been made along with the original receipts issued by the appellants and they filed the list of claimants before this Court.10.By an order dated 09.03.2018, this Court recorded the statement of Ms.11.Thereafter, this Court by an order dated 26.03.2018 passed the following order:-"Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, a status report has been filed by the Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Chennai, giving the following details.3.Pursuant to the publication, claims were made to the tune of Rs.78,18,550/- from the depositors.Out of those depositors, a few depositors whose claim is valued at Rs.11,19,300/- have not produced the original deposit receipts and they had filed only hire purchase agreement, cheques and receipts.Therefore, the claim of the persons, who have produced the deposit receipts is only to the tune of Rs.66,99,250/-.The amount available, as on date, in cash is Rs.1,47,22,631/- and the depositors claim is Rs.78,18,550/-.Thus, the remaining amount is Rs.69,04,081/-.Out of Rs.69,04,081, a sumhttp://www.judis.nic.in of Rs.9,00,000/- is to be retained as deposit for some time and the 12 balance amount of Rs.60,04,081/- is required to be returned to the appellants, apart from the jewellery and precious materials.For filing of the calculation memo, both by the appellants as well as the respondents, call the matter on 28.03.2018."Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- is to be retained as deposit for some time and the balance amount of Rs.60,04,081/- is required to be returned to the appellants, apart from the jewellery and precious materials.13.In the said report the authorities have stated that the appellants' vehicle which were kept in the police custody were damaged due to the rusting and natural calamities.As they were parked in open area, the vehicles were damaged beyond recognition and the same cannot be even used as scrap.14.On consideration of the material on record, it is evident that the appellants had never absconded nor concealed any of the properties with an intention to evade payments to the depositors, but on the contra had been rendering all assistance in liquidation of the properties for the purposehttp://www.judis.nic.in of settling the dues to the depositors.Hence, as contemplated under 13 Section 5(A) of TNPID Act, the offence committed by the appellants can be compounded on payment of the entire dues payable to the depositors.15.In view of the aforesaid position, the following directions are issued:All the accused are acquitted from all the offences registered against them.The Investigating Officer is directed to return the balance amount available with them, after retaining the amount which is required to be paid to the remaining depositors.The Investigating Officer is directed to return the machineries and other valuables available with them.The Investigating Officer shall not entertain any further claims.The Banks of America and Citi Bank which are holding the account or deposits of Bharathi Finance or other sister concerns shall give back the amount with interest to the first appellant.The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and learned Judicial Magistrate I, Madurai are directed to handover the precious metals, jewellery and stones available under their custody to the first appellant directly.If any further clarification is required, it is always left open to the parties to approach this Court.16.These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of with the above directions.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.No costs.17.12.2019 pgp Note: Issue order copy on 23.01.20202.State, Rep by Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai - 8, Now by ADGP EOW II Police, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in 15 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.pgp C.M.A.Nos.1323 & 1324 of 2010http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.396/14 registered at P.S. Kailaras, District Morena, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 147, 148, 149, 506 and 452 of IPC.As per prosecution case, the allegation against the applicants is that they alongwith co-accused armed with Lathi, Farsa entered in the house of the complainant and gave beating to him.This is first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have falsely been implicated in the case.They have not committed any offence.Except the offence under Section 452 of IPC, other offences are bailable.In fact, the complainant party gave beating to the applicant party after entering in their house and on the report of Bharat, cross-case bearing Crime No.395/14 for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 147, 148, 149, 294, 323 and 506-B of IPC has been registered against the 2 M.Cr.C. No.1 1 8 0 7 / 2 0 1 4 complainant party.Just to exert pressure for compromise, the complainant party has lodged this case against the applicants and others.Applicant No.1 is a government servant and applicants No.2 and 3 are students and there is no likelihood of their absconsion.In such premises, applicants prayed for bail.2 M.Cr.C. No.1 1 8 0 7 / 2 0 1 4The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and they will co-operate in the investigation.They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub- section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.This order shall remain operative for a period of sixty days and during this period the applicants are free to move the regular bail application before the concerned Court.

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the accusedNo.1,3 to 10, to quash the private complaint in C.C.No.164 of 2009 on the fileof the Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandi and to pass such other orders.2.The brief facts in the petitioners' case are as follows:(i) The complainant/respondent had filed a private complaint againstthe petitioners and one another for the offences under Sections 120(B), 323, 494and 506(ii) read with 34 I.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate,Boothapandi and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.164 of 2009 on 15.09.2009issued summons were issued to the petitioners.(ii) The marriage between the 1st respondent and the complainantwas solemnized on 29.01.2001 as per Christian rites and customs and they havebeen blessed with a child.After the birth of the child, the respondentattempted to commit suicide on many occasions and she had also threatened thatshe would implicate the 1st petitioner and his parents and sister in a dowrydemand case.On 26.11.2002, the respondent has taken all her jewels andvaluable goods and gone to Azhagiapandiyapuram.(iii) In the complaint it has been stated that the 1st petitionerwas living an illegal life with the 2nd petitioner and on 02.08.2009, the 2ndpetitioner and the 1st petitioner were changing a ring and garland in thepresence of the petitioners 3 to 10 and the other petitioners using filthylanguage against the respondent.(iv) The mother of the respondent often visited the house of the 1stpetitioner and ill advised her and hence, the 1st petitioner had filed apetition in I.D.O.P.No.222 of 2002 for restitution of conjugal rights before theDistrict Court, Nagercoil and in that petition, the 1st petitioner and therespondent made an endorsement that both of them were ready and willing to livetogether.However, the 1st petitioner had filed a divorce petition pendingbefore the District Judge, Nagercoil in I.D.O.P.No.63 of 2005 and the respondenthad filed a maintenance petition in M.C.No.4 of 2008 and the same is alsopending before the Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandi.(v) The respondent gave a false complaint against me and the petitioners 3to 10 for demanding dowry before the All Women Police Station, Nagercoil and thematter has been posted before the Social Welfare Officer, Kanniyakumari andafter verifying the records, the District Social Welfare Officer passed an orderon 03.11.2009 stating that there was no such action was necessary against the1st petitioner and the complainant has foisted the case against the petitioners.Therefore, theyhave approached this Court with the present application.3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learnedcounsel appearing for the respondents.6.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant wouldsubmit in his argument that the complaint was lodged by therespondent/complainant, seeking for taking action against the petitioners 1, 3to 10 and also the 2nd accused for committing offence under Sections 120(B),323, 494, 506(ii) read with 34 I.P.C. for the offence committed by all theaccused on 02.08.2009, when they were solemnizing the marriage in between the1st petitioner and the 2nd accused at the house of the 5th petitioner (6thaccused).He would also submit that the offences were committed against thedefacto complainant and her mother, by assaulting on the left cheek of therespondent/complainant by the 1st accused and other accused had abused both thecomplainant and her mother and threatened to kill them with dire consequenceswith iron rod in their hands and the 1st petitioner/1st accused and the 2ndaccused were found as bride and bridegroom,, by wearing garlands and they havealso exchanged garlands and the 1st accused put ring to the 2nd accused with thehelp of other accused and all other accused have joined with accused 1 and 2 incompleting the marriage rituals, while the respondent/complainant, the wife ofthe 1st accused was alive.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.

['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

No.34 akd [ALLOWED] C. R. M. 3968 of 2019 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 08.04.2019 in connection with Dum Dum Police Station Case No. 919 dated 25.09.2016 under Sections 341/354B/308/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Nishit Chakraborty & Anr.... ... Petitioners Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury .. Advocate Mr. Ayan Chakraborty .. Advocate Mr. H. R. Singh .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Rudradipta Nandy .. Advocate ... ... for the State Heard the learned advocate appearing for both the parties.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there was a free fight between the co-owners of a multistoried apartment.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioners, namely (1) Nishit Chakraborty & (2) Runu Chakraborty @ Runa Das @ Mimi Das, be 2 released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that they shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a fortnight from date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in respect ofthe petitioners in C.C.No.209 of 2012 on the file of the Court of JudicialMagistrate, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.2.The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.209 of 2012 onthe file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirupathur.The petitioners werethe elected President and Vice President of Piramanampatti Village Panchayat.The complaint wasregistered in Crime No.40 of 2009 for offences punishable under Sections477(A), 408 and 409 of I.P.C. After completing investigation, the Inspectorof Police, Thirukostiyoor Police Station, filed charge sheet and the case wastaken on file in C.C.No.209 of 2012 for offences punishable under Section477A, 408 and 409 of I.P.C. Challenging the proceedings, the above CriminalOriginal Petition has been filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 who were thePresident and Vice President of Piramanampatti Village Panchayat.The FirstInformation Report as well as the charge sheet would disclose specificallegations that the petitioners and the Panchayat Clerk have jointlymisappropriated a sum of Rs.5,14,000/-.In this case, the petitioners areentrusted with the funds allotted by the Central Government under a scheme.The administrators of the fund, the petitioners are liable to account for theGovernment.Since the allegation is that the petitioners havemisappropriated the funds, they are liable to be prosecuted for the offenceof misappropriation.This may be a factor that can be pointed out on behalf of the petitioners indefence to escape from the penal liability after full-fledged trial.Hence,preserving liberty to the petitioners to raise all these factual contentionsbefore the trial Court at the time of trial, this Criminal Original Petitionis dismissed.Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition isclosed.1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District .2.The Inspector of Police, Thirukostiyoor Police Station, Sivagangai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

6 It is not disputed that the accused persons are known to Puran (PW 1), Premchand (PW 2), Ramlal (PW 3) and Heera Bai (PW 8).7 The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Puran (PW 1) along with his wife Heera Bai (PW 8) and his son were planting Singhara.The accused/appellant Gorelal, his sister Munni and mother Rambo Bai stopped the complainant to plant Singhara.The complainant Puran (PW 1) when did not pay any heed to the accused Gorelal, he inflicted injury on his head by means of wooden stick (danda).Puran (PW 1) sustained injuries and blood came out.His wife and son also received injuries caused by co-accused Rambo Bai and Munni.They also abused the complainant by obscene words.They even threatened the complainant.Thereby criminal intimidation was caused.Shankar Dheemar and other persons came to save the complainant.The complainant then went to Police Chauki Matguma and lodged report.They were sent to hospital for medical examination.There are numbers of contradictions, omissions and improvements.13 The injury, therefore, should be grievous in nature and caused by the accused with the knowledge that the hurt so caused likely to be grievous.(17.08.2017) Law clearly expects the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merely by perusing the reasoning of the trial Court in the judgment but by cross-checking the reasoning of the evidence on record.It is the duty of the appellant and his lawyer to remain present on the appointed day, time and place, when the appeal is posted for hearing.2 The law does not enjoin that the Court shall adjourn the case if both the appellant and his lawyer are absent.In the case of Bani Singh and Others Vs.State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 2439, the Apex Court while dealing with Section 386 of Cr.P.C held that when appellant and his lawyer are absent on appointed for hearing, the Court is not bound to adjourn the case, but should dispose of appeal on merits.The dismissal of appeal simpliciter for non-prosecution is not contemplated.3 In a similar case of K.S. Panduranga Vs.State of Karnataka, 2013 Cr.L.J 1665 the Apex Court has held that it cannot be said that the Court cannot decide a criminal appeal in the absence of the counsel for the accused, even if the counsel does not appear deliberately or shows negligence in appearing.4 This criminal appeal is pending since 1997, but none appeared on behalf of the appellant.Therefore, in view of aforesaid enunciation of law, the appeal is being decided.5 This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Gorelal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C challenging the judgment dated 19.12.1997, passed by 1st A.S.J, Chhatarpur, in S.T. No. 175/1993, wherein the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 325 of I.P.C and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months.The wife of complainant- Heera Bai (PW 8) and son- Premchand (PW 2) received simple injuries whereas the complainant Puran has received grievous injury.8 After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed under Sections 294, 323/34 506-B, 325 and 307 of I.P.C. The appellant and accused Rambo Bai and Munni abjured guilt.According to them, the complainant Puran, on the instigation of Ramlal and Ramsahay, has given the false evidence.The land in which the complainant- Puran was cultivating Singhara, was cultivated by the appellant/accused in the previous years.The appellant is innocent.The appellant has been falsely implicated.9 Learned trial Court after having adduced the prosecution evidence has acquitted all the accused person for offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 506- B, 307/34 of I.P.C. But has convicted the appellant Gorelal for offence under Section 325 of I.P.C and sentenced as aforementioned.The co-accused Rambo Bai and Munni Bai were given the benefit of doubt and have been acquitted, for offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. 10 The appellant has assailed the judgment impugned on the ground that the appellant is innocent.The conviction of appellant is bad in the eyes of law.The prosecution has failed to prove the offfence beyond reasonable doubts.Heera Bai (PW 8) and Premchand (PW 2) were examined after a lapse of a long time.The trial Court acquitted Munni Bai and Rambo Bai.The appellant is on the same pedestal, therefore, he also be acquitted.11 Perused the record.12 For constituting offence under Section 325 of I.P.C, it is necessary that:-(i) There should be injury to the complainant;(ii) The injury is of grievous hurt;Police Chauki Matgua along with a requisition brought complainant Puran for examination.He examined the complainant and found that there is a lacerated wound 2x2 muscle deep on the scalp.There was bleeding.The injury was caused by hard and blunt object.He advised for x-ray of skull and referred to the specialist.According to him, fracture was found on the parietal bone of right side of Puran (PW 1).15 This evidence reveals that the complainant Puran (PW1) sustained grievous injury on his head by hard and blunt object.There is nothing on record to suspect the above evidence.16 Puran (PW 1) has stated that he along with his wife (PW 2) and son Premchand (PW 8) were planting Singhara when the accused persons came there.The accused persons had the reason to dispute the plantation of Singhara because this land was given to the accused persons earlier on patta.Subsequently, the complainant Puran was asked to do the plantation of Singhara on the same land.According to Puran, (PW 1) the 'Patta' was given to him and he was planting Singhara.There was no eminent danger to save his person or property.Therefore, he ought to have restrained himself and he should have taken the recourse to lodge report or solve the dispute in the Panchayat.17 The statement of Puran (PW 1) has been found support from Premchand (PW 2), Heera Bai (PW 8).18 According to him, the accused- Gorelal had given a blow on the head of Puran (PW 1).Ramlal has admitted his signature in the seizure memo Ex. P/3 though he denies having such seizure in his presence.State of U.P. reported as 2012(5) SCC 777, the statement of Ramlal (PW 3) can be believed as regarding the seizure of wooden stick.Prakash Babu Sharma (PW 9) the Investigating Officer has clearly stated that by panchnama, Ex. P3, the wooden stick has been seized from the accused Gorelal.No reason to disbelieve the same.Though there are few contradictions and omissions, but these are natural and rules out the possibility of being tutored.20 Keeping in view the above circumstances, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused has inflicted injury voluntarily to Puran and caused grievous hurt.23 With the above modification in conviction and sentence, the appeal is allowed in part.(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE awinash

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This criminal revision has been preferred seeking to set aside the judgment dated 02.03.2013 passed in Crl.A. No.245 of 2011 by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), Coimbatore, confirming the judgment dated 19.10.2011 in C.C. No.69 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam.http://www.judis.nic.in 2 2 Shorn of the minute details, the facts necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision are as under:2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 07.03.2008, around 5.45 p.m., the petitioner, who was driving a tempo van bearing Regn.TDI 6984 from West to East in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against one Revathy, resulting in her passing away.2.2 On the complaint lodged by Devi (P.W.1), the sister of the deceased Revathy, the respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.187 of 2008 and after completing the investigation, filed final report against the petitioner in C.C. No.69 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.2.3 On the appearance of the petitioner, he was furnished with the copies of the relied upon documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the Trial Court framed charges against him under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.When questioned, the petitioner pleaded 'not guilty'.2.4 To prove their case, the prosecution examined six witnesses and marked seven exhibits.When the petitioner was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.http://www.judis.nic.in 3 2.5 The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, by judgment dated 19.10.2011, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:Provisions under which conviction was Sentence made One year simple imprisonment and fine of 304-A IPC Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment 2.6 Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Crl.A. No.245 of 2011 in the Court of Session and the same was heard by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore and was eventually dismissed on 02.03.2013, questioning the legality and validity of which, the petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revision before this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.3 Heard Mr. Kumarasamy, learned counsel representing Mr.The case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of Devi (P.W.1), Revathy's sister.6 Devi (P.W.1) has stated that Revathy is her younger sister; on 07.03.2008, she and Revathy were going by walk from East to West to Angaliamman Temple; at that time, they saw a tempo van coming in the opposite direction at a high speed; seeing the said tempo van, they tried to move to the left side of the road; yet, the tempo van hit them both, due to which impact, Revathy was thrown a little away; they were taken to R.V.S. Hospital and were given first aid; from there, they were sent by an ambulance to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, where, Revathy was declared brought dead; she gave a complaint (Ex.P.1) to the police.7 In the cross-examination, Devi (P.W.1) has stated that she suffered injuries on her right hand, for which, she took treatment in Maavani Hospital in Rasipalayam.She has admitted in her cross- examination that she stated in her complaint that the van first hit them and thereafterhttp://www.judis.nic.in capsized, after hitting a compound wall of a company nearby.It 6 was suggested to her that she was not there at the time of accident and that when her sister Revathy suddenly crossed the road without noticing the tempo van approaching towards her, the accident had occurred, which suggestion she denied.As per the evidence of P.W.1, they were walking along a village road from East to West direction.The road runs East to West.Vehicle was on the opposite direction.As observed by the Trial Court, the left side for the child will be on the South.The left for the accused on the side of the north.But from the sketch it is seen that the accident took place on the extreme southern edge of the road portion.Because it is within his special knowledge as to what prompted to him to go the extreme southern road portion leaving his direction.Absolutely there is no explanation.” The aforesaid reasoning of the lower Appellate Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse.9 Mr. Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the identity of the petitioner has not been established, inasmuchhttp://www.judis.nic.in as Devi (P.W.1) has not stated that the petitioner was on the 7 wheels when the accident occurred and hence, the conviction and sentence made by the Courts below are liable to be set aside.In this regard, he placed reliance on the following judgments:In fact, Thirumeni (P.W.4), Inspector of Police, has stated in the chief-examination that on 19.03.2008, at 10.30 a.m., the petitioner himself voluntarily surrendered before the police and he was placed on arrest.In the upshot, this criminal revision stands partly allowed.

['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the F.I.Rdated 25.01.2007 in Cr.No.156 of 2007 on the file of the first respondent.The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition would run thus:Cr.No.156 of 2007 came to be registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and477-A, I.P.C, based on the complaint of the Tahsildhar as against thepetitioners herein.The nitty-gritty, the gist and kernel of the allegations as against thepetitioners are that as the power of attorney of some persons who are not realowners of the Government lands measuring 6 cents, he has chosen to enter into anagreement to sell with third parties by indulging in forgery and in fabricatingdocuments.The petitioner also committed similar offences relating to theGovernment lands.Based on that, the first petitioner was arrested and releasedon bail.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the action taken by thepolice, this petition is focussed on the main grounds as under:The petitioners/A.1 and A.2 did not sell any area in S.No.134/2 or in anyother sub division.The second petitioner herein, is the power of attorney ofone Mrs.The Natham settlementPatta No.575 issued by the Special Tahsildhar, stands in the names of the saidThangaraj and Veeranan in respect of the said 3 cents.So far no sale deed hasbeen executed by the petitioner on the strength of the power deeds and there isonly an agreement to sell exits and now it is also barred by limitation.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit at the time ofargument that those two persons they purchased it from one Balu who got the samefrom Lakshmana Pillai who was awarded with that land by the British Governmentfor his meritorious service.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would address this court on themain ground that absolutely there is no prima facie case made out in the F.I.Rand there is no question of cheating any one based on the agreement to sell.Neither the Tahsildhar nor the Government was approached so as to cause loss toany one.Accordingly, he prays for quashing the F.I.R.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would reiterate what are allfound specified in the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildhar.The warp andwoof of the counter is that after obtaining permission from the Collector only,the complaint was lodged; when the first petitioner on 25.01.2007 with anintention to get round seal with State emblem in a patta pass book, approachedthe Tahsildhar; the latter on seeing the forged signature of the Tahsildhar inthat patta pass book, developed suspicion and probed into the matter andthereby, informed the Collector, Madurai about it and on his instructions, heenquired with his officials and also with the officials of the RegistrationDepartment and found out that the first petitioner is involved in committing thecrimes of grabbing and scrounging the Government Poramboke lands especially, inS.No.134/2 of Madurai North Taluk, which is classified as Pudhukulam kanmaiPoramboke.It has to be seen at this juncture, whether there is any material toquash the F.I.R and the related proceedings?The perusal of the F.I.R would show that the Tahsildhar levelledallegations as against the first petitioner herein that he with the criminalintention, entered into agreement to sell with third parties so as to sell theGovernment land in the said Survey Number.It is also the allegation of theTahsildhar that the first petitioner only indulged in various other activitiesof fabricating pattas by forging the signatures of Revenue officials, etc.The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for thepetitioners is that Section 420 I.P.C is in no way attracted as mere agreementto sell between the power of attorneys and third parties would not attractSection 420 I.P.C; the Tasildhar is not at all in any way concerned with this,whereas the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has correctly answered thatonce Government land is being attempted to be alienated by fabricatingdocuments, the Tahsildhar who is responsible for looking after the Governmentlands is entitled to lodge a complaint and in this case, the Tahsildhar lodgedthe complaint with the permission of the Collector.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is nofile relating to sanction.If that be so, there should be properevidence on that score and necessary expert opinion would also be required.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that thewitnesses who are examined by the police disowned their signatures in therelevant pattas and their statements have also been recorded.The Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned should call for the filefrom the Inspector of Police concerned and take up further investigation andduring such investigation, due opportunity should be given to the petitionersfor producing documents and the opinion of the hand writing expert shall beobtained and the matter should be processed accordingly.The learned Counsel for the petitioners in an extempore manner wouldpray that since this matter involves the future and welfare of the secondpetitioner, a time frame may be fixed to complete the investigation.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

[Passed on 16 th Day of September, 2014] Per Shri S. K. Palo, J :-This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the detenu- Ajay Singh @ Deepu, seeking quashment of the order of detention dated 12th December, 2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Bhind and the subsequent order of Government of Madhya Pradesh, Home Department, Bhopal dated 25th January, 2014 (Annexure P-2).Both the orders were issued under the National Security Act, 1980 ( for brevity it is referred as "the Act of 1980'').(2) The Superintendent of Police, Bhind filed a report before the District Magistrate, Bhind on 27-11-2013, stating that due to the criminal activities of the petitioner, the persons are not willing to come forward to record their evidence in criminal cases against the petitioner.Due to the activities of the petitioner, the peace of the area was in danger.The Superintendent of Police has mentioned the details of seven criminal cases registered against the petitioner, which are as follows:-No. Crime Nos. Offence under Sections Police Station1. 94/2010 307, 342, 34, 302 of IPC, Gormi Section 3(ii) of SC & ST Act.Superintendent of Police, Bhind, recorded the statements of the witnesses, namely, Station House Officers- Sunil Khemriya and Damodar Gupta, Police Station Gormi, District Bhind.The grounds are based, on the basis of registration of criminal cases against the petitioner.The matter was referred to the Advisory Board and the Board also recommended the detention of the petitioner under the Act of 1980 and consequently, the State Government vide order dated 25th January, 2014 (Annexure P-2) affirmed the detention order of the petitioner (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Bhind.(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of detention of the petitioner is illegal because the grounds for detaining the petitioner which have been taken, are baseless and without proper application of mind.(i) On the basis of false and bogus report, Crime No.94/2010 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 307, 342, 34, 302 of IPC and Section 3(ii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 21-05-2012 passed by this Court in M.Cr.(3 ) WP No. 3322/2014We, therefore, quash the impugned orders Annexure P-1 dated 12th December, 2013 and Annexure P-2, dated 25th January, 2014, allowing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.The petitioner be set at liberty at once, if not required, in any other case.Copy of this order be sent by the Registry of this Court for further transmission to the Secretary, Department of Home, Bhopal, MP for necessary action.

['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.477 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent police.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR.He would further submit that the only allegation against the petitioner is that she came along with other accused.Other than that there is no allegations against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.2/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18501 of 2018Perused the materials available on record.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioner, which has to be investigated.Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts.Further, it cannot be quashed in the threshold.This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation.The investigating machinery has to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.Further the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.O.P.(MD).No.18501 of 2018 26.02.2020 4/4http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Kumar has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28/10/2011, at about, 8 p.m., when the prosecutrix was all alone in her house, respondent entered thereinto, caught her hand, tied her mouth with a piece of cloth and subjected her to rape and threatened to kill in case she divulged the incident to anyone.At this juncture, upon arrival of her husband and daughter from Harda, respondent fled from the window while leaving his Gamcha on the bed.On 30/10/11 report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Sirali and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Deputy Advocate General, impugned judgment was perused.Prosecutrix (PW2) is a married woman.On the night of incident, her husband and daughter, quite unexpectedly, had come from Harda a day before and seeing her husband, the respondent had fled from the spot.Thereafter, prosecutrix was beaten by her husband.Dr. Rashmi Sharma (PW6), though noticed several injuries of Lathi on the thighs and buttocks of the prosecutrix, did not find any injury on her private parts.As per the evidence brought on record, these injuries were caused by her husband.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that prosecutrix was a consenting party and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view.The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

& 466, 467, 468 and 420 read with 109 IPC., seeks to quash the said proceedings.Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with the above direction.Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.1. JM-II, Erode.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Erode Town Police Station, Erode District.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Criminal Appeal No. 1136 of 2019 is admitted.The::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 ::: 2 Cri.489/2020 learned Addl.Public Prosecutor waives notice after admission.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 :::Criminal Application No. 489 of 2020 is filed for suspension of substantive sentence and for bail.Heard both the sides.Present applicants Sagar Vasudeo Patil (original accused No.2) and Sonya @ Sonu @ Lalit Ganesh Chaudhari (original accused No. 6) are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 149, 120-B, etc. of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment is given to them.They were on bail during the trial.This Court has carefully gone through the record of evidence.On that day, the informant was intercepted by accused Bobdya and Bobdya wanted to take informant to Chingyadada.When informant tried to escape, he was assaulted.The informant then called his father on mobile.His father and deceased brother Bhau rushed to the spot.Bhau had brought iron bar with him.Then the incident started.It is alleged that present two applicants came to the spot and they took part in the incident by pelting stones and by using fist blows and kicks.There is no allegation against them that they::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 ::: 3 Cri.489/2020 assaulted the deceased.There is no allegation against them that they had used dangerous weapon like knife.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 :::The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor submitted that when there was an unlawful assembly aforesaid participation is sufficient for using Section 149 of I.P.C. against these applicants.He is heard on the point of use of Section 120-B of I.P.C. also.This Court is avoiding to discuss the evidence given for proving section 120-B of I.P.C. Other relevant facts are already mentioned in that regard.In view of the nature of the aforesaid material available against these applicants and as the applicants were granted bail during the trial, this Court holds that it is not desirable to keep behind bars the applicants till disposal of the appeal.It is not certain as to how much time will be requried for disposal of the appeal.In the result, the following order.The application is allowed.The substantive sentence against the applicants is hereby suspended, subject to deposit of the fine amount.After deposit of the fine amount, the applicants are to be released on bail on their furnishing PR and SB of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand only), by each of them.They may give one or more sureties.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 :::4 Cri.Criminal Application No. 1027 of 2020, which was filed for parole and which could not have been allowed, is hereby disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 :::

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

ARDR CRR 2497 of 2017 + CRAN 4779 of 2017 Banwari Lal Sharma & ors.State of West Bengal & anr.Mr. Sudipto Moitra, Sr.Adv., Mr. Vijay Verma, ...for the petitioners.Mr. Sanjay Banerjee, Mr. Abhishek Vora, ...for the Pvt. O.P.Ms. Anasuya Sinha, ...for the State.The matter was heard at length today.Thereafter, an appeal has been preferred before the Hon'ble High Court at Jaipur.Before coming to the conclusion, the said High Court has called the parties to undergo mediation proceeding.Thereafter the mediation took place, but result was abortive.He further contended that the alleged incident took place at Jaipur where the petitioner no.1 had been working.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private opposite party contended that there was persistent torture inflicted upon the victim/de 2 facto complainant.Even she was not taken care of while she was pregnant for the second time.When Doctor advised her for surgical operation, the present petitioner no.1 had expected normal delivery leaving aside the advise of the Doctor.According to him this is also a glaring example of perpetrated torture.Learned counsel appearing for the State has produced the Case Diary and from the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Accused Nos. 2 to 9 are persons who are controlling the business affairs of the accused No. 1 and are in-charge of and responsible to the accused No. 1 company for the conduct of the business thereof.JUDGMENT J.P. Singh, J.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the summoning order dated 27.7.1999 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act passed by Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi, and order dated 10.2.2005 also passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, declining to recall the summoning order.I have heard Ms. CM.Chopra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Shobha, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. Santosh Kohli, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the point of admission, and have gone through the copies of the documents placed on the file.The accused No. 1 was granted financial assistance for procuring raw material.The said cheque was dishonoured because the accused had closed the account meaning thereby that the accused knew that the cheque would be dishonoured.Notice was sent but in vain.I have also gone through the summoning order dated 27.7.1999 wherein the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after hearing and perusing the record, was of the opinion that prima facie case was made out and accordingly summoned the accused persons.Accused No. 7, who is the petitioner before this Court, for the first time moved an application dated 5.3.2004, i.e. after more than four years, for recall of the summoning order.

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Certified copy, as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.10.18 16:31:18 +05'30'

['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 22.4.2014 relating to Crime No.163/14 registered at Police Station Mada, District Singrauli for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354-A of the IPC and Section 8 of the POSCO Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is youth of 19 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Though, case is triable by the Special Judge but looking to the charges framed against the applicant, no offence is punishable for more than three years.Though, charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 305 of the IPC but the trial Court did not frame the said charge.Under such circumstances, if the applicant is not released on bail, his future will be spoiled with the bad company of harden criminals inside the jail.He is unnecessarily kept in the custody.Consequently, the applicant prays for bail.Learned P.L. for the State opposes the application.He submits that the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 305 of the IPC.Also the learned Special Judge did not mention any reason in the order dated 12.6.2014 as to why the charge under Section 305 of the IPC is not framed against the applicant therefore looking to the gravity of the offence, he may not be released on bail.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Prosecution witnesses Kaushalya (PW-2) and Ashish (PW-3) were minor children of the couple, who were in their early teens.Sumrati Bai (PW-5) has a field adjacent to that of accused Chhotelal.At about 11;00 a.m. on 2.2.2006, accused Chhotelal and deceased Rampayari Bai were in their field.Their minor children Kaushalya (PW-2) and Ashish (PW-3), who were 12 and 13 years old respectively, were also present.Sumrati Bai (PW-5) was working in her field along with Tijjo Bai @ Tidko Bai (PW-6) and Suhaga Bai (PW-7).At that time, accused Chhotelal started to beat his wife with wooden handle of a pickaxe.When Sumrati Bai tried to intercede on behalf of deceased Rampayari Bai, the accused Chhotelal told her off by claiming that Rampayari Bai was his wife; therefore, he was entitled to do anything to her and Sumrati Bai had no right to intervene in the matter.He chased Sumrati Bai away.The accused inflicted 11 wounds upon the deceased.As a result, she died on the spot.The accused dumped her body on the embankment between his field and that of Sumrati Bai and left.(19-06-2017) Per C.V. Sirpurkar, J:This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 12.1.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandla, District Mandla in Sessions Trial No. 47/2006, whereby accused/appellant Chhotelal was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for committing murder of his wife Rampayari Bai and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 500/-.In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.The prosecution case before the trial Court may be summarized as hereunder: Deceased Rampayari Bai was wife of accused Chhotelal.Thereafter, Ashish, son of the accused, reported the matter to Darniya Bai, who lodged the FIR in Police Station Mandla at about 6:30 p.m. the same day.During investigation, on the disclosure statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, handle of the pickaxe was recovered from his possession.During serological examination conducted in Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, human blood was found on handle of the pickaxe.The trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the accused.He abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.In his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he stated that he was innocent and the prosecution witnesses had falsely implicated him for claiming Rs.20,000/- from the Panchayat.The trial Court held that prosecution had succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Rampayari Bai had died a homicidal death as a result of shock caused by multiple injuries over her body.Aforesaid injuries were caused by the accused with intent to cause her death; therefore, appellant was convicted and sentenced as herein above stated.During the course of arguments, no serious challenge has been mounted on behalf of the appellant with regard to the finding that the appellant had caused death of accused Rampayari Bai by inflicting multiple blows with handle of a pickaxe.Learned counsel for the appellant has specifically invited attention of the Court to the cross- examination of Kaushalya (PW-2), the daughter of the couple, who had admitted therein that at the time of the incident, her mother had consumed alcohol and was in an inebriated state.Her father had taken meals to the field for her and was trying to cajole her to take the same.However, she refused; whereon, her father remonstrated with her that she consumes liquor and creates a scene Thereafter, he had struck a blow to her head with handle of the pickaxe.In view of aforesaid admission made by Kaushalya Bai (PW-2) in her cross-examination, it has been contended that no intention by the appellant to cause death of his wife was discernible in the facts and circumstances of the case.Consequently, it has been prayed that the conviction of the appellant be converted from the Section 302 of the I.P.C. to Section 304 (Part- II) thereof and the sentence of life imprisonment be reduced to the period undergone by the appellant in custody.Learned Penal Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment on the ground that 4 Cr.A.No.271/2007 appellant had intentionally caused such injuries to his wife as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.On perusal of the record and due consideration of rival contentions, we are of the view that this criminal appeal against conviction must fail for the reasons hereinafter stated:It may be noted at the outset that the case of the prosecution is based upon the solid foundation of as many as 5 eye witnesses.Though minor, two of them are children of the appellant.Third eye witness Sumrati Bai owns the field which is adjacent to that of the appellant.Remaining two witnesses Tijjo Bai (PW-6) and Suhaga Bai (PW-7) had gone to the field of Sumrati Bai as labourers.As such, their presence on the spot was quite natural.None of the aforesaid witnesses can be said to have any axe to grind against the appellant.In aforesaid backdrop, when we examined the statements of eye witnesses, we find that all five of them have supported the prosecution case.Sum and substance of their testimony is that Kaushalya Bai (PW-2) and Ashish (PW-3) were present at their parent's field along with deceased Rampayari Bai and appellant Chhotelal.Sumrati (PW-5), Tijjo Bai (PW-6) and Suhaga Bai (PW-7) were also present in the field of Sumrati Bai.At that time, the appellant assaulted the deceased with wooden handle of a pickaxe and caused numerous injuries to her on head, face, chest, stomach and thigh.Kaushalya Bai and Ashish tried to protect their mother but the appellant chased them away.Sumrati Bai (PW-5), Tijjo Bai (PW-6) and Suhaga Bai (PW-7) tried to intercede on behalf of the deceased but the appellant did not pay any heed to them.He threatened to beat Sumrati Bai.Unable to watch this merciless thrashing, Sumrati Bai and her companions went away.During cross-examination and arguments before the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant had tried to contrive discrepancy by contending that some of the witnesses have stated that the injuries were caused by the handle of a 'gaiti' and some others 5 Cr.A.No.271/2007 have stated that injuries was caused by the handle of a 'kudali'; however, it has rightly been held by the trial Court that there is no basic difference between the handle of 'gaiti' on one hand and handle of a 'kudali' on the other.The thickness of the handle depends upon the central hole of the iron piece of the implement.Whether Chhotelal had accompanied the deceased to the field at 7:00 a.m. or had gone there later at 11:00 a.m. with his daughter, is immaterial.Moreover, Kaushalya Bai was a 12 years old rustic child.As such, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of 5 eye witnesses, who have all supported the prosecution case, as none of them springs from a tainted source.Thus, the trial Court was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon the aforesaid 5 eye witnesses and holding that it was appellant Chhotelal, who had inflicted 11 injuries that were found on the person of the deceased.In such a situation, it would be natural for any husband to get annoyed; however, the moot question is whether every annoyance caused by a wife amounts to provocation to her husband giving him license to beat her mercilessly with a dangerous weapon? The answer to this question would be an emphatic and resounding no.There were three other injuries in the chest and stomach region.As a result, the liver had been ruptured.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

In the event he fails to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail automatically without reference to this court.The application being CRM 5009 of 2019 is disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.This criminal revision has been filed for challenging the order dated 2.9.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 2, Bijnor allowing the application moved by the complainant-opposite party No. 2 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to re-examine Rakesh Kumar and Virendra Singh in S.T. No. 220 of 2002 (State v. Deepak and Ors.), under Sections 302/324 IPC, police station Haldaur, district Bijnor.The revisionist Deepak along with two other co-accused Chandu and Sumer had been arrayed as accused in the FIR dated 18.5.2001, which alleged that the incident had taken place on 18.5.2001 at about 9 P.M. where the brother of the informant Madan was murdered by the accused persons including the revisionist.The role of the revisionist was to give a knife blow on the chest of the deceased while the other co-accused Chandu and Sumer were assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased at the time of incident.However, when the witnesses appeared in court, they turned hostile.An application ext.Kha 85, which contained a copy of a report in case No. 467 C of 2003 under Sections 452/504/506 IPC lodged at police station Haldaur, which alleged that the accused Sumer and Chandu (who have been granted bail in the present case) armed with country made pistols had intimidated and threatened the witness Rakesh Kumar on 25.7.2003 at 6 P.M. and had exerted pressure on them to turn hostile in the murder case.It was on account of this threat, that the witnesses could not give the true version in the court because there was such a great terror of the accused persons.On account of this application and the FIR in case crime No. 467 C of 2003, the impugned order had been passed by the Additional Sessions Judge FTC No. 2, Bijnor.The principal ground for challenging the impugned order was that the application had been moved by O.P. No. 2 on 25.8.2004, i.e. after one year of the examination of the witnesses PW.

['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The factual matrix of the case is as follows:The FIR of the instant case was lodged with police on 16.6.2005 at 14.15 P.M.while the incident took place on 16.6.2005 at about 12.30 hours.According to the FIR version the marriage of daughter of the informant Zeenat Perveen was solemnized on 27.12.2002 with Mohd. Rashid s/o Mohd. Kadar Kuraishi.According to the FIR, sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage but Mohd. Rashid husband of the deceased, Shakir Jeth, Mother-in-law Chhoti, Gulabo sister-in-law of the deceased, Shamshuddin brother-in-law of the deceased were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage.An additional demand of dowry was raised regarding Motor Cycle, Colour T.V.and a cash of Rs. 2 Lakhs.The informant and family members tried to convince them on the score of additional dowry but it had no effect.The deceased, daughter of the informant was ousted from the house on certain occasions.There was Community Reconciliation even it yielded no result.Approximately 15 to 20 days prior to the incident before the death of the deceased, filthy abuses were given to her and threat to her life was extended and she was ousted from the house.Thereafter on 14.6.2005 the accused persons visited the house of informant and assured that they would not make any demand of additional dowry in future nor would subject the deceased to cruelty or misbehaviour.Again they pressed their demand for additional dowry just second day when the daughter of the informant reached to her matrimonial home.On 16.6.2005 at about 12.30 hours, the informant received information that his daughter has been murdered by hanging.After receiving the information he along with his son and others visited the daughter's matrimonial home.The accused persons fled away from the spot after seeing the informant and others.The deceased was pregnant and was shortly expected to deliver a child.The corpus of the deceased daughter of the informant was lying there.The FIR was lodged.After registration of the FIR the investigation proceeded.Inquest was prepared and certain documentation was done for the purposes of post-mortem examination of the corpus of the deceased.A recovery memo was prepared with respect to articles recovered from the deceased.By way of additional statement he has stated that his wife was very short tempered.She wanted goad bharai rasam of her child at her parents' home which he declined.Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar,J.(Per Raghvendra Kumar, J. )Under assail in the instant Criminal Appeal is the judgment and order dated 19.5.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10 Aligarh in S.T.No. 943 of 2005 ( State Vs.Rashid and others ) arising out of Case Crime No. 158 of 2005 under sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C., Police Station Delhi Gate, District Aligarh whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 304-B I.P.C.and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for further imprisonment of one year and further convicted for the offence under section 498A I.P.C.and sentenced to R.I.for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation for simple imprisonment for one month.He has also been convicted for the offence under section 315 I.P.C.and sentenced to R.I.for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation of simple imprisonment for two months.He has further been convicted for the offence under section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to R.I.for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation with simple imprisonment for one month.Heard Dr. Arun Kumar Srivastava and Ms. Poonam Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.for the State of U.P.The post mortem of the body was done.After recording the statements of the witnesses and collecting the evidence, the investigation culminated into filing of police report in the shape of charge sheet.After complying with the procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned court below the accused Rashid s/o Kadar , Rashid s/o Nanhey, Shakir, Shamsuddin were charged for the offence under sections 498-A, 304-B and 315 I.P.C.read with ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act.The accused persons denied the prosecution case, claimed themselves innocent and taken plea of false implication.To substantiate the charge the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Mohd. Hanif, P.W.2 Bhuri, P.W.3 Mohd. Chand, P.W.4 Abdul Salam, P.W.5 Abdul Wahid, P.W.6 Anwar, P.W.7 Constable Dhirendra Singh who has proved the execution of chick FIR and relevant entry in G.D.P.W.8 Dr. V.K.Gupta has conducted autopsy of the corpus of the deceased Zeenal Perveen and has noted following ante mortem injuries:-(i) Ligature mark 9 cm x 1 cm on Lt.side neck upper part .(ii) Multiple abrasion on Rt.side neck 8 cm x 3 cm in size.(iii) Contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on Lt. Side abdomen 17 cm below Left nipple.On internal examination, the Doctor has noted presence of blood out side of both the lungs, lungs were found congested.Trachea was not found fractured.There was presence of blood in abdominal cavity.100 ml of water was found in stomach.Spleen was found ruptured.There was triangular lacerated wound on the spleen.The deceased was having pregnancy of 8 ½ months.Cause of death has been assigned Asphyxia, shock & haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injury.9. P.W.8 Dr. V.K.Gupta has proved the execution of autopsy report.The husband Mohd. Rashid has admitted marriage with Zeenat Perveen.He has denied rest of the allegations and has disclaimed the knowledge with respect to the material put to him which appeared during course of trial.He further stated that he went to purchase some items from the market and when he came back he found the deceased lying on the bed in unconscious condition.A Dhoti was found wrapped in her neck.He took her to the hospital where she was declared dead and she was taken back to the house and kept there.The rest of the accused persons also denied about material put to them which appeared during the course of the trial and also disclaimed knowledge.After conclusion of the trial, the accused-appellant Rashid s/o Kadar was convicted and rest of the accused namely, Shakir, Rashid s/o Nanhey and Shamshuddin were acquitted.It has been submitted on behalf of the accused appellant that he does not want to press the appeal on merits and has submitted that the accused appellant is in jail and he prayed for mercy of the Court.Being Court of first appeal, the Court is obliged to scrutinize the evidence which is available on record and to see that the learned Court below has rightly recorded the finding of conviction on the basis of the material available on record.In the instant case, the P.W.1 Mohd. Hanif is father of the deceased whose daughter has been murdered by hanging by her neck.He has categorically stated that the marriage of his daughter Zeenat Perveen was solemnized with Mohd. Rashid son of Kadar about 3 years and 8 months back.He had given sufficient items in the dowry at the time of marriage of her daughter but the husband and his family members ,namely, Shakir, Chhoti, Gulabo, Shamshuddin and Rashid son of Nanhey were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage.The accused persons allegedly assaulted his daughter on occasions after marriage and even they ousted her from the house.Additional demand of dowry for Colour T.V., Motor Cycle and a cash of Rs. Two lakhs was made on which the informant complainant tried to convince to the husband and in- laws of the daughter.There was a Community Reconciliation effort even in the presence of those members the demand of Motor cycle, Colour T.V. and a cash of Rs. 2 Lakhs was reiterated.They did not agree to the suggestion of the Panchayat.15 to 20 Days prior to the incident the daughter was physically assaulted, abused and was even ousted from the house due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.The deceased Zeenat Perveen residing with her parents for 10 - 12 days.Thereafter accused persons again took away the daughter of the informant to their house.On 16.6.2005, the informant received the message that his daughter was hanged and murdered by the accused persons.The witness P.W.1 has stated that the deceased had ligature mark in her neck.She was having pregnancy of 8 ½ months.He further stated that whenever the deceased came to her parents' house, she used to complain of conduct of the accused persons regarding demand of additional dowry and subjecting her to cruelty and misbehaviour on the score of dowry.Before appreciating the evidence, it is essential to appreciate the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. These ingredients are as under:Thus the appeal deserves to be partly allowed on the quantum of sentence.( Raghvendra Kumar, J.) (S.V.S.Rathore,J.)

['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed impugning the judgment dated 18.05.2013 and order on sentence dated 27.05.2013 passed by the Ld. District and Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in FIR No.77/2001 (SC No. 30/10/08) whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC') and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.The Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 1 of 29 appellant was further convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 120B of the IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 120B of the IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 1 of 292. Facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on 17.03.2001 at about 9:30 AM an information was received vide DD No.12A about two dead bodies lying in a garbage bin, B-2, Mayur Vihar Phase-III.On receipt of the said information, SI Sanjay Gupta along with Ct.Vipin (PW27) and Ct.Bale Ram (PW26) reached the spot where upon inquiry it was revealed that one person had already been removed to LBS Hospital by PCR Van and the dead body of one person was still lying in the garbage bin.Inspector Ashwini Kumar (PW10) along with his staff reached at the spot.Vipin (PW27) was left at the spot to safeguard the same while SI Sanjay along with Inspector Ashwani Kumar (PW10) reached LBS Hospital and an injured person was found admitted in the hospital vide MLC No.823/01 and he was declared unfit for statement.The Doctor handed Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 2 of 29 over sealed pulandas containing rope and sweater which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.Crime Team was called at the spot.ASI Om Prakash (PW18) took photographs which are Ex.PW12/A-1 to A-7 of which negatives are Ex.SI Jawahar Singh (PW5) was the in charge of the PCR van that reached the scene of crime after receiving information and on his pointing out, Site Plan Ex.PW23/A was prepared.A blood stained brick, blood sample, blood scattered on the wall and other blood samples were seized from the scene of crime vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW18/C. Dead body of the deceased was shown to public persons for the purpose of identification but its identity could not be established.Inquest papers Ex.PW23/B were prepared and the dead body was shifted to the Mortuary vide application which is Ex.PW23/C.In the meanwhile, injured was referred to GTB Hospital where he regained consciousness and informed that his name was Munna Lal and provided the telephone number of his brother- in-law Rakesh who was then called in the hospital.The brother- in-law of the injured identified him as Munna Lal (PW1).One Banwari Lal (PW24) telephonically informed that his driver Banwari Lal Vyas (deceased) had gone to Delhi in Jeep No. RJ Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 3 of 29 14 5C 1853 and had not returned.PW1 Munna Lal was declared fit for statement and his statement was recorded in which he stated that Dheeraj (co- accused) had come to him in Jaipur along with his three associates on 16.03.2001 and had asked for a vehicle along with driver to carry drums from Jaipur to Delhi.One Mahindra Marshal Jeep along with driver Banwari Lal Vyas (deceased) was deputed for this purpose.He further stated that in Delhi, co- accused Dheeraj along with other accused bought food for everyone and everyone had food outside co-accused Dheeraj's brother-in-law's house at Kondli.He further stated that two chemical drums were unloaded at co-accused Dheeraj's Brother-in-law's house and after having their meal everyone sat in the Jeep and on the way he became unconscious.He stated that he suspects that the appellant along with his three co- accused had murdered Banwari Lal in order to steal the vehicle.On the basis of this statement, a search was carried out at the house where the drums were dropped off by the accused.One Poonam wife of Sanjay Verma was found at this house and she informed that on the intervening night of 16/17.03.2001, one Chottu and Kala accompanied by others had come to her house Crl.Coming to the first issue, the presence of the appellant with the deceased and PW1 throughout the journey from Jaipur to Delhi was sought to be established by the prosecution primarily through the testimony of PW1 Munna Lal.PW1 Munna Lal is no doubt the most important witness in the present case and his testimony needs to be analysed in detail and corroborated with other witnesses and evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant.PW1 Munna Lal in his examination in chief dated 19.09.2009 had deposed that on 16.03.2001 while he was working as an employee in Laghoo Udyog Sewa Sansthan (now changed to MSME Development Institute, Govt. Of India), some boys had worked for pest control in the same office.One Dhiraj @ Chotu (absconder) had approached him along with two of his associates to arrange a vehicle for taking chemical drums to Delhi.PW1 deposed that he initially took them to Chandra Travels but since no vehicle could be arranged at his place he then took them to Gangawat Travels where one Kamal who was a resident of his locality was also working.He further deposed that the owner of Gangawat Travels had initially refused to arrange a vehicle but on the insistence of Kamal he agreed to arrange a vehicle for Dhiraj @ Chotu.He further deposed that Crl.PW1 further deposed that he accompanied the appellant and his accomplices to Delhi on the insistence of Banwari Lal Vyas who said that he needed someone to help him during the journey and since no other person could be found, he agreed to accompany the driver.PW1 deposed that he informed his wife about the journey to Delhi and then the appellant and the co- accused along with the driver and PW1 proceeded to Delhi.He then deposed that Dhiraj purchased liquor and food for everyone from New Delhi Railway Station and then Dhiraj took everyone to his Jija's (brother in law) house where he brought the food he purchased in a tray and served it to the driver Banwari Lal Vyas and himself.He further deposed that two drums out of the four that they were carrying were dropped off at the above mentioned house.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.PW18/A. On the basis of the DD entry, rukka Ex.PW18/B was prepared on DD No.12A which is Ex.PW16/A. Duty Officer ASI Gurtej Singh (PW9) recorded FIR No.77/2001 which is Ex.PW16/B.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 2 of 29On 21.03.2001, one Babu Lal along with Satish Vyas and the owner of the vehicle Banwari Lal Punia came to the Police Station and identified the dead body of the deceased Banwari Lal Vyas in the mortuary.The Post-Mortem of the dead body was conducted by PW21 Dr. L.C Gupta who was already examined as PW17 in co-accused Dhirender Singh Tomar's case and the Post-Mortem Report prepared by him is Ex.PW17/B.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 3 of 29The Post-Mortem Report PW17/B shows the following internal and external injuries to the body of the deceased: i. Abraded bruises 3 x 2 cms at left side forehead.Skull, brain, meninges and cerebra vessels - both sides temporital muscles found contused; left side frontal sub scalp haemotoma +ve, subarcechenoid haemorrhage present over left side frontal region of brain (in 5 x 1 cm in are); congested.mesentery and oancrea - multiple loop formed contused with redish.sample, liver, kidney, spleen, sample of blood with swab Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 4 of 29 nail clipping of b/1 hand fingers scalp hair were collected for toxicological analysis.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 4 of 29PW21 testified that he was posted as Specialist (Forensic Medicines) at LBS Hospital on 21.03.2001 when the deceased was brought to the Hospital.He opined the cause of death to be asphyxia resulting from sustained and forceful contruction of neck with the help of ligature material which is sufficient to cause death, homicidal death in the ordinary course of nature.PW19 Dr. Tapasi Chatterjee prepared MLC of PW1 Munna Lal which is Ex.PW7/A. He described the following injuries on the body of PW1 Munna Lal:i. There was strangulation mark i.e. Single mark impression of the rope and at the front of the neck and lateral side with the know at the back.There was lacerated injury on the left side of the occiput measuring 7 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.There was lacerated wound on the left side of frontal region measuring 5 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm, 4 cm above the left superior arbital margin.There was another lacerated wound of 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the lateral part of right eye.v. There was lacerated wound of 2 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm on the mideal canthus of right eye.There was abrasion wound of 2 cm x 2 cm on the right maxilla 2 cm below the inferior of orbital region.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 5 of 29There was sub conjunctival hemorrhage in the right eye.PW19 Dr. Tapasi Chatterjee opined that the injury no.1 which was a ligature mark on the neck due to strangulation was dangerous to life in general.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 6 of 29 to unload two chemical drums.This statement was corroborated by her husband Sanjay Verma who also produced two drums Ex.P-1 and P-2 which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW4/A.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 6 of 29On 22.02.2008 an information was received that the appellant was lodged in Bareily Jail and an application for production of the appellant was moved by SI Pankaj Kumar (PW15) which is Ex.PW15/A. Custody of the appellant was obtained by SI Yogender Kumar (PW8) and the appellant was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW8/A. Lalit Kumar (PW16), the then Ld. MM conducted the TIP of the appellant vide Ex.PW16/A and issued a certificate Ex.PW16/B regarding the correctness of proceedings.During the TIP of the appellant, PW1 Munna Lal correctly identified the appellant.A supplementary charge sheet was filed against the appellant and charges under Section 120B and 302, 307, 392 read with Section 120B were framed against him.The prosecution examined 27 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the appellant.Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code') in which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The appellant in his statement under Section 313 denied the case of the prosecution without explaining any of the inculpatory circumstance produced against him.He further stated that he had already been shown to PW1 Munna Lal Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 7 of 29 before the TIP proceedings.The appellant was given the opportunity to lead defence evidence but he opted not to do so.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 7 of 29Ms. Rakhi Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned judgment was illegal and not based on a sound appreciation of facts and law and is therefore liable to be set aside.She further argued that the prosecution failed to examine the wife of PW1 Munna Lal to whom the he had allegedly informed about his travel along with the deceased and accused from Jaipur to Delhi.She had further argued that the Trial Court overlooked various contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of many witnesses which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story.She further argued that the appellant was arrested on 22.02.2008 after a gap of more than seven years after the incident and his TIP was conducted on 25.03.2008 in which PW1 Munna Lal had failed to identify the appellant according to the statement of Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 8 of 29 the appellant under Section 313 of the Code.She further argued that statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code casts a serious doubt as to the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the crime.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 8 of 29Per contra, Ms. Radhika Kolluru learned APP had argued that the impugned judgment was based on sound legal principles and correct appreciation of evidence on record and therefore does not warrant interference.She further argued that the testimony of the PW1 Munna Lal who was present with the appellant throughout the entire journey from Jaipur to Delhi is corroborated by the evidence on record.She argued that PW1 Munna Lal was then brutally assaulted by the appellant and other co-accused and presumed to be dead which clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The appellant seeks to challenge the impugned judgment primarily on two grounds:-i. The presence of the appellant during the commission of the crime with the co-accused is under a serious doubt because of the various contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of PW1 and also because the prosecution failed to establish chain of events linking the appellant with the crime.The appellant stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Code that he had been shown to PW1 Munna Lal before his TIP was conducted and even Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 9 of 29 during the TIP he was not identified correctly by PW1 Munna Lal who was the most important witness in the case.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 9 of 29Appeal No.733/2016 Page 10 of 29 Dhiraj, Dalip (appellant) and two other persons chose one Marshal Vehicle bearing registration number RJ-14-5C-1852 and Banwari Lal Vyas (deceased) was chosen to be the driver for the journey.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 10 of 29He further deposed soon after having food he and Banwari Lal became unconscious and he regained consciousness in GTB Hospital where he realised that he was having injuries all over his body because of which he was in severe pain and that driver Banwari Lal Vyas was found dead in Mayur Vihar, Phase-III.He further deposed that his Titan wrist watch along with some documents and cash were stolen by the appellant and the co-Appeal No.733/2016 Page 11 of 29He further deposed that he suspected that the appellant and the co-accused had mixed a stupefying drug along with their food in order to rob the vehicle and other valuable properties.He further deposed that he was called to Tihar Jail on 25.03.2008 to identify the appellant.He had also identified co- accused Dhirender and the two drums which were dropped off by the appellant and the co-accused at the house of Sanjay Verma.He further deposed that the appellant was present in Court that day and he identified the other three accused.PW1 in his cross-examination deposed that he was sitting on the front seat with the driver Banwari Lal Vyas during the journey while the appellant was sitting behind him on the rear seat.The testimony of PW1 Munna Lal finds corroboration from the testimony of PW-24 Banwari Lal who was the owner of the Mahindra Jeep No. RJ 14-5C-1853 and he deposed in his examination in chief that he had deputed the said vehicle to Gangawat Travels.He testified that Banwari Lal Vyas (deceased) was the driver deputed for this vehicle.He further deposed that on 16.03.2001 the said vehicle was hired by someone through PW1 Munna Lal and when the vehicle was not returned till 18.03.2001, he went to PW1 Munna Lal's house where he was informed by PW1's wife that something had happened to the vehicle.He deposed that he was then called to Police Station New Ashok Nagar where he was informed that Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 12 of 29 his vehicle was missing and from there he was taken to a Hospital for the identification of the dead body of Banwari Lal Vyas.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 12 of 29The testimony of PW1 also finds strength from the testimony of PW-22 Raj Kumar who is the owner of Gangawat Travels.He deposed in his examination in chief that a vehicle bearing registration no. RJ 14-5C-1853 along with driver Banwari Lal Vyas (deceased) was hired by PW1 Munna Lal on 16.03.2001 on the guarantee of one driver Kamal.He further deposed that on 18.03.2001 he came to know that the driver of the said vehicle i.e. Banwari Lal Vyas had been murdered by someone.The MLC of PW1 Munna Lal also corroborates the case of the prosecution.The MLC of PW1 shows that he had received multiple injuries including ligature marks on his neck.PW-19 Dr. Tapas Chatterjee who was posted as the Casualty Medical Officer in LBS Hospital on 17.03.2001 examined PW1 when he was brought to the hospital and opined that there were strangulation marks which were a result of a rope being used for strangulation and this injury was dangerous to life in general.From the testimony of PW1 Munnal Lal, PW24 Banwari Lal and PW22 Raj Kumar, it is clearly established that the appellant along with the co-accused had accompanied PW1 and the deceased to Delhi after which the driver of the vehicle was found dead, PW1 was found seriously injured, the vehicle hired Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 13 of 29 from Jaipur was missing and the appellant along with his accomplices were found to be absconding.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 13 of 29This is primarily based on the appellant's statement under Section 313 of the Code where he stated that he had already been shown to PW1 and even then he had incorrectly identified him.To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 17 of 29 circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 17 of 29The prosecution has been able to prove the following chain of circumstance in a sequence:i. The appellant along with his co-accused had approached PW1 Munna Lal in Jaipur to arrange for a vehicle to transport chemical drums to Delhi.PW1 Munna Lal arranged a vehicle from the owner of Gangawat Travels i.e. PW-22 Raj Kumar for the appellant and his accomplices.The owner of the vehicle was PW-24 Banwari Lal.The deceased Banwari Lal Vyas was the driver of the said vehicle.After they reached Delhi around midnight, PW1 stated that co-accused Dhiraj purchased food and liquor from New Delhi Railway Station and they headed to the house of Sanjay Verma who was referred to as jija ji by co-accused Dhiraj in Kondli.v. After reaching Sanjay Verma's house after midnight on 17.03.2001, PW1 and the deceased were served food by Dhiraj and other co-accused.The appellant has offered no explanation to any of the inculpating evidence.He only stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Code that he has been falsely implicated and chose not to lead any defence evidence.The time gap between PW1 and the deceased before he was murdered being seen with the appellant and after they were found in the garbage dump is so proximate that no other inference can be drawn apart from holding the appellant guilty.In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lallu Manjhi's case (supra), the testimony of PW1 finds sufficient corroboration in the testimony of official witnesses as well as the medical and circumstantial evidence on record to hold the appellant guilty.The appellant has failed to explain the inculpating circumstances which would make the Court believe that any other inference can be drawn from the existing circumstance and evidence on record.The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baliya v. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 696 elaborated the ingredients that must be proved in order to convict an accused for the offence under Section 120B as under:The offence of criminal conspiracy is defined in Section 120-A of the Penal Code whereas Section 120-B of the Code provides for punishment for the said offence.The appellant along with the co-accused hired a vehicle, laced some food with stupefying drugs and fed the same to PW1 and deceased, murdered the deceased, attempted to murder PW1 and fled with the vehicle and other valuables.The chain of events has already been established and from this chain itself the offence under Section 120B also stands established beyond all doubts.As far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 392 is concerned, we may profit by referring to the view taken by a co- ordinate bench of this Court while deciding appeal of the co- accused Dhirender Singh Tomar who was convicted under Crl.The relevant paragraph is reproduced below:Appeal No.733/2016 Page 20 of 29The testimony of PW-2 establishes that the appellant, his brother Dheeraj and two more accused were with the deceased and PW-2 when they took food.The DD entries and the testimony of SI Sanjay PW-18 establishes that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a garbage dump at Mayur Vihar Phase III which is near village Kondli where the accused took meals along with PW-2 and the deceased.This was the place where PW-2 was picked up in an unconscious condition.The theory of last seen evidence clearly comes into play.So proximate is the time when the crime was committed to the place of last seen that any reasonable person would conclude that the appellant and his three co-accused who are proclaimed offenders are the offenders unless the appellant explains when did he part company with the deceased and the injured [AIR 1955 SC 801 Deonandan Mishra Vs.The testimony of PW-2 clearly establishes that he lost consciousness immediately when he ate the food.At that point of time, the appellant was present.The vehicle which was took on hire is missing and has till date not been traced.Since the vehicle, which was taken on hire, has not been recovered and it was last seen in the possession of the appellant Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 21 of 29 and the co-accused, the charge of Robbery under Section 392 of the IPC stands proved.We find no reason to interfere with this finding as the chain of events that led to the vehicle disappearing establish the criminal conspiracy that the appellant and the co-accused entered into for the purpose of robbing PW1 and the deceased of their valuables and the vehicle that was taken on hire.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 21 of 29In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed and the sentence imposed on the appellant is upheld.TCR be sent back.ORDER ON COMPENSATION TO THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE VICTIMThe appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10, 000/-.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.The appellant was further convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 120B of the IPC and awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10, 000/-.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 22 of 29 120B of the IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.10, 000/-.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.Even this meagre fine has not been ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased or to Munna Lal by the Trial Court.Considering the mandate, this court proposes to deal with the aspect of granting compensation to the victims.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 22 of 29In this case, the deceased Banwari Lal Vyas Pal died due to asphyxwhia as a result of strangulation.Copy of this order be also sent to Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority.(VINOD GOEL) JUDGE (G.S SISTANI) JUDGE DECEMBER 19, 2017 // Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 29 of 29Appeal No.733/2016 Page 29 of 29

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Though there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage but after about a month of the marriage in-laws of the deceased Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 1 of 12 started making demands of dowry.Their demands were a refrigerator, colour T.V. and a gold chain etc. Nasira Begum was harassed for not fulfilling these demands to the extent that she was given physical beatings, the injury marks of which were shown by her to her father.However, the father thought that the matter would be settled.She was not even permitted to have cold water as she had not brought fridge in dowry.A. 245/2001 Page 1 of 12On the instigation of the sisters of the Appellant, the Appellant used to give physical beating to her with danda and on one occasion he went to the extent of pressing her throat.She had visited her parental house on the Friday prior to the incident and complained about the harassment which she was subjected to by her in-laws.She requested her parents not to send her back as otherwise her in-laws would kill her.However, the Appellant came and took her along with him.As per the parents of the deceased besides her husband, her two sisters-in-law i.e., sisters of the Appellant and their husbands namely Yamin and Zamir also used to abuse her and taunt her for bringing insufficient dowry and instigate her husband/Appellant to give her beatings with dandas.On 7th June, 1998 the deceased was admitted to St. Stephens Hospital which information was given by the Appellant and his maternal uncle to Nasir Ahmed, the father of the deceased.They informed him that she was suffering from vomiting and therefore, was admitted in St. Stephens Hospital.The Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 3 of 124. Learned APP on the other hand contends that the statement of the deceased was kept pending by the SDM till she becomes conscious and since Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 4 of 12 she never regained consciousness her statement could not be recorded.The Prosecution witnesses especially PW1, PW4, PW7 and PW8 have categorically deposed about the demand of dowry and harassment in regard thereto soon before the death.PW11 and 12 have deposed about the cruelty inflicted by the Appellant on the deceased on 7 th June, 1998 at 10.00 A.M. itself.The allegations of physical cruelty meted by the Appellant to the deceased are corroborated by the testimony of PW15 Dr. Ajit Kumar who in the MLC has recorded about the injury marks on the person of deceased.The fact that the deceased had ante mortem injury marks is also proved by PW18 Dr. Sarvesh Tandon who conducted the post mortem of the deceased.M.A. 405/2002 (EARLY HEARING) The application is dismissed as infructuous.A. 245/2001 Page 2 of 12 deceased subsequently died on 10th June, 1998 and on post mortem being conducted the viscera was preserved.The CFSL report opined that the viscera contained a poisonous substance called aluminum phosphate poison.All the accused persons were sent for trial and charges for offences under Section 498A/34IPC and 304B/34IPC were framed.After recording of Prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons and defence evidence, all other accused persons, except the Appellant were acquitted.The Appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498A/304BIPC and awarded a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years under Sec. 304B IPC and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and a fine of `3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under section 498A IPC.This is the judgment impugned.A. 245/2001 Page 2 of 123. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that despite the fact that the deceased was hospitalized for three days no statement of the deceased was recorded by the doctor or the investigating officer.The deceased never complained about the harassment either on telephone or by letter before the death.The learned Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses and acquitted the co-accused persons.It is alleged that the father of the deceased was earning only `2,700/- per month and was admittedly spending `2,000/- towards house rent, thus, he could not have spent `1 lakh Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 3 of 12 on the marriage as alleged by the Prosecution.The essential ingredient for an offence under Section 304B IPC is that soon before the death there should be cruelty for demand of dowry.The same has not been proved by the Prosecution.As per the allegations the demands were only after 1 month of marriage and thereafter there was no demand.The matter was compromised between the parties and after the compromise there is no allegation of harassment for demand of dowry.Reliance is placed on Appasaheb and Anrs.The Appellant has already undergone a sentence of 4 years.It is further stated that the Appellant is the only son and has an old and aged widowed mother.There is no one to look after the child as the mother has already died.Besides abrasions, there were burn injury marks on the body of the deceased.As per the opinion of PW18, injury Nos. 1 and 4 could be caused by red hot iron object and injury No.2 could be caused by exposing the area over heated substance interposed by clothes.Thus, the factum that the deceased was harassed for demand of dowry soon before her death and she died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage has been proved.There being no merit in the Appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed.A. 245/2001 Page 4 of 12I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.In the present case there are three sets of evidences which clearly inculpate the Appellant.The first is of PW1 Mohd. Shamim Khan, a friend of the father of Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 5 of 12 the deceased, PW4 Nasir Ahmed, the father, PW7 Nasir Ahmed, the brother and PW8 Mehraj Begum, the mother.All these witnesses have deposed that though there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage, however, after about one month of the marriage there was a demand of fridge, TV and gold chain.Since these demands were not met the deceased was ill-treated and was beaten badly.The matter was got reconciled on many occasions with the intervention of friends and relatives but even after reconciliation the accused persons continued to harass her.The suggestion given to these witnesses is that the Appellant had in fact divorced the deceased and it was desired that she should now be taken to the house of her father and mother however, this was not done by PW4 and PW8 and thus, the family of deceased threatened to implicate the Appellant and his family in a false case for daring to divorce her.The Appellant in his defence has produced witnesses who have stated that the father of the deceased was demanding money and since the deceased was not able to fulfill the same she was always perplexed and she was harassed by them.It may be noted that no such suggestion has been given to the prosecution witnesses.I find the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant not borne from the evidence that after the compromise there was no Crl.From the evidence on record it is proved that there were repeated demands of dowry after a month of the marriage and the matter was sought to be reconciled repeatedly on many occasions but the accused persons continued demanding dowry.The witnesses have consistently stated that a week prior to the incident the deceased came to her parental house where she had expressed apprehension of being killed.Furthermore, on a perusal of their statements it is clear that there was a continuous demand for dowry and harassment in relation thereto by the appellant, as the deceased was incapable of fulfilling the demands raised by them.The testimony of PW1 who is the friend of PW4 also shows that there were demands of dowry and the deceased was given beating even in his presence.He also states that about 1 or 1 month prior to the incident, the deceased told her that she will be killed.A. 245/2001 Page 5 of 12A. 245/2001 Page 6 of 12In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances sowing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct.Such conduct may be spread over a period of time.If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be "soon before death" if any other intervening circumstance showing the non-existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before the alleged such alleged treatment and the date of death.It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period.Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution.The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough."The second set of evidence of PW 11 Kumari Mehnaz and PW12 Naeem, the younger sister and brother of the deceased, is a very crucial Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 8 of 12 evidence of the torture meted to the deceased.On the fateful day, that is, 7th June, 1998 they had gone to the house of the deceased at about 10.00 A.M. to get the deceased and the Appellant to their house as their elder sister Nazira was coming to meet the family on that day.These witnesses have stated that Riyazuddin restrained their sister from accompanying them and when she insisted he lifted a Pepsi bottle containing water and hit the same on her hand.When the deceased further insisted the Appellant told her if she had forgotten the previous beatings given to her.He further stated that if she dares to go he will kill her.When her sister still insisted, the appellant started beating her with danda and thus, they returned without the sister accompanying them.The evidence of these two witnesses shows that even on the date of the incident the deceased was assaulted.A. 245/2001 Page 8 of 12The incident in the presence of PW11 and PW12 was about 10.00 A.M. on that day.The Prosecution has produced PW10 Dr. M. Ahmad who stated that about 2.30 or 2.45 P.M. when he had gone to offer namaz in the Masjid the Appellant Riyazuddin had came to him and informed that the condition of his wife i.e. the deceased was serious and he should reach.He went to the residence of the Appellant where the deceased was found unconscious.He gave her an injection and certain medicines and asked the Appellant to wait for some time so that she regains her conscious.A. 245/2001 Page 9 of 12"Cause of death kept pending.Viscera preserved and sent to FSL.All injuries are anti mortem in nature and old in duration.Injury No. 1 could be caused by red hot iron object.Injury No. 2 could be cause by exposing the area over heated substance interposed by clothes.Injury No. 4 could be caused by red hot iron object.Time since death is about 13 hours approx.Blood and viscera preserved for toxicological analysis.A. 245/2001 Page 10 of 12My report is ex.PW-18/A which is in my hand bears my sign at point A and is correct.The application for postmortem was accompanied by 10 papers (inquest) which I had inspected and I had put my initials thereon and I identify my initials on inquest papers.The application is ex.PW-18/B which bears my sign at point A. I have seen the Toxicological report from CFSL, Hyderabad which states that Aluminum phosphide was detected in 1A, 1B and 1C exts, so in my view the cause of death was aluminum phosphide poisoning."All this leads to the inference that the deceased was assaulted by the Appellant with Pepsi bottle, danda and also inflicted burn injuries.As per the evidence discussed above all the ingredients of Section 304B IPC, that is, unnatural death, within seven years of marriage, and soon before death cruelty in relation to demand of dowry are fulfilled in the present case.The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the Appellant are on the facts of the said cases and in the present case the prosecution has discharged its onus of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.There is ample evidence that soon before death, there was continuous torture and harassment in relation to demand of dowry resulting in the unnatural death of the deceased.I also do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that since the co-accused have been acquitted on the basis of this evidence, the Appellant is also entitled to be acquitted.The learned Trial Court has acquitted the co-accused persons as there was no overt act attributed to them.As regards the Appellant there is ample evidence of overt act against Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 11 of 12 him.Moreover, in the absence of an appeal against acquittal of the co- accused by the State this Court will not in this appeal return findings.The acquittal of co-accused persons would not entail the Appellant to be acquitted of the charges framed against him.A. 245/2001 Page 11 of 12I find no reason for taking a lenient view as prayed, in the facts of the present case and to reduce the sentence of the Appellant to already undergone, in view of the continuous harassment and gravity of torture meted out to the deceased.I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.The bail bond and the surety bond are discharged.The appellant be taken into custody to undergo the remaining sentence.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE NOVEMBER 30, 2010 vn Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 12 of 12A. 245/2001 Page 12 of 12

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A.This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 28.05.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur in Bail Application No.110 of 2019(Raju Vs.State of U.P) and 111 of 2019(Phool Chandra Yadav Vs.State of U.P.) arising out of case crime no.66 of 2018 under Sections 366, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Singramau, District-Jaunpur.Submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is that for the incident said to have been taken place on 30.07.2018, present FIR was lodged on 19.08.2018 by father of the victim under section 366 IPC against one Virendra Kumar.The subject was produced for recording her statement and on 07.12.2018, almost five months of the incident, she has tried to change the texture of the case by adding the story that she was taken to Mumbai in the stage of intoxication.The main accused is Virendra with whom she had gone to Mumbai and remained in his company.The applicants are associates of the main accused and have no role in the present incident.Neither there is any recovery from the appellants nor any assault was made by them.It is next contended that main accused-Virendra has not been arrested so far.Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail.The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the appellants-Raju and Phool Chandra Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANTS WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iv) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(v) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellants, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.Impugned order dated 28.05.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur, is hereby set aside.Order Date :- 4.12.2019 Sumit S

['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus :P.W.8 - PSI Dattatraya Falle who on 24 November 2005 was attached to Nigdi Police Station and was on night duty received information about admission of Vidya in the YCM Hospital with history of assault.P.W.8 - PSI Falle accordingly proceeded to the hospital.On reaching the Hospital, he learnt that Vidya had succumbed to her injuries.ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) :The Appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, by the Sessions Judge, Pune, by judgment dated 28 April 2009, in Sessions Case No.276 of 2006, by this Appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::On the basis of the report of P.W.1 - Anandrao an offence vide Crime No.451 of 2005 was registered.Upon registration of the offence, the crime was investigated initially by P.W.8 - PSI Falle.The dead body was referred for postmortem examination.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::The accused was examined by P.W.7 Dr. Arvind Patil, who noticed the following external injuries :i) Lineal abrasion over left side of forehead at half line tapering upward oblique 3 cm in length.Nape of neck horizontal 8 cm in length tapering towards left, left leg upper third vertical 8 cm in length tapering downwards, semi solid jelly like discharge present on the edge of injury.ii) Small abrasion over right scapular region four in numbers of 3 cm x 3 cm size, on left scapular region three in number 3 cm x 3 cm size with thick serious discharge.iii) Abrasion over left hand extensor aspect 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm."He opined that the age of the injury was within 12 to 25 hours and the injuries may have been caused by a pointed object.The other injuries were due to hard and blunt object.The investigation of the said crime was thereafter transferred to P.W.9 - PI Eknath Patil, who was also attached to Nigdi Police Station.He recorded the statement of the children of the deceased as well as the statements of other witnesses.During custodial interrogation, the Appellant expressed his willingness to point out ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 ::: PNP 4/19 APEAL719-13.3 the place where the weapon had been concealed.The accused led the police and the panchas to a place called Mahadu Gavade chawl and after alighting from the vehicle, produced the weapon which had been concealed beneath the tree.Further to the completion of investigation a charge-sheet against the Appellant was filed.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::The postmortem on the body of deceased Vidya was performed by P.W.6 - Dr. Bal Ughade.P.W.6 Dr. Ughade noticed the following external injuries :1. Contusion over right knee joint 1 cm circular in shape.Multiple abrasion over left knee joint.CLW right middle finger at nail bed."The doctor also noticed following injuries over scalp.1. CLW over left eyebrow horizontal 3 x ½ cm.2. CLW over right frontal bone oblique 2 cm x ½ cm.CLW right frontal bone immediately left to injury No.2 4 x 1 cm.CLW right frontal immediately left to injury No.3, 3.5 x 1 cm oblique.CLW frontal bone 2.5 cm horizontal.CLW frontal bone left side near to injury no.5 oblique 4 x 2 cm.CLW parietal bone left side near to injury no.6, 5.5 x 2 cm.CLW parietal, bone left side, lateral to injury no.7 vertical 3 x 1.5 cm.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::PNP 5/19 APEAL719-13.3CLW parietal bone left side above left eyebrow oblique 3 x 1 cmCLW left parietal bone, oblique 4 x 2 cmCLW left parietal bone, oblique 4 x 2 cmCLW left parietal bone, oblique 3 x 1 cm, Injury Nos. 10 to 12 were 7 cm over left ear.Left temporal bone horizontal 4.5 x 1 cmImmediately near to injury No.13, 4 x 1 cm oblique.At occipital bone lambdoid point 6 x ½ cmLateral to injury no.15 vertical 5 x 1 cmLateral to injury no.15 right side 5 x ½ cmat parietal right side, horizontal 7 x 14 cm."He opined that injuries 1 to 18 were noticed like incised injuries and were bone deep.On external examination he had noticed fracture of the skull from bone 1.5 cm long on the left side and on the right side 18 cm long.He has opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem.He further opined that the cause of death was due to head injury with fracture to skull with multiple injuries over scalp and intra cranial bleeding.On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Court vide Exhibit 2 framed charge against the Appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The Appellant denied his guilt and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in support of its case examined nine witnesses.The accused in his defence examined four witnesses.The Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 ::: PNP 6/19 APEAL719-13.3 convicted and sentenced the Appellant as afore stated.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant at the outset has urged before us that the only submission which is being advanced before us in the present Appeal on behalf of the Appellant is that the Appellant is entitled to be given the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the Appellant has probablised that the offence was committed by the Appellant when he was suffering from mental illness and was thus incapable of knowing the nature of the act which he was committing.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the aforesaid submission.In order to effectively deal with submissions advanced before us by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.Prosecution has examined P.W.1 Anandrao, father of deceased Vidya and P.W.2 - Udhav - brother of deceased Vidya.These two witnesses have deposed that Vidya used to complain them that the Appellant had illicit relations with another lady and on that count there used to be quarrels in between Vidya and the Appellant and the Appellant used to assault Vidya.Prosecution has examined P.W.4 Viraj Kate, son ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 ::: PNP 7/19 APEAL719-13.3 of the Appellant who is an eye witness to the incident.He was sleeping in the house where he was residing along with the Appellant and his deceased mother and his sister Manali.According to him, he had awakened from sleep on hearing the cry of his mother.He noticed the Appellant assaulting deceased Vidya with an object which was used for breaking the coconut i.e. scythe.The Appellant had assaulted the deceased on her head and on her neck.P.W. 4 -Viraj further deposes that his sister Manali had called his maternal uncle i.e. P.W.2 Udhav.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::Thereafter the Appellant had taken them to the house of his sister i.e. aunt.P.W.4 - Viraj in his cross examination has admitted that prior to the incident, the Appellant was taken by the deceased and D.W.3 - Pushpa to the hospital for treatment.He has further admitted that the Appellant used to take some medicine.He has further admitted that his father during that period used to leave the house and be away from the house for two to three days.He has further admitted that the Appellant used to abuse, but after taking the medicines used to sleep.He has further admitted that when the Appellant was mentally ill, the Appellant would not go on his handcart, but would remain in the house.He has admitted that the Appellant had closed the door from outside ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 ::: PNP 8/19 APEAL719-13.3 and had called D.W.3 - Pushpa to the house.The Appellant had thereafter opened the door and had taken P.W.4 - Viraj and Manali to the house of D.W.3 - Pushpa.An omission has been elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement about the Appellant assaulting deceased Vidya on her back.He has admitted not to have stated in his previous statement about his sister Manali telephoning P.W.2 Udhav.Similarly an omission has been elicited in his previous statement that Manali was studying in second standard in C.K.Goyal School.He has denied all suggestions made on behalf of the Appellant that he had not witnesses the incident.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::Thus, a perusal of the evidence of the eye witness establishes beyond reasonable doubt that it was the Appellant who had inflicted injuries to deceased Vidya which had resulted in her death.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::PNP 9/19 APEAL719-13.3 of the Indian Penal Code, is not as heavy as the burden which rests on the prosecution and the accused can discharge the said burden by preponderance of probability.This witness has produced the documents which he was called upon to produce.He has only produced the documents of the hospital run by Lokmanya Medical Foundation.The Appellant has examined D.W.2 - Dr. Bharat Sarode who deposes that from 1997 till 2007 he was attached to the Medical Hospital at Yerawada, Pune and was also having his private practice at Pimpri.As per his report at Exhibit 78 he had found that the accused had history suggestive of brief reactive psychosis.He had infidelity delusion and also delusion of persecution.He had therefore opined that the accused had acute psychotic episode.Accordingly certain medicines were prescribed ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 ::: PNP 10/19 APEAL719-13.3 and a review was advised.He had recorded the finding that the accused was 35 years old and was married having two children.The accused had earlier worked as a priest in the temple.For the last five to six months he had persecution delusion and delusion of infidelity, hallucination and was lacking insight.His judgment was impaired.He therefore diagnosed the case as paranoid schizophrenia.He had accordingly advised the treatment which is recorded as "B" and which is part of record as Exhibit::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::Further review was advised on the following Saturday.He has further deposed that after the accused was examined on 5 December 2001 the accused was discharged from the hospital, but later had come to his personal O.P.D. on five to six occasions.He has further deposed that he has examined the accused in the Yerwada Prison, but was unable to produce the record.In the cross examination, he has admitted as correct that the case papers disclosed an entry dated 2 December 2001 where the Appellant ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 ::: PNP 11/19 APEAL719-13.3 was examined by another doctor who had opined that the patient was conscious and oriented.He has admitted that CNS means Central Nervous System.He has further admitted that even if that CNS findings are normal, a patient can be psychologically disturbed.He has also admitted as correct that on 3 December 2001 before the Appellant was examined by him, another doctor had found that the general condition of the Appellant to be stable and that he was conscious and oriented.He has admitted that he had not written the paternal or the maternal history of mental illness of the Appellant.He has also admitted that when the Appellant was discharged, it was recorded that he was conscious and oriented and there were no complaints.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::The Appellant has examined D.W.4 - Dr. Chandrashekhar Bhonde, who deposes that he was also posted at Yerawada Jail as a Psychiatrist.He has admitted that he had examined the Appellant and had found that it was a case of acute psychosis and the Appellant was kept under observation.Certain medicines were also prescribed for the Appellant.He has then deposed that on 14 February 2006 he had advised that the Appellant be discharged.He has further admitted that the Appellant was ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 ::: PNP 12/19 APEAL719-13.3 under his treatment from 24 January 2006 and was responding to his treatment and his condition had improved.The Appellant had again come to him on 2 March 2006 and had declared that he did not want to take treatment from P.W.4 - Dr. Bhonde.Accordingly the treatment was discontinued.Dr. Bhonde has further deposed that on 24 April 2006 he had examined the accused and his status examination was within normal limits.He has admitted that he had not prescribed any medicine, but had prescribed medicinal diet.Similarly, he had examined the Appellant again on 26 May 2006, 1 August 2006 and 29 August 2006 and the result was the same.Subsequently also he had kept the accused under observation, but had opined that the accused be discharged.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::In cross examination he has admitted that when he had examined the Appellant on 27 January 2006, he has observed that the Appellant was quiet and there was no psycho motor excitement.His thoughts were relevant and coherent.Similarly, he has admitted that on 14 February 2006 the condition of the Appellant was much better.Similar was the observation when the Appellant was examined on 22 February 2006 and on subsequent dates.He has admitted that he had found the Appellant to have adequate insight and that the Appellant was mentally fit ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 ::: PNP 13/19 APEAL719-13.3 and was of sound mind and free from symptoms of mental illness.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::The Appellant has examined D.W.3 - Pushpa - sister of the Appellant who deposes that in 2001 the Appellant was afflicted by mental illness and used to assault, abuse and throw articles in his room.Once the Appellant had torn a currency note.She claims that the Appellant was under the treatment of Dr. Sarode for four to five years.She claims that the Appellant in a fit of insanity had assaulted her son as well as the neighbour.She further deposed that on 24 November 2005 deceased Vidya had come to her and complained her that the Appellant was behaving like a "mad person" and needed to be taken to the hospital.She corrected herself to state that Vidya had come in the morning prior to the night of incident.According to her on that day the Appellant had thrown articles out of the house.According to her the Appellant was then placed in an auto-rickshaw and then taken to Dr. Sarode, but unfortunately Dr. Sarode was not available.She has further deposed that at about 3 to 3.30 a.m. the Appellant had come to his house along with his children and the Appellant appeared to be frightened. D.W.3- Pushpa further deposed that she took the Appellant to his house and took Vidya to the YCM Hospital.At the YCM Hospital the medical officer ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 ::: PNP 14/19 APEAL719-13.3 pronounced Vidya as dead.D.W.3 - Pushpa then claims that her brother Balu is also receiving similar treatment from Dr. Sarode.Incidentally we may state that there is no evidence on record that the brother of the Appellant also is being treated for any mental ailment.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::The appellant has a family history - his father was suffering from psychiatric illness.Cause of ailment not known - heredity plays a part.The appellant was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 - diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.Within a short span, soon after the incident from 27-6-1994 to 5-12-1994, he had to be taken for treatment of the ailment 25 times to hospital.The appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment.The weak motive of killing of the wife - being that she was opposing the idea of the appellant resigning the job of a police constable.Killing in daylight - no attempt to hide or run away."::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::PNP 15/19 APEAL719-13.3The Supreme Court upon appreciation of the material at paragraphs 26 and 27 has concluded thus :This oral and documentary evidence clearly shows that the respondent was suffering from epileptic attacks just prior to the incident.Immediately prior to the occurrence, he had behaved violently and had caused injuries to his own family members.After committing the crime, he was arrested by the police and even thereafter, he was treated for insanity, while in jail.Thus, there is evidence to show continuous mental sickness of the respondent.Though the High Court has not discussed this evidence in great detail, but this being an admissible piece of evidence, can always be relied upon to substantiate the conclusion and findings recorded by the High Court."Learned counsel for the Appellant has referred to the unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal 1507 of 2004 dated 6 December 2013 in Ayub Murtaza Pirjade v. The State of Maharashtra.The Division Bench found that the Appellant had been admitted in the hospital almost for a year and was under regular follow up treatment.The Division Bench also found that the Appellant was under treatment even during the pendency of the Appeal.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::PNP 16/19 APEAL719-13.3 Medical Officer at the time of hearing of the Appeal also indicated that the Appellant lacked insight and his judgment was impaired.The Division Bench therefore concluded that in the light of the nature of the evidence which was tendered in that case, the Appellant was entitled to be given the benefit under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the Appellant has further relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal 886 of 2005 dated 3 January 2013 in Ravindra Govind Gawas v. The State of Maharashtra.The Division Bench of this Court at paragraph 12 had noticed the following circumstances which warranted the extending of the benefit to the accused under Section 84 :i. the appellant had a history of psychiatric illness, ii.he was admitted in the Government Mental Hospital for more than 5 months, iii.his mental illness was to such an extent that he was given 11 electric shocks in addition to other treatment, iv.after killing his wife, he made no attempt to hide or run away but he stood there at the spot from 12.30 noon till 9.30 p.m."In the present case, the Appellant has not been able to establish the history of mental ailment or psychiatric illness in the family.The Appellant has not been able to establish the hereditary aspect of the mental illness.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::PNP 17/19 APEAL719-13.3 Though D.W.3 -Pushpa has claimed that her brother i.e. the brother of the Appellant was also undergoing similar treatment, yet no papers had been produced by the Appellant to establish this fact.A vain attempt has been made by the Appellant in the examination of D.W.3 - Pushpa.The case against the Appellant rests on the ocular testimony of the eyewitness.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::However, in the present case P.W.1 Anandrao has clearly deposed that the Appellant had illicit relations and on that score there were quarrels between the Appellant and the deceased.The Investigating Officer in all fairness has admitted that he could not collect any evidence about the illicit relations.Be that as it may, the incident had occurred in the wee hours of the morning.The reason as to why the Appellant assaulted the deceased would remain locked in the impregnable vaults of the mind of the Appellant.There obviously must have been some quarrel before the incident and quarrel had preceded the incident.The Appellant had mercilessly assaulted the deceased and had inflicted several injuries by an iron rod.There is obviously no evidence about mental insanity preceding the incident, nor is there any evidence about the behaviour of the Appellant which would lead to a reasonable inference about the mental illness of the Appellant.Nor is there any evidence of behaviour post the incident which would lead the Court to infer about the mental illness of the Appellant.In short there is no evidence that at the time of committing the act, the Appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act which he was committing.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::PNP 19/19 APEAL719-13.3(P. V. Hardas, J.) (A.S. Gadkari, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard on this second application for bail under Section 439 sh of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the e petitioner Sanjay Ahirwar in crime no.136/2016 registered ad by P.S.-Harpalpur, District-Chhatarpur under Sections 392 and 394 of the IPC.Pr His first application for the same relief had been dismissed by a hy this Court as withdrawn by order dated 17.03.2017 in M.Cr.ad Since the first application was dismissed as withdrawn, this M application is being considered on merits.As per the prosecution case, in the night intervening of 25th of and 26th August 2014, victim Tanu Gupta was going in his rt ou pickup vehicle along with driver Chhotu Raikwar from Harpalpur to Jhansi.On the highway, a swift vehicle overtook C them and four persons came out.They one mobile phone h each from the possession of Tanu Gupta and Chhotu Raikwar ig and Rs.1,500/- from Tanu Gupta, on the point of a country H made pistol.During investigation, petitioner Sanjay Ahirwar was not identified by the victims; however, on the disclosure statement made by petitioner Sanjay Ahirwar, Rs.500/- in cash and two mobile phones looted in the incident were seized.The offence involved loot of only Rs.1,500/- and two mobile phones.The petitioner has been in custody since 05.10.2016; as such, he has spent more than a year and quarter in custody.The two main witnesses namely Tanu Gupta and Chhotu Raikwar had already been examined by the trial Court; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.There is no case against property earlier registered against petitioner.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that there is another case under Section 307 of the IPC, registered against the petitioner.ad It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing M a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- with a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance of before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with rt the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Code of ou Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.C h (C V SIRPURKAR) ig JUDGE H vai Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2018.03.07 21:35:23 -08'00'

['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Ct-33 Kole CRR 1817 of 2019 Chandan Kumar BeraThe State of West Bengal Mr. Mritunjoy Chatterjee, Mr. S. Maity ... for the petitioner.Ms. Sayanti Santra ... for the State.By the impugned order the learned Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner for re-investigation of the case after considering the submissions made by prosecution and the defence.During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation ended in the submission 2 of charge-sheet under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code only.On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the State submits that the Investigating Officer has rightly submitted the charge- sheet after considering the materials in the case diary.From the submission and rival submission made by learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner made prayer for reinvestigation before the learned Trial Court but failed to justify why further investigation was required to be conducted by the Investigating Officer.I have gone through the impugned order.I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.From the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has prayed for further investigation only for adding 3 some sections on the basis of materials already collected by the Investigating Officer.However, Learned Trial Judge is requested to consider the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation at the time of consideration of charge.In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.Hence the same is rejected on due consideration.Accordingly, CRR 1817 of 2019 is disposed of.Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(a) P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix in this case.The father of the prosecutrix is running a cycle tube puncture shop and the mother of the prosecutrix, P.W. 2, is running a tiff in stall.and opposite to his house he is having a portion of a Dharga premises and used the same as a rice grinding shop and he used to accept the rice from the public for grinding with charges.On 7-2-1995, at 6.00 p.m., P.W. 1 went to the place where the accused was having his rice grinding shop and gave rice for grinding and the accused said that she can come collect the rice batter on the next day morning.Thereafter, P.W. 1 went to the house of the accused on the next day morning at 3.00 a. m. and the accused asked her to go to the Dharga and take the rice batter from there, which was kept by him.When P.W. 1 went inside the Dharga the accused also followed her and closed the doors of the Dharga and when P.W. 1 questioned, the accused put a cloth on her mouth, pushed her down and removed her dresses and committed sexual assault on her.Thereafter, the accused is also said to have threatened P.W. 1 that if she informs anyone, he will kill her.P.W. 1 started weeping and left from that place.As she was frightened due to the threat of the accused, she has not informed anyone about the occurrence including her parents.Thereafter, P.W. 2, mother of P.W. 1 and father of P.W. 1 went and questioned the accused along with P.W. 1 and even at that time the accused is said to have threatened all of them with dire consequences.On the same day, P.W. 1 went to D-2, Anna Salai Police Station along with her mother P.W. 2 and father.(b) P.W. 8, the Inspector of Police, stated that P.W. 1 came on 14-2-1995 and informed him about the occurrence and the same was recorded by a person accompanied with her.Ex. P1 is the report and on receipt of the report, Ex. P1, P.W. 8 registered the case in Crime No. 420 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (ii) I. P.C. Ex. P. 12 is the First Information Report.Thereafter, he has examined P. Ws. 1 to 3 and others and recorded their statements.He has also recovered clothes, M. Os.Ex. P. 20 is the Chemical Examination Report.Ex. P. 21 is the Blood Test Report and Ex. P. 22 is the Serologist Report.Ex. P.23 is also the Blood Test Report.JUDGMENT K.N. Basha, J.The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennal, in S. C. No. 341 of 1996 by the judgment dated 19-12-1997 convicting the appellant under Section 376 I. P.C. and sentencing him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also convicting the appellant under Section 506 (ii) I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.This is an unfortunate case wherein, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence of sexual assault inside a sacred place viz., Dharga.The accused faced the trial in the following backdrop:Thereafter, he has sent P. W, 1 for medical examination through the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate under Ex. P. 6, Requisition.He has sent the accused for medical examination under Ex. P. 9. requisition.As per Ex. P. 6, the doctor, P.W. 6, conducted examination of P.W. 1 on 16-2-1995 at 11.00 a. m. and found that P.W. 1 is a moderately nourished female.On the examination of private parts, she made the following observations:Vulva : NormalVagina : Torn at 5 and 7 O'clock position.No fresh.Fourchette, Perineum : IntactCervix : Upwards, uterus anteverted, normal in size.Fornices free, no white discharge.The doctor, P.W. 6, is of the opinion that the prosecutrix could have had sexual intercourse.Ex. P. 8 is the medical examination report issued by the doctor.(f) The doctor, P.W. 7, attached to the Royapettah Hospital, examined the accused on 21-2-1995, as per the requisition, Ex. P.9 received by him.He made the following observations on examination of the accused:Moderately nourished male individual.Well developed genital organs present.Pubic hair present, not matted.Smegma absent.Prepuce circumcised.No injuries seen anywhere on the body.No venereal disease seen.No Urethral discharge present.There is nothing to suggest that the person is impotent/incapable of performing sexual intercourse.The doctor, P.W. 7, is of the opinion that he could not give any opinion regarding the sexual offence said to have been committed by the accused since he was produced fifteen days after the incident.Ex. P. 10 is the medical examination certificate issued by the doctor, P.W.7, in respect of the accused.(g) P.W. 8 has also sent the seized clothes for chemical examination under Ex. P. 18, Requisition.P.W. 8 also examined the doctors, P. Ws. 6 and 7, and recorded their statements.After completion of investigation.P.W. 8 filed the charge sheet against the accused on 26-6-1995 for the offences under Section 376 and 506 (ii) I. P.C.The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, examined P. Ws. 1 to 8, filed Exs.P. 1 to P. 23 and marked M. Os.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied his complicity and he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.Learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that the entire prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of P.W. 1, the prosecutrix and her evidence is self contradictory and the conduct of P.W. 1 not informing about the occurrence to anyone for more than a week throws considerable doubt about her version.It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the explanation given by P.W. 1 that she has not informed anyone including her parents on the ground that she was threatened by the accused not to inform any one is also unacceptable.Learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that though the father and the mother of the prosecutrix, P.W. 1, are said to have accompanied her for giving the report, Ex. P. 1, they have not attested Ex. P. 1 and the non examination of the father of P.W. 1 is also fatal to the prosecution case.Last but not the least submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the medical evidence totally belies the prosecution case as the doctor has not found any external injury or marks of violence on P.W. 1 and further the evidence of the doctor, P.W. 6, shows that P.W. 1 was accustomed to sexual intercourse.Per contra, Mr. Muniapparaj, learned Government advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1, prosecutrix, is quite natural and the same is not suffering from any infirmities.It is further contended by the learned Government Advocate that the delay in informing anyone about the occurrence on the part of P.W. 1 is not fatal to the prosecution case, more particularly in a case of rape, as the victim always hesitates to disclose the occurrence to anyone.The learned Government advocate (Crl.It is also pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that apart from P.W. 2, P.W. 3 also corroborated the version of P.W. 2 about P.W. 1 giving the report to the police.I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side.As far as P.W. 2, the mother of the prosecutrix, P.W. 1, is concerned, she has been examined to speak about the disclosure of the alleged offence of sexual assault committed on her daughter/P.W. 1, as she had informed her about the occurrence nearly after seven days.No fresh.As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), the conviction can be passed on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix if the same is reliable and acceptable.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in State of M.P. v. Dayal Sahu reported in 2005 Crl.L.J. 4375 that, Once the statement of prosecutrix inspires confidence and accepted by the Courts as such, conviction can be passed only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the Courts for corroboration of her statement.In this case, it is the version of P.W. 1 that as per the instruction of her mother/P.W.2, she went to the rice grinding shop of the accused on 7-2-1995 evening at 6.00 p.m. and the accused informed her to come and collect the rice batter on the next day morning at 3.00 a.m. Therefore she went to the house of the accused at 3.00 a.m. on the next morning and the accused asked her to go and take the rice batter which was kept inside the Dharga, adjacent to the house of the accused.Thereafter she went inside the Dharga and took the rice batter and at that time the, accused is said to have closed the door of the Dharga and committed the offence of sexual assault on her forcibly.It is also stated by P.W. 1 that at the time of the alleged occurrence, the accused is said to have caught hold of her hands and made her to lie down forcibly and thereafter removed her jacket and dresses and committed the sexual assault.After the occurrence, she, started weeping and returned back to her house, but, she has not disclosed anything about the occurrence to her parents as she was frightened since the accused threatened her not to disclose about the same to anyone.It is the further case of P. W, 1 that she was continuously weeping up to 14-2-1995 and when her mother/P.W. 2 and her father questioned her on 14-2-1995, she had informed her mother about the occurrence and at that time her father was also present in the house.It is also admitted by P.W. 1 in her cross-examination that while she was weeping from 7-2-1995 to 14-2-1995, in spite of her parents asking her the reason for her weeping she has not disclosed about the occurrence, P.W. 1 went on to state further in the chief examination itself that after disclosing about the occurrence to her mother/P.W. 2 and her father, both her father and P.W. 2, her mother, went and enquired the accused about his conduct along with her and even at that time the accused is said to have threatened all of them with dire consequences.But the fact remains that P.W. 2 has not whispered a word about enquiring the accused after the disclosure made by her daughter, P.W. 1 in respect of the occurrence and also the accused threatening them with dire consequences.P.W. 2 has simply stated that on the disclosure of the occurrence by P.W. 1, she went to the police station to give the report along with her daughter, P.W. 1, and her husband and the occurrence was narrated to the police by P.W. 1, her daughter, which was reduced into writing by the police.P.W. 3, who is the neighbour of P.W. 2, is said to have attested the report.It is also admitted by P.W. 2 that she only asked P.W. 1 to gel rice batter from the shop of the accused at 3.00 a.m. It is also pertinent to note that in the report, Ex. P.1, given by P.W. 1, it is stated that the accused asked her to come and collect the rice batter on the next day morning and only P. W, 1, on her own, went to the house of the accused at 3.00 a.m. and therefore, the present version of P.W. 1 to the effect that the accused asked her to come and collect the rice batter on the next day morning at 3.00 a.m. is proved to be false.Further, the explanation given by P. W, 1 for going to the house of the accused at wee hours is that since it was Ramzan fasting period, she went at 3.00 a.m, to collect the rice batter is also, on the face of it, unbelievable.P.W. 2, mother of P.W. 1, has not whispered a word about this explanation and she has simply stated; that she only asked her to get the rice batter at 3.00 a.m. Added to these infirmities in the evidence of P, W. 1, P.W. 1 also stated in her cross-examination that during the occurrence she has sustained scratches on her hand and she has shown the scratches to the doctor, P.W. 6 and further the doctor, P.W.6, also put medicine on those injuries.But the fact remains that the doctor; P.W.6, has not stated anything about seeing neither scratch injuries nor nail marks on P.W. 1 and on the other hand, the Doctor, P.W. 6 stated that PW1 could have had sexual intercourse and he has not found any fresh wounds and marks of violence.Even during the investigation of P.W. 8, Inspector of Police, P.W. 1 has not stated that she suffered any blood stained injuries on her hand.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo v. State of Orissa , Rape sole testimony of prosecutrix Prosecutrix an unmarried educated woman travelling along with accused at night in a jeep for long distance allegedly for meeting her superior officer - She alleging that accused raped her in his house when they reached there - Her conduct unusual.No rational explanation given as to what urgent official work was there at night.Medical evidence not corroborating her version - No stains of blood or semen on her clothes.She asserting that she was virgin till alleged incident however medical evidence revealing that she was habituated to sex - Many loose ends in prosecution case - Accused entitled to benefit of doubt.In yet another decision relating to the case of rape in Uday v. State of Karnataka reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 775 : 2003 Cri LJ 1539, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that.The Court must also weigh the evidence keeping in view the fact that the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence, absence of consent being one of them.Therefore, in view of the above principles of taw laid down by the Apex Court in respect of rape cases, the evidence of P.W. 1 is highly suspicious as she has not suffered any injury, much less any marks of violence were found on her, coupled with the fact that the medical evidence disclosed that she was accustomed to sexual intercourse and her abnormal conduct of going to the house of the accused at the wee hours at 3.00 a.m. in spite of her version in Ex. P. 1 that the accused asked her to come and collect the rice batter only on the next day morning, it is not possible to rule out that the prosecutrix, P.W. 1, is a consenting party for the sexual act said to have been committed by the accused.There is also serious doubt about the genuineness of Ex. P. 1, the report, said to have been given by P.W. 1, It is the case of P.W. 1 that she went along with her father and mother/ P.W. 2 to the police station to give the report.Further P.W. 1 stated that the report was written by a person accompanied with them and thereafter, she has affixed her thumb impression.But P.W. 1 has not mentioned the name of the person who wrote Ex. P. 1, on the other hand, P.W. 2, mother of P.W. 1, stated that she went to the police station on 14-2-1995 along with her daughter and her husband and her daughter P.W. 1, narrated about the occurrence which was reduced into writing by P.W. 8, Inspector of Police.Inspector of Police, has stated that some other person wrote Ex. P. 1 and he was also not able to give the name of that person and further, it is admitted by P.W. 8, Inspector of Police, that it is not recorded in Ex. P. 1 that the contents of Ex. P. 1 were read over to P.W. 1 and P.W. 1, after accepting the contents, affixed her thumb impression.the report.There is no doubt that the offence of rape is a very serious offence and also inhuman on the part of any person committing such a sexual assault on innocent victim girls.Such serious and grave offenders should be dealt with all seriousness and if the offence is proved, they should be punished with adequate sentence and at the same time, the Court should also guard against false and frivolous cases.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in Rang Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P. that, (Para 22 of Cri LJ) The time tested rule is that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person.Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused.The following infirmities in the evidence of P.W. 1, as stated above, cannot be overlooked:(i) The conduct of P.W. 1 going to the house of the accused at wee hours, at 3.00 a.m. in spite of the specific statement in her report, Ex. P1, that the accused asked her to come and collect the rice batter only on the next morning, throws considerable doubt about the veracity of her version.The medical evidence of the doctor, P.W. 6, to the effect that P.W. 1 was accustomed to sexual intercourse also raises doubt about the alleged commission of sexual assault on her by the accused.(iii) The conduct of PW. 1 that in spite of her weeping right from the alleged date of occurrence on 8-2-1995 till 14-2-1995 and in spite of her being questioned by her parents, the non-disclosure about the occurrence till 14-2-1995 is unbelievable and unacceptable.(v) P.W. 1 's version about giving report to the police is also falsified by several infirmities viz., P.W. 1 stated that she went along with her mother, P.W.2 and her father to the police station and on her narration, one person recorded the version in Ex. P. 1 and thereafter she affixed her thumb impression in the report, Ex. P. 1 and the same was given to the police is also falsified by the version of other witnesses.P.W. 2, her mother, stated that the narration of P.W. 1 about the occurrence was reduced into writing by P.W. 8, inspector of Police.Added to these inconsistent versions, P.W. 3, the attesting witness and P.W. 8, the Inspector of Police, have not stated that P.W. 1 was accompanied with her mother/P.W. 2 and her father.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This is the first anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.397/2014 registered at Police Station-Kurwai, District-Vidisha under Section 420, 467, 468, 406, 506-B/34 of IPC.According to prosecution case, father of the complainant died in the year 2007 and the complainant went to collect his pass-book from State Bank, Barvai where Bank Officials returned the same after two years.Complaint received notice from State Bank intimating that a loan of Rs.79,000/- has been withdrawn.Complainant went of State Bank and saw that photograph of his father is not pasted in the Credit Card.Instead of his father's photograph, photograph of Shriram Pandit has been pasted.Balwant Singh and Datar Singh identified Shriram Pandit.2 M.Cr.When complainant asked Balwant, Datar and Shriram to pay the loan amount, they refused to re-pay the same, thus, report has been lodged.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has not committed any offence.He has falsely been implicated.It is further submitted that applicant is not the beneficiary but he has only identified Shriram Pandit.There is no likelihood of the absconsion of the applicant, hence, prayed for anticipatory bail.Learned Dy.Government Advocate for the non- applicant/State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application.I have perused the case-diary.Taking into consideration the allegations against the applicant and the material collected during investigation and also keeping in view the gravity of the offence, I find that no ground is made out for releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail.Accordingly, M.Cr.

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

CRL.A. 518/2010 MOBIN & ANR ..... Appellants versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, counsel for the appellants in Crl.Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP on behalf of the State CORAM:The appellants Mobin and Moin impugn a judgment and order of Learned Ms. Mamta Tayal, Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Court, Delhi, dated 21.02.2010 in SC No. 64/ 2009, by which they were convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC.They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fined a sum of `10,000 each.In default of payment of fine the convicts would further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months each.For the offence under Section 323/34 IPC, they were further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment Crl.A. Nos.142/2004 & 518/2010 Page 1 for three months each.Mohsin impugns an earlier judgment dated 02-1-2002, in the same Sessions case, by which he was convicted for the same offences, in respect of the same incident.It may be noticed that the prosecution took the matter to trial in two stages.Accused Moin and Mobin could not be arrested, and were declared proclaimed offenders.The Prosecution's story is that one Amir Ahmed used to reside in H. No. 109, Pocket- 8, Durga Park, Dabri, New Delhi, and his son Naeem used to reside at H. No. 120, in the same locality.One Lukman was a tenant in Naeem's House.Mobin, Moin, Mohsin, Rukshana, and Bashir (the accused) were also residents of the same colony.The accused and the family had requested Amir Ahmed to get the matter compromised, but he had refused, and this had led to animosity between the two families and the accused used to frequently threaten Amir Ahmed's family.The prosecution alleged that on 28.8.1998, at about 5.00 PM, Naeem Ahmed and his tenant Lukman had bought an asbestos sheet from the Masjid, to repair the leaking roof of their house, and were keeping it outside their house, when Mobin went to them asking why they had brought the sheet.On being countered by Naeem Ahmed, he threatened him and left the place.In a short while, just after a few minutes, he returned with his other family members- Rukshana, Bashir, Mohsin (all three convicts) and Yasin @ Asim (JCL).Moin had a churra in his hand and Mobin had an iron rod.Moin attacked Naeem Ahmed with the churra and caused a stab injury on his forehead.Mobin attacked Naeem Ahmed and his father Amir Ahmed with the iron rod.Rukshana, her husband Munna, and her brothers Mohsin and Asim kicked and punched Naeem Ahmed, his father, Amir Ahmed and his wife Shammi.Amir Ahmed was injured on his head, Crl.A. Nos.142/2004 & 518/2010 Page 2 face and other parts of his body and was bleeding profusely.He ran from the spot to make a call to the police, but fell down on the way.All the accused persons fled from the place of occurrence.The police were informed and the injured were taken to the hospital, where Amir Ahmed was declared brought dead.PW-5 Naeem Ahmed the complainant stated that on 28.08.1998, at about 05.00 PM., he had brought some cement sheets from a Masjid, to his house with the help of his tenant Mohd. Lukman (PW- 9), to repair of the roof.Mobin, who was also a resident of the Colony, went and inquired why he had bought cement sheets.He replied asking him why he was asking him about it.Mobin went away and returned with his brother Moin, Mohsin, Rukshana, Asim, and Bashir @ Munna.Mobin was carrying an iron rod and Moin had a churra with him.All of them attacked him, and then Mobin attacked him and his father with the iron rod.His father suffered an injury on his head.All this happened outside his house.They again caught hold of his father and attacked him with the rod and the churra.On hearing cries, his wife came out.She too was beaten by all of them and suffered injuries on her back.PW-5 was injured on his forehead and shoulder with the iron rod.The police arrived and they were taken to Safdarjung Hospital.His father had died at the spot due to injuries.The assailants fled from the spot.In cross examination, he correctly identified Mobin and Moin in Court.He also spoke about Anwar, the brother in law of the two accused, who had been arrested on charges of rape.He said that the two accused and their family members had asked his father Amir Ahmed, the deceased, to compromise the matter with their neighbour, (whose daughter, he had allegedly raped).But his father had refused, and this had led to them nursing a grudge against his father.PW-15 Shammi, the second eye-witness is the complainant's wife.08.1998, her husband had bought a concrete sheet from a mosque.Mobin @ Guddu saw the sheet at their house, objected to it, and started quarrelling with her husband at about 5.00 pm.Her father-in-law was also present there at that time.Then he left, but returned just a few minutes later with co-accused Moin and other members of his family, namely, Mohsin, Rukshana, Bashir, Munna and Asim.Mobin had an iron rod and Moin had a churra and they attacked her father in law, who sustained injuries on his head.They assaulted her husband and her as well.She said that two-three days before the incident, the accused's family members Crl.A. Nos.142/2004 & 518/2010 Page 5 sought the deceased's help, to arrive at a compromise with his neighbour, Panditji, whose daughter, Anwar, the brother-in-law of the two accused had allegedly raped.But he had refused, due to which they bore ill- will against them.In the cross- examination, she stated that she went to the immediate vicinity of the incident only after hearing the cries.She said that she was assaulted by Rukshana and the others, and could not remember who had actually hit her as they were all together.She stated that she was attacked by a wooden danda.PW-8 Mohd. Shamshad, a mason by profession, was, on the day of the incident, called by Naeem (PW-5), to install a concrete sheet at his house.He reached there at about 4.15 PM.He met Naeem and Lukman (PW-9).In his presence, the two accused Mobin and Moin came there, and asked Naeem and Lukman as to with whose permission, they had taken the concrete sheet from the Masjid.An altercation took place between them and in the meanwhile other family members of the accused came there armed with danda and Churri.Amir Ahmed, father of Naeem also came there.He was also attacked, and sustained serious injuries on his head and face.Charges were framed against the other accused, Ruksana, Mohsin, and Bashir.Yasin, being a juvenile, was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board.By judgment and order dated 4-1-2002, Ruksana and Bashir were acquitted of the charges of having committed the offence under Sections 302 IPC; they were convicted for the offences under Sections 323/34 IPC and given probation.Mohsin was however, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.Later, after arrest of the other accused, Moin and Mobin, they were sent to trial.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by another judgment dated 20-01-2010, convicted them of the offences under Sections 302/323/34 IPC and sentenced them inter alia, to undergo life imprisonment, besides other prison terms and fine.Rukshana, Mohsin, Bashir and Yasin were arrested immediately and sent for trial.A separate trial was initiated against the Juvenile Yasin and he was acquitted by the juvenile board.Mobin and Moin evaded arrest for five years.They were declared PO, but were subsequently arrested, charge sheeted and their case was committed to Sessions.A separate trial SC No. 64/09 was initiated against them.They were charged under Sections 302/323/ 34 IPC, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Over the course of the trial 19 witnesses were produced by the Prosecution.The Trial Court relied on testimonies of the two injured witnesses PW-5 Naeem Ahmed and PW-15 on the basis that not only were they injured witnesses, (which added a special credence to their testimonies as it conclusively proved that they were eye-witnesses to the entire incident, as per the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (SC) 2009 (4) R.C.R Criminal 253); but also because they had been consistent in their statements, and had withstood the rigours of cross examination.They had deposed in the trial of Rukshana, Mohsin and Munna, and had been consistent there as well.He had also deposed that his clothes had been blood-stained.It was argued that the Trial Court failed to consider the fact that in the trial against Mohsin, Rukshana and Bashir, PW-5 had deposed that Mohsin had been holding the churra, but in this trial he had deposed that Moin had been wielding the churra.The Trial Court, says counsel, failed to appreciate the fact that PW-5 had stolen the asbestos sheet from the mosque, and hence an angry mob from the mosque had attacked PW-5, PW-15 and the deceased, and that when Amir Ahmed ran away to make a call to the police, he slipped on the stairs and hurt himself.This aspect was material during the trial.It was argued that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate that Mobin had been in Aligarh at the time of the incident as was deposed by DW-1, a police officer who stated that he had come to the Police Station to report that this purse was missing.It was argued that there were three eyewitnesses, who had spoken about the attack, and the surrounding facts, during the investigation.The deceased's son and daughter in law too supported this version.This was backed by the evidence of PW-9; and so, the accused's effort to discredit such ocular testimonies was unsuccessful.The attack on the deceased, as well as the injured eyewitnesses was corroborated by independent documentary evidence.It was next submitted that though the incident was the result of a quarrel, which took place between the deceased and the Appellants, the further circumstance that the latter used dangerous or deadly weapons, proved their intention which was to murder the deceased.The police were informed; they arrived at the scene and took the injured to the hospital.He made a statement to the Police.He also stated that Mobin had an iron rod and Mohsin had a churra.In his cross examination, he stated that his statement was recorded after fifteen daysPW-9 Mohd. Lukman was a tenant in the complainant's (PW-5's) house.At 4/4.15 PM, Naeem and PW-9 had bought a cement sheet from a nearby Masjid and placed it outside their house.Naeem had also called a mason to install the sheets.When they were fixing the sheets Mobin came; there was a verbal dispute between him and Amir Ahmed (the deceased, father of Naeem).Supporters from both sides started pelting stones at each other.Amir Ahmed sustained injuries on his head, Naeem sustained injuries above his eye.By this time, the police arrived and Naeem and Amir Ahmed were taken to the hospital.This witness could not recall the weapons carried by Mobin and the other accused persons.He was cross- examined as he partly resiled from his Section 161 statement.He was questioned on whether Mobin had been carrying an iron rod and whether Naeem and Amir Ahmed, (the deceased) had been attacked with a knife and a rod.He said he could not remember such details as the incident had taken place about eleven years back.But he did state that on the day of the incident, he had told the police whatever he had seen.It is settled law that where the prosecution case is based on the evidence of eye witnesses, the existence or non-existence of motive, sufficiency, or its insufficiency will not play Crl.A. Nos.142/2004 & 518/2010 Page 6 a major role as it would, in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence.If the prosecution is able to prove its case on motive it will be a corroborative piece of evidence.But even if the prosecution has not been able to prove its case on motive, that will not be a ground to throw overboard the prosecution case because merits of the prosecution will have to be decided on the basis of the merits of the evidence of such witnesses ((1993 Cri LJ 1656)Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana).Moin reached there, and a quarrel between him and the deceased (father of PW-5) took place.Moin went away, and reached the spot, this time with other accused.A fight or altercation appears to have occurred, in the course of which the deceased received fatal injuries.This is corroborated by PW-8, the mason called in to fix the asbestos sheet, and PW-15, the deceased's daughter in law.The use of a churri or sharp edged weapon, and also of a danda (stick) is proved independently, through the testimony of PW-11, the postmortem doctor, who in his report listed five injuries on the deceased.Interestingly, PW-9 also mentioned that when the attack took place, both sides were attacking each other and pelting stones.The injuries on the eyewitnesses Naeem and others was corroborated by the MLCs placed on the record.The testimony of Naeem (PW-5) is that Mobin had an iron rod; Moin had a churra (dagger).However, the testimonies of PW-8 and PW-9, the other two eyewitness, are unclear as to who was armed with what weapon.The injuries - testified to by PW-16, which caused the death of Amir Ahmed, were the result of rod, or danda blows (Injury Nos. 2 and 5).The doctor also stated that Injury Nos. 3 and 4 could have been caused by a fall on the ground.The question, in these circumstances, is as to what was the intention of the accused, and whether all of them would be guilty of the same offence.It would now be necessary to consider whether the prosecution, which has successfully proved the presence and identity of the Appellants before the court, was able to prove that they had the common intention with the aggressor, so as to be criminally responsible Crl.A. Nos.142/2004 & 518/2010 Page 7 for murder.A lacerated wound on the left side of scalp was found.The appellant went to him (the deceased) to question as to why he had transferred his lands.The appellants on bail are directed to surrender to the Trial Court and undergo remainder of their sentences.The matter Crl.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Arguments heard.Case diary perused.This is first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of applicant Rehan Khan, who is apprehending his arrest in relation to Crime No.44/2018 registered at Police Station Kohefiza, District Bhopal (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A and 506 of the IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.According to the prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is that he assaulted the victim with a view to outrage her modesty.He is falsely implicated because applicant's father has lodged FIR on 1.1.2018 and 3.1.2018 against the father and brother of the complainant with regard to quarrel.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required and will co-operate in the investigation.Certified copy as per rules.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The allegations are omnibus.In The High Court At Calcutta 1 Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Indrajit Chatterjee CRM No.2037 of 2014 Gibesh BarmanThe State of West Bengal Mr. Syed Julfikar Ali ...for the petitioner.Mr. Madhusudan Sur ...for the State.Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J:- The petitioner in the CRM saying that he is apprehending arrest in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No.124 of 2013 dated February 28, 2013 under ss.493/376/385/307 IPC (s.302 IPC added subsequently) is seeking bail under s.438 CrPC.Advocate for the petitioner has submitted as follows.At the date of the incident the petitioner was not in house.He was staying elsewhere.Some of the accused have been granted bail.Advocate for the State producing the case diary has submitted as follows.The petitioner was named in the FIR.The statements of the witnesses reveal that the victim was staying at the place of the petitioner from December 16, 2012, and that the petitioner's brother inducing the victim to come with him promised in a village mediation to marry the victim and also to keep her in his house.The dying declaration is that the 2 victim was set on fire by one Monika Barman.It appears that Monika is the petitioner's mother.For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM.Certified xerox.

['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(i) PW.1 is the daughter of the deceased.PW.2 is the husband of PW.1.PW.3 is another daughter.The accused, in the instant case, is the youngerbrother of the deceased.They were the residents of R.Kombaipatti.A few daysprior to the occurrence, the deceased sent his men to pick out groundnuts fromthe field.The same was objected to by the accused.Since there was a disputebetween them over the land, the workers returned.They informed the same to thedeceased.(ii) On 23.11.2004 at about 6.00 a.m., the deceased proceeded to thefield.They went near the field.They foundthe deceased and the accused were quarrelling over their land dispute.At thattime, the accused took MO.1 aruval, attacked him on his head and also ondifferent parts of the body.Not satisfied with that, he took a towel andstrangulated him.As a result, the deceased Sankar died instantaneously.Though PW.1 and PW.2 went nearby the occurrence, they were criminallyintimidated.(iii) PW.1 and others went to the respondent police station where PW.11was the Sub Inspector of Police on duty at 8.30 a.m., gave a report Ex.(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) Challenge is made to the judgment of Principal Sessions Division, Dindiguldated 5.4.2007 made in S.C.No.19 of 2006 whereby the appellant/sole accusedstood charged, tried and found guilty under sections 302 IPC and 506 (2) of IPCand awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a defaultsentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment for the first charges; and three yearsrigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of 9months rigorous imprisonment for the second charge.The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal canbe stated as follows:Onthe strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.309/2004 underSections 302 IPC.Printed F.I.R Ex.P.5 was sent to the Court and to the higherofficials.(iv) On receipt of a copy of the F.I.R, PW.12, Inspector of Police,attached to the respondent police station, took up investigation, proceeded tothe scene of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses andprepared an Observation Mahazer Ex.P.6 and also a rough sketch Ex.Heconducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence ofpanchayatdars and prepared an Inquest Report Ex.He recovered the materialsobjects available from the place of occurrence.(v) The dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem by PW.7,attached to the Government Hospital, Dindigul and he found injuries as describedin the post-mortem certificate Ex.P.3 wherein he has opined that the deceasedwould appear to have died due to head injury, about 10-12 hours prior toautopsy.(vi) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 24.11.2004.During investigation, the accused gave a confessional statement and theadmissible part of that evidence was marked as Ex.Pursuant to theconfession, he produced an aruval MO.1 in the presence of witnesses and the samewas recovered under the cover of mahazer Ex.(viii) On completion of the investigation, PW.12 filed a final reportagainst the accused/appellant as per the charges.The case was committed to theCourt of Sessions.Necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution examined 12 witnesses and relied on 14 Exhibits and 9 MOs.Oncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused wasquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances found inthe evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which was flatly denied on the partof the accused.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court after hearingthe arguments advanced by either side and on considering the materials availableon record, took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyondreasonable doubts and found the accused/appellant guilty of the charges andawarded punishments as referred to above.Aggrieved over the same, the accusedhas brought forth this appeal before this Court.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr. K.ThirumalaiRaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit asfollows:-(i) In the instant case, the prosecution has only two eye-witnesses viz.PW.1 was the daughter.PW.2 was the son-in-law of the deceased.The deceased was actually in inimical terms with the accused since there was aland dispute.Thus, PW.1 and PW.2 were not only interested in the deceased butalso inimical to the accused.Their evidence if scrutinised should have beenrejected by the trial Court.(ii) Apart from that, their evidence is not only inconsistent to eachother but also self-contradictory.Under the circumstances, their evidence isnot worth mentioning to connect the accused with the crime.(iii) The ocular testimony projected by PW.1 and PW.2 was nevercorroborated with the medical evidence.(iv) The arrest, confession and the alleged recovery were all cooked upaffairs in order to strengthen the prosecution case.Thus, the prosecution hadno evidence worth mentioning to offer.(v) Even assuming that the prosecution has proved the fact that it was theaccused, who attacked the deceased and thereby caused death, it was neitherintentional nor deliberate because even as per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2,there was a quarrel and in the quarrel, the accused attacked with aruval.However, injuries were found to be simple and actually, the occurrence had takenplace in the natural course.PW.7 Doctor has given his opinion that the injuryfound on the skull was the bane for his death and that would be possible byfalling on the ground also, for which the accused cannot be found guilty.(vi) Even though if the act of the accused found to be proved, it wouldonly attract the penal provision of Section 324 of IPC.Accordingly, this legalaspect has got to be considered by this Court.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions.The Court paid its utmost attention to the submissions and made athorough scrutiny on the entire materials available on record.It is not a fact in controversy that one Sankar, the father of PW.1 wasdied out of homicidal violence in the occurrence that took place on 23.11.2004.Following the inquest made by the investigator, the dead body of the deceasedwas subjected to post-mortem by Doctor PW.7, who has given his opinion in Ex.P.3post-mortem certificate that the deceased died out of head injury, about 10 -12 hours prior to autopsy.The fact that the deceased died out of homicidalviolence was never questioned by the appellant at any stage of the proceedings.Hence, it has got to be recorded factually so.In order to substantiate the fact that it was the accused/appellant whoattacked him and caused his death, the prosecution has marched two witnesses.Itis true, PW.1 is the daughter and PW.2 is the son-in-law of the deceased.It isthe well settled position of law that merely on the ground of relationship ofthe witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded.In the instant case, PW.1 andPW.2 have clearly spoken in one voice that when they were nearing the deceased,actually, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused, in which,the accused took an aruval and attacked the deceased on the head and not-satisfied with that, he took a towel and pressed his neck and the deceased diedinstantaneously.When PW.1 and PW.2 tried to rescue him, they were criminallyintimidated.The ocular testimony stood fully corroborated by the evidence ofPW.7 who opined that injury No.5 found on the skull was the reason for thedeath.The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 inspires the confidence of the Court.Hence, the contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant thatmerely falling on the ground, such an injury could be inflicted and that otherinjuries were simple and the death had not been brought out by the act of theaccused cannot be countenanced.Yet another circumstance is the recovery of weapon of the crime fromthe accused pursuant to his confession, which was recorded by the investigatorin the presence of two witnesses.That part of evidence remains unshakendespite the cross-examination.The lower Court has thoroughly accepted thatpart of evidence.All these would go to show that the prosecution has proved the factthat it was none but the accused who attacked his brother and caused his death.The accused had attacked the deceased with an aruval and injury No.5was actually caused by him.It is evident from the ocular testimony, whichstood fully corroborated by the medical evidence.It would be quite clear that this wordyaltercation caused sudden provocation in attacking the deceased with an aruvaland causing his death.However, the contention put-forth by the learned counselfor the appellant that the act would attract only Section 324 IPC can not beaccepted.However, the Court is of the considered opinion that it will beappropriate to convict the appellant under Section 304 (Part - II) of IPC andawarding 5 years of rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence under Section 302 and 506 (2) of IPCare set aside.Instead, the appellant/accused is convicted under Section 304(Part II) of IPC and awarded five years rigorous imprisonment.Fine amount, ifany, was already paid by the appellant under section 302 IPC, the same shall berefunded to the appellant.The conviction and sentence under Section 506(2)IPC are confirmed.The sentences are to run concurrently.The period of sentencealready undergone by the appellant shall be given set off.The Criminal Appealis disposed of accordingly.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.2.Inspector of Police, Eriyodu, Eriyodu Taluk, Dindigul District.(Crime No.309/2004).3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

C.c.as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)Heard finally at motion stage.This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27.10.2016 passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, Khategaon, District Dewas in Cri.Appeal No.207/2013, whereby he partly allowed the appeal by modifying the conviction and sentence passed by JMFC, Khategaon in Cri.Case No.766/2008 dated 14.8.2013, wherein learned Judge found the applicant guilty for offence under Section 456, 354, 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months RI with fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine further fifteen days' SI.As per prosecution case on 24.12.2008 at 2.00 AM in the night when complainant was sleeping in varndah applicant came and touched her breast.On that complainant awaked and saw the applicant standing nearby her bed and shouted, upon which the applicant closed her mouth and threatened to kill her.When her husband returned from Indore she lodged a report of the incident at P.S., Nemawar and Police registered Crime No.111/2008 and after investigation charge sheet was filed against the applicant.On that charge sheet, Cri.Case No.766/2008 was registered against the applicant and the trial Court framed charge under Section 456, 354, 324 and 506-B of IPC against the applicant and tried him and after recording of evidence acquitted the accused under Section 506-B of IPC but found him guilty under Section 456, 354 and 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.100/- on each count.Against this, applicant filed Cri.Appeal No.207/2013, which was partly allowed by Addl.Being aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed.He is first offender and was remained in Jail since 27.10.2016 and no incident of bad behaviour or uncooperative attitude was reported against the applicant.Further the applicant has no criminal past nor was he involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to this incident.So he be released on sentence already undergone.Certainly the pre and past incidents, conduct of the applicant, cannot be lost sight and can be taken as mitigating circumstances.The applicant be released forthwith if he is not required in any other crime.Accordingly this revision petition is partly allowed in the terms indicated above.A copy of this order be sent to the Court of JMFC, Khategaon for information and necessary compliance.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

C.R.R. 2744 OF 2016 SB Ct. No. 30 (C.R.A.N. 3215 of 2018) Ritam Bhaumik & Ors.The State of West Bengal & Anr.Mr. Anirban Mitra Mr. Sajal Kanti Bhattacharyya Mr. Subhasish Banerjee Mr. Biswajit Sardar Mr. Arun Bandyopadhyay Mr. Sarthak Burman Ms. Nipa Mullick Mr. Amit Halder .... For the petitioners .Mr. Imran Ali Ms. Debjani Sahu ..... For the State By an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioners have sought for quashing of the proceeding arising out of Baranagar P.S. Case No. 398 of 2016 dated 27.05.2016 under section 342/354/357/509/120B of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3181 of 2016 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas.The facts in brief giving rise to the present application are as follows:Disputed questions of fact are matters to be decided by evidence during the trial.

['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Abhinav Sarup Sharma lodged a complaint with the police that on 2.4.2005, he went to drop his cousin sister (Buaji's daughter) in Ram Nagar, Tilak Nagar.At about 12.30 -1.00 P.M., while he was returning to his home, the present petitioner Sh.Raj Crl.P.228/2008 Page 1 of 8 Kumar Sharma who happens to be his Uncle came in front of him and hit him on the head with a baseball bat.P.228/2008 Page 1 of 8In the meantime, the grandfather of the complainant Anand Sarup Sharma also came out and shouted that Raj Kumar should eliminate the complainant.Raj Kumar is living in the adjoining portion to his sister's house, who happens to be the Bua of the complainant and whose daughter he had gone to drop.Two boys are alleged to have come out from the residence of Raj Kumar Sharma and started beating the complainant with leg and fist blows.The complainant started bleeding due to injuries as he was hit on the head with a baseball bat.The Uncle and the grandfather of the complainant caught hold of the two arms of the complainant while as the boys took out their belt and started hitting the same over the person of the complainant.Admittedly, in the present case, the attack on the complainant seems to be pre-planned as the same is fortified from the fact that the grandfather of the complainant himself shouted for taking the life of the complainant so that there is no one to chase the pending litigation between the petitioner and his father on the one side and the family of the complainant on the other.So far as the learned counsel for the complainant is concerned, he has contended that the nature of the injuries could not be said to be simple, as admittedly the MLC shows that the complainant had received six stitches and it was only providence which saved the complainant, otherwise the petitioner and his father were bent upon liquidating the complaint.P.228/2008 Page 4 of 8Through: Mr. M.N.Dudeja, APP Mr.A.S.Sharma, Adv.for the complainant.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.K. SHALIWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?V.K. SHALI, J. (oral)The Uncle of the complainant shouted that since the complainant and his father are contesting litigation against the assailants therefore, if the complainant is eliminated, there will be no one to follow the cases.The wife of Raj Kumar is alleged to have thrown a brick which hit the complainant.The complainant was also hit on the back with the help of a hockey by the grandfather.As a consequence of the entire episode, the complainant is stated to have suffered injuries which were two Contused Lacerated Wounds of 2 Crl.P.228/2008 Page 2 of 8 cms x 0.5 cms and 1.5 cms x 0.5 cms over the mid frontal region of the scalp and the injuries were opined to be simple.P.228/2008 Page 2 of 8The investigating agency filed a charge sheet and the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the statements and documents on record came to the conclusion that prima facie a case of attempt to culpable homicide is made out, therefore, the petitioner along with the other co-accused persons were charged for an offence under Section 308 IPC.The petitioner feeling aggrieved by this has assailed the said order.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP and the learned counsel for the complainant who is also present.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the nature of injuries on the complainant are opined to be simple by the doctor, therefore, no charge u/S 308 IPC can be sustained.The petitioner in order to support her point has placed reliance on judgments titled Surinder Kumar Vs.State 1996 V AD (Delhi) 345 and P.K.Ghosh Vs.On the basis of these authorities, it has been contended that as in the present case as the injuries were simple and there was no intention or knowledge attributable to the petitioner that it could have resulted in homicide of the complainant, therefore, the charge could not have been framed.P.228/2008 Page 3 of 8P.228/2008 Page 3 of 8The learned APP has contested the arguments of the defence counsel and urged that merely because the nature of injuries are opined to be simple, it does not warrant the dilution of the charge from Section 308 IPC to one u/S 323 IPC.It has been contended that while considering a prima facie case as to whether a charge under Section 308 IPC is made out against the petitioner or not only the nature of injury is to be seen but even other attendant circumstances are also to be borne in mind.P.228/2008 Page 4 of 8I have carefully considered the submissions of all the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as the relevant documents.P.228/2008 Page 5 of 8The attack on the complainant was not on the spur of moment.

['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The allegation against the applicant is of assaulting the complainant and his associates with certain weapons and causing minor injuries which were subsequently discovered as grevious adding the provisions of Section 326 of IPC.It is seen that a cross-case bearing crime no. 376/13 has also been registered against the complainant party where the the applicant was found to have sustained frontal bone depression due to farsa blow as per the CT scan report.

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

PW3/A is that the complainant Mohd.Irshad, aged about 25 years was a rickshaw puller who was living on rent alongwith some Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 1 of 12 other persons in house No.14/36, Gali No.1 in front of Arvind Rickshaw Garage, Arya Nagar.He is native of Distt.Madhey Pura, Bihar.On 05.09.2009, after having dinner at Dhaba in Jagat Puri, he was returning home and when he was walking on the pavement of drain (nala) side across Parwana Road, at about 10.00 or 10.15 pm, one motorcycle No.DL-13S-A-2134 stopped near him and two boys, whose names were subsequently revealed as Varun Kumar and 'R' (name withheld being juvenile), showed him a knife and made him to sit on the motorcycle.While Varun Kumar was driving the motorcycle, 'R' was sitting behind him with a knife on his back and they took him to Manglam Marg, AGCR colony.They stopped in front of the house next to Manglam Hospital and after getting down from the motorcycle, they started beating him with belt.Varun also took knife from 'R' and showed the same to him and thereafter 'R' also started beating him with belt and asked him to handover whatever he had or otherwise he would be killed.When Varun tried to put his hand in his pocket, the complainant also put his hand on his pocket and in the meantime, police arrived and saved him.A perusal of the testimony of these two witnesses would reveal that all material aspects including the place of occurrence where the offence was committed, there are material contradictions.As per PW-2 Mr.Sheel Sharma, he was going in his Car bearing registration No.DL-1C-F-0277 and at about 10.15/10.30 PM when he reached near Bus Stand, Jagat Puri, he saw two boys forcibly taking one Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 4 of 12 boy on the point of khukhri on motorcycle No.2134 make Hero Honda Splendor of blue-black colour.He informed the PCR at number '100' and PCR reached.Local police from PS Preet Vihar also reached and they started searching the assailants in the direction in which they had left that place.Across the drain (nala) at some distance they saw both the boys (appellant and the juvenile) giving beating to that boy who was taken away forcibly and both the boys were apprehended.Some other police officials also came there who conducted the proceedings.Police recovered the Khukri with wooden cover from the possession of accused Varun Kumar and sealed and seized the same.He also stated that all the writing work was done in the police station.From his statement, the vital details regarding the incident are :-A. No.105/2012 Page 4 of 12(i) He had seen two boys taking away third boy when he reached in his car near Bus Stand, Jagat Puri.(ii) He saw from the running car that a boy was being taken on the point of Khukri and note complete registration number of the motorcycle i.e. DL-13S-A-2134 make Hero Honda Splendor of blue-black colour as recorded in DD No.38-A (Ex.PW5/A)He also handed over the knife to his associate who put the knife on his (PW-3) back and took him towards AGCR Colony at Manglam Marg where appellant Varun Kumar gave beating to him with belt.The younger boy asked him as to what he was seeing and he replied that he was simply going.The younger boy gave him two-three Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 6 of 12 slaps and the latter one took out a knife and asked him to sit on the vehicle.He was forced to sit on the vehicle.He raised alarm 'bachao- bachao' but he was told that nobody would come to save him.Then the younger boy was handed over the knife and the elder one drove the vehicle.The younger boy continued putting knife on his back and he was brought to Manglam Marg Road, Industrial Area where he was made to get down and beaten with belts 2-4 times.They demanded the money and when he said that he was not having the money, he was shown the knife.After half-an-hour, police arrived and he was saved.It is worthwhile to mention that the DD No.38-A Ex.PW5/A recorded at 10.35 pm at PS Preet Vihar does not contain the name of informant PW-2 Sheel Sharma or his mobile number from which he informed the PCR.Rather DD No.38-A is the information given by Operator through Intercom and from the information recorded, it can be made out that two boys on knife point had taken away towards Preet Vihar.There is no mention of PCR officials leaving for the spot.As per this DD, only ASI Shankar Lal left for the spot to whom this DD was assigned.How the police party reached the spot near Manglam Hospital is again a mystery.In the instant case, even if the offence of extortion is held to be not made out for want of delivery of the property atleast, the offence of attempt to commit extortion is clearly made out.' Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 11 of 12A. No.105/2012 Page 11 of 12The appellant Varun Kumar is aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2011 vide which the learned ASJ has convicted him for committing the offence punishable under Section 365/398/34 IPC.The appellant was sentenced under Section 365/34 IPC to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.500/- and also under Section 398/34 IPC to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs.1000/- and both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.In brief, the case of the prosecution as made out from the complaint Ex.He prayed for legal action against the offenders.Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 1 of 12A knife was also recovered from the spot.On the basis of endorsement made by ASI Shankar Lal, who alongwith Ct.Satender Kumar reached the spot on receiving DD No.38-A Ex.PW5/A, case FIR no.505/2009 under Sections 365/323/506/34 IPC was registered at PS Preet Vihar and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.The appellant was charged by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 392/511/34 r/w 397 IPC and Section 367/34 IPC.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 2 of 12 in all i.e. PW-1 HC Johnson - the Duty Officer, PW-2 Mr.A. No.105/2012 Page 2 of 12- the public witness, PW-3 - the complainant/victim, PW-4 HC Satender Kumar who accompanied the IO to the spot and PW-4 ASI Shankar Lal- the Investigating Officer.During his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant/accused has taken the plea that on 05.09.2009 at about 8.00 pm when he was going to Preet Vihar, he was stopped by the police at Jagat Puri Barricade and was asked to show the documents.As he was not having the documents, he was sent home to bring the documents.When he reached the police station alongwith the documents to take back his bike, on his inability to pay Rs.3,000/-, he was put in lock-up and falsely implicated in this case.Believing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses especially the public witness i.e. PW-2 Mr.Sheel Sharma and the complainant PW-3 Mohd. Irshad, learned Trial Court was of the view that the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 did not suffer from any infirmity and guilt of the accused was proved beyond any reasonable doubt.On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that the entire testimony of prosecution witnesses has to be discarded for the reason that material contradictions have appeared on record which are sufficient to disbelieve them.Not only that, the complainant has also deposed in an unnatural manner.The MLC of the complainant revealed that there was no fresh injury at the time of his medical examination, so the testimony of the complainant that he was given beating with belts and Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 3 of 12 attempt to rob him at knife point, has to be rejected in view of the fact that as per the police witnesses, a knife was recovered from the hand of Varun whereas the statement of the complainant PW-3 Mohd. Irshad is that knife was thrown and later on searched by the police officials and recovered.It has been further submitted that about the place of occurrence also there are material contradictions as to whether attempt to rob him was made near drain (nala) or near Manglam Hospital and apart from that while PW-2 has referred to presence of other police officials also near Bus Stand, Jagat Puri when the local police has arrived, no such police official has been examined or cited as a witness by the prosecution.The manner in which the entire story has been concocted makes it unbelievable and appellant is entitled to be acquitted.Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 3 of 12On behalf of State, it has been submitted that the prosecution case has been duly supported by the statements of public witness i.e. PW-2 Mr.9. Learned ASJ has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 365/398/34 IPC believing the testimony of the complainant PW-3 Mohd. Irshad as well the public witness PW-2 Mr.Sheel Sharma.(iii) He did not raise any alarm or made an effort to save the victim from the offenders, instead, he preferred not to chase them from safe distance, rather the three left the spot and he continued waiting at the same place for the police to arrive and then the police party and he left in search for them in the direction in which they left.(iv) When he witnessed the occurrence, the victim was given beating by the offenders before taking him away forcibly.(v) Khukri/knife was recovered from the possession of the appellant Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 5 of 12 Varun Kumar.A. No.105/2012 Page 5 of 12Statement of PW-3 Mohd.Irshad, the complainant is to the effect that he was a rickshaw puller.On 05.09.2009 at about 10.00/10.15 pm after taking meal from a Dhaba, he was returning home.When he reached near Bus Stop across the road near drain, two boys came there on motorcycle.Appellant Varun Kumar was carrying a knife who slapped him and made him to sit on the motorcycle.While giving beating to him, the appellant and his associate asked him to handover the money and whatever he was carrying.At that point of time, the police arrived at the spot, apprehended the appellant and his associate, took the keys of the motorcycle and recovered the knife with cover from the pocket of accused Varun Kumar.Thereafter all of them were taken to the police station.He also stated that he made statement under Section 164 CrPC Ex.PW3/B before learned Magistrate.In cross examination, PW-3 Mohd. Irshad has stated that the distance from the place he was taken on the motorcycle and the place where he was beaten is about 750 meters and there was no public person present there.The statement under Section 164 CrPC made by this witness regarding the occurrence is to the effect that when he was returning after having his food, he was stopped by two persons on motorcycle.On seeing the police, the knife was thrown behind.When he informed the police about the knife, police made search for the knife and thereafter they were brought to the police station.Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 6 of 12The MLC of the complainant Mohd. Irshad shows that he was taken to Lal Bahadur Shashtri Hospital, Khichri Pur, Delhi on 06.09.2009 at 7.34 AM with alleged history of assault.Absence of any fresh injury on the body falsifies the statement of the complainant Mohd. Irshad that he was repeatedly given beating with belt by the appellant.Causing injuries with a belt leaves the mark which cannot vanish within 7-8 hours which is the time gap between the occurrence and medical examination.It is relevant to mention here that if three grown up persons are riding on motorcycle, the person on whose back the knife has been put, during driving, the point of knife is bound to Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 7 of 12 leave some injury mark on the back of the victim especially for the reason that date of occurrence is night intervening 5/6-09-2009 when woolen clothes are not worn and if a person is wearing ordinary summer clothes, while riding on motorcycle with force of knife put on the back by another pillion rider, likelihood of being hurt from the point of knife, are very strong.But as already referred, as per MLC there is no injury mark on any part of the body and there was no fresh injury on the person of Mohd. Irsahd.So the entire case of prosecution regarding use of knife in an attempt to commit robbery is falsified from the MLC.A. No.105/2012 Page 7 of 12Statement of PW-4 HC Satender Kumar and PW-5 ASI Shankar Lal regarding who reached the spot whether any police official from PCR was also present there at the spot where Sheel Sharma was waiting for the police or when the local police arrived, is also full of contradictions and in total contrast to what PW-2 and PW-3 stated about the proceedings being conducted which as per them was at the Police Station and as per PW-4 sand PW-5 was at the spot.As per PW-3 the police arrived there of its own and Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 8 of 12 saved him.As per the rukka Ex.PW5/B, the time of arrival of the police near Manglam Hospital is 11.15 pm when they apprehended the appellant and his associate while they were beating the complainant.Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 8 of 12PW-2 Mr.Sheel Sharma in his cross examination has stated that SHO also arrived there in Gypsy.Some police officials were on private motorcycle.One police official sat with him in his car, they left in different directions, the policeman sitting in his car was carrying wireless set and he received the message on wireless set about the apprehension of the appellant and his associate near Manglam Hospital.It is nowhere stated by PW-4 HC Satender Kumar and PW-5 ASI Shankar Lal that one of them was travelling in the car of PW-2 Sheel Sharma or one of them, was carrying wireless set and the other police official conveyed the message on wireless set.The two site plans Ex.PW5/C which is of the place from where the appellant was stated to be apprehended and another Ex.PW5/D which is of the place near Bus Stand, F-Block, Jagat Puri, Delhi have been placed on record.Both are the main roads and place of apprehension is shown in front of house No.A-8 adjoining Manglam Hospital.PW-2 Mr.PW3/B or it was recovered from the pocket of the appellant or it was being used at the time of apprehension of the appellant from the spot.The evidence against the appellant, so far as offence punishable under Section 398 IPC is concerned, is so weak that no conviction could have been passed by learned ASJ for committing the offence punishable under Section 398 IPC.A. No.105/2012 Page 9 of 12The appellant has also been convicted under Section 365 IPC which deals with kidnapping or abduction with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person.PW5/C and D, the complainant was allegedly taken from near Bus Stand, Jagat Puri.The appellant and the complainant were found seen by the police in front of the house adjoining Manglam Hospital which is a main road leading to Karkardooma Court which is at a distance of 750 meters from Bus Stand, Jagat Puri.Thus, it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the appellant to abduct the complainant with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine him.There is no evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant for committing the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC.Even if reference to the Section under which the appellant was convicted is ignored, from the Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 10 of 12 statement of PW-3 Mohd. Irshad at the most the case of the prosecution falls under Section 385 IPC.In order to complete the act of extortion the person who was put in fear, must have been induced to deliver the property.If the act of inducement caused by the wrong doer should bring forth its result at least by the victim consenting to deliver property even if actual delivery does not take place due to any fortuitous circumstances which would constitute extortion, but if it falls to produce the requisite effect, the act would remain only at the stage of attempt to commit extortion.The statement of PW-3 Mohd. Irshad at the most proved that while he was returning home after taking food from nearby Dhaba, an attempt was made to commit extortion by asking him to handover whatever he had by putting him in fear of injury.So, believing the testimony of PW- 3 Mohd. Irshad to the extent that the appellant came near him and after putting him in fear of injury asked him to handover whatever he had but the offence could not be completed because of the arrival of the police near Manglam Hospital, the appellant can be convicted only for committing the offence punishable under Section 385 IPC.In view of above discussion, the conviction of the appellant for committing the offence punishable under Section 365 and 398 IPC is set aside and he is convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 385 IPC.The maximum punishment provided for committing the offence punishable under Section 385 IPC is two years or fine.The appellant is sentenced to undergo RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 385 IPC.The appellant be released from custody on the completion of sentence of one year.Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance.PRATIBHA RANI, J September 14, 2012/'st' Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 12 of 12A. No.105/2012 Page 12 of 12

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 1 of 18The petitioner nos.1 and 2 and the complainant one Hari Mohan Bansal, were the Directors of a company by the name of HMD Technology Ltd. There were some disputes, regarding management and the financial issues, between the complainant and the petitioners.This resulted in registration of the aforesaid FIR.In terms of the said amicable and peaceful settlement, all the past, present disputes /litigation were agreed to be settled on the following terms and conditions:-"1) That the second party agrees to pay to the first party (First party is the complainant and the Second party is the petitioners) an amount of `30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs) in favour of M/s HMD Technologies Ltd., in full and final settlement of all dues and liabilities that may have arisen against the second party.It is hereby agreed that henceforth, after having received the amount above amount of `30,00,000/-, the first part shall have no WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 2 of 18 claim charge, lien and/or demand against the second party.The abovesaid amount of `30,00,000/- will be paid to the first party as follows:-WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 2 of 18A) Rs.10 Lacs by way of cheque within 20 days from the date of present agreement.Details of the cheques issued by the second party is given in annexure A to this agreement.The second party undertakes that all the cheques issued by them will be honouored on presentation for encashment by the first party.That, second party agrees to transfer their entire share holdings of HMD Technologies Ltd. held by second party in the name of M/s Shanti Deep Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Raf Steels pvt.Ltd. to the first party at the time of signing of this agreement and the amount of consideration in respect of share purchase agreement is set off or adjusted within the settled amount amicably arrived at between both the party.The second party will set off the unsecured loan `8,04,168/-in the name of M/s Shri Hans Energy System Pvt. Ltd. and share application money of `13,18,770/- in the name of M/s Shanti Deep Constructions Pvt. Ltd., `5,00,000/- in the name of M/s Akanksha Telecommunication and `10,00,000/- in the name of Bsskay Communication i.e. total amounting of `36,85,938/- stands WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 3 of 18 adjusted/setoff.The set off so affected shall be full and final settlement of the dues against the unsecured loan and share application money of the second party shown as outstanding in the books of accounts of M/s HMD Technologies Ltd. The second party shall not claim any amount from M/s HMD Technologies Ltd. for the aforesaid unsecured loan and share application money at any point of time in future.WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 3 of 18The HMD Technologies Ltd. had availed a financial assistance, from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Safdarjung Enclave Branch, New Delhi and the first and the second parties had furnished a personal guarantee against the working capital loan and term loan or any other financial assistance for and on behalf of the company as security for the financial aid so received from the said bank or any other bank.It is now hereby agreed between the parties hereto that after encashing all the cheques details of which is given in annexure A the totaling of `30 lacs, and assured by the first party, that the first party undertakes to approach the said bank to have the personal guarantee, furnished by the second party be released.Further during the pendency of installments if any liability arises against the second party the first party indemnifies to resolve the same.That after encashing all the cheques details of which is given in annexure A the totaling of `30 lacs, the first party WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 4 of 18 undertakes to make a no objection statement to quashing of FIR no.52/2006 P.S. Preet Vihar which will be filed by the second party by way of a petition u/S 482 Cr.P.C. and the first party shall forfeit its right to prosecute the second party in the FIR.In case this agreement fails, the first party shall take appropriate course of the law to prosecute the second party.WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 4 of 18That after the receipt of `30 lacs, the first party shall take necessary steps, indemnify and shall fully co-ordinate and co-operate with the second party for discharging the second party from the various criminal complaints filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by creditors of M/s HMD Technologies Ltd.The second party will supply their DIN No. to the first party for filing Form 32 to the ROC.That on execution of this agreement the share holding agreement of dated 15.11.2002 stand terminated between the parties."WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 6 of 18This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.52/2006, under WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 1 of 18 Section 406/420 IPC registered by P.S. Preet Vihar, Delhi.That the first party shall issue a discharge certificate i.e. discharge from all liabilities past and future of the company i.e. M/s HMD Technologies Ltd. in favour of second party.That the first party on signing of this agreement shall appear before the Honble High Court of Delhi and apprise the court about the settlement of agreement among them.The first party shall make appropriate statement for the grant of permanent bail of the second party and Mrs. Leela Pilania in the captioned FIR.The first party shall assist the second party subject to the fulfillment of this agreement.In case the agreement fails the first party WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 5 of 18 reserve its right to approach the Honble High Court for the cancellation of the bail.That the second party on signing of this agreement shall withdraw the Arbitration Petition No.OMP434/2006 and AA No.477/2006 pending before the Honble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.In case this agreement fails the second party reserve its right to continue with the arbitration application or any other legal recourse.That upon signing of this agreement Mr.K.K.Pilania, Mr.A.K.Pilania, Mr.WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 9 of 18As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant has vehemently opposed the quashing of the FIR on the ground that the petitioners have not complied with the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement inasmuch as neither they have signed the resignation letter nor they have signed the other requisite forms and consequently, the petitioners have not fulfilled their obligations under the settlement agreement and therefore, the aforesaid FIR cannot be quashed.In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant has placed reliance on the judgment titled Sushil Suri Vs.The petitioners had also in terms of the settlement agreement withdrawn the Arbitration matters which were initiated against the respondent no.2/complainant.After having received the said benefit, it is not open to the respondent no.2/complainant to urge that the FIR may not be quashed on the ground that the offences u/S 468/471 IPC are non-compoundable offences.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

PW3 is their son.PW3 is the brother of the deceased.9.It is an admitted fact that the marriage was solemnised between A1 and the deceased.PW1 gave Ex.However, it is seen from the evidence of PW4 that the deceased was living separate and he had sent to the house of A1 an advised all the accused to take the deceased into matrimonial fold.PW4 further stated before PW14 that the accused demanded dowry.12.PW1 and PW2 stated during their evidence that due to the dowry demand by the accused, their daughter came to their house and only PW1 requested Ex-President to mediate it and after the mediation, their daughter went to her matrimonial house and after six months again all the accused demanded dowry and the deceased was driven to her parental home and the sister of A1 told that they are going to arrange second marriage for A1 and then only PW1 and the deceased went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P1 complaint and the accused persons went to Aruppukottai Police Station for enquiry and then, they went nearby way of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 property of PW1 and threatened PW1 saying that they will severe the marital tie between A1 and the deceased and due to it, their daughter committed suicide.13.PW3 is the brother of the deceased.PW3 deposed that at the time of marriage, his sister was given 15 sovereign of jewels and Rs.15,000/- cash and household articles worth about Rs. 30,000/- and one year after the marriage, all the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- and her sister came to their house and stated that she was harassed by the accused demanding dowry and his father was not to able to give Rs.50,000/- and due to it, his sister was in their house and his father requested PW4 to mediate the matter and in the mediation, A1 accepted to take back his sister and after six months, the accused again demanded dowry and his sister came to their house and in the meanwhile, the sister of A1 stated that they are going to arrange second marriage for A1 and due to it, his sister gave complaint before the Aruppukottai Police Station and all the accused were called by the police for enquiry and while, they were proceeding near their garden, they threatened his sister by saying that they are going to severe the marital tie between his sister and A1 and due to it, his sister committed suicide.http://www.judis.nic.in 914.It is stated on the side of the revision petitioners that due to misunderstanding between A1 and the deceased, the deceased left the matrimonial home.Hence, it was not proved on the side of the revision petitioner that due to misunderstanding, the deceased left the matrimonial home.But PW1 to PW3 have categorically stated that due to dowry demand, the deceased left the matrimonial home.No contra evidence let in on the side of the accused to prove that due to misunderstanding the deceased left the matrimonial home.Hence, the argument put forth on the side of the accused stating that the deceased went to her matrimonial home only due to misunderstanding is not at all acceptable.15.In this case, in order to prove that for the dowry demand by the accused, the deceased gave complaint before the Aruppukottai Police Station and the accused were called by the Police and Ex.P6 complaint was produced on the side of the prosecution.16.PW10 spoke about the receiving of Ex.This Criminal Revision is directed against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.130 of 2005 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Paramakudi, dated 10.12.2009, which was modified by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram, in Crl.2.According to the prosecution, PW1 and PW2 are husband and wife.The marriage between the deceased and A1 Muniyandi had solemnised on 17.06.1999 and at the time of marriage, the deceased was provided with 15 sovereign of jewels and cash of Rs.15,000/- and household articles worth about Rs.30,000/-.After marriage, the deceased had beaten by the accused and other accused by demanding Rs.50,000/-.In this regard, a complaint was given by the deceased Murugeswari on 27.08.2004 before the All Women Police Station, Aruppukottai and thereafter, she was found to be hanged in a mango tree.The Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed a final report against the accused by examining the witnesses.3.In the trial court, 18 witnesses were examined and 12 Exhibits and one material object were marked.When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances, they denied the same.The trial court convicted A1 to A5 and sentenced them to undergo 7 years R/I each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default S/I for one year each under Section 304(B) IPC and one year R/I under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 34 IPC each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default SI for 3 months each.Aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial court, A1 to A5 preferred appeal in C.A.No.25 of 2009, which was heard by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram.Aggrieved by the Judgment of the first appellate court, A1 to A5 as revision petitioners are before this court.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused and that the first appellate court failed to consider the fact that the accused found guilty under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,http://www.judis.nic.in 4 when the accused are innocent in respect of Section 304(B) IPC and that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and that PW1 to PW3 are close relatives and their testimony is interested one and that the first appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW4 who is the independent and truthful witness and the first appellate failed to appreciate the fact that the death of the deceased was happened in her parental home and not in her matrimonial home and that the first appellate court failed to consider Exs.P6 and P7 in a proper manner and the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.In view of the above circumstances, the impugned judgment has to be set aside and the revision petition has to be allowed.5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent/State submitted that the first appellate court on proper appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary, convicted the revision petitioners and passed proper sentence, which does not require any interference by this court and the accused are not entitled for acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be dismissed.P1 complaint in respect of the occurrence.10.PW1 in his complainant and evidence stated that at the time of marriage, the deceased was given 15 sovereign of jewels and cash of Rs.15,000/- and household articles worth about Rs. 30,000/- and one year after marriage, all the accused harassed the deceased and demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/- and drove thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 deceased to her parental home and the deceased came to his house and told him about the demand of dowry by the accused, but he expressed his inability to pay the amount and asked his daughter to stay with him and the deceased stayed in her parental home for one year and the Ex-President of his village mediated between the two families and then, the deceased went to her matrimonial home and after six months, all the accused again harassed his daughter by way of demanding Rs.50,000/- and thereafter, A1, A2 and A4 went to Theni for their avocation ad the sister of A1 talked that when the deceased failed to bring Rs.50,000/-, they are going to arrange another marriage for A1 and therefore, PW1 and the deceased went to the All Women Police Station, Arupukottai and gave a complaint regarding the demand of dowry by the accused and the police enquired all the accused and his daughter told him, while going to the police station that all the accused stated that they are going to severe the martial tie between A1 and the deceased and then, at about 10.00 am on the same day, he heard noise and found that his daughter hanged herself in a mango tree and then, he found that his daughter was dead and then he gave Ex.P1 Complaint.http://www.judis.nic.in 711.PW4 was examined to speak about the panchayat held for reuniting the deceased and A1 and with regard to demand of dowry and other facts.Since PW4 has not supported the case of the prosecution, he was treated as a hostile witness.P6 complaint and issued receipt Ex.P7 and conducted enquiry.P6 complainthttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 was treated as petition and PW10 conducted the enquiry.In this case, while cross examining PW10 on the side of the revision petitioners/A1 to A5, a suggestion was put to the effect that the deceased has not given Ex.But while cross examining PW1, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 before the trial court, put the following questions:-jhd; vy;yhtw;wpw;Fk; fhuzk; vd;why; mij ehd; kWf;fpnwd;.” Hence, from the above cross examination of PW1, it reveals that they admitted the giving of Ex.17.On perusal of Ex.P6, the deceased stated the details of demand of dowry by the accused.Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 submitted that there is no necessity for the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 to pass through the garden of PW1, while going to Aruppukottai.http://www.judis.nic.in 11PW1 during his cross examination stated that:-“ehd; bfhLj;j g[fhh; jhd; ,e;j tHf;fpw;F mog;gil fhuzk; vd;Wk;> g[fhh;20.Further, on perusal of Ex.P6 complaint, it is stated that all the accused demanded dowry and drove the deceased out of the matrimonial home and PW14 ordered for conducting enquiry and the first accused Muniyandi agreed to bring the other accused for enquiry.21.It is to be noted that Ex.But on 04.09.2004, the deceased committed suicide.Hence, it reveals that only due to the complaint given by the deceased, the accused threatened by saying that they are going to severe the marital tie between A1 and the deceased and due to it, she committed suicide.22.Further, in this case, it is pertinent to note that in order to settle the dispute between A1 and the deceased, no case was registered.Further, it is a matrimonial dispute.Hence, PW16 conducted enquiry to settle the dispute between the parties.Hence, it is not necessary to suspect Exs.23.On careful perusal of Ex.P1, it shows that all the accused harassed and committed cruelty on the deceased by way of demanding a dowry of Rs.50,000/- one year after her marriage and the deceased was driven out of matrimonial home.Further, PW1, who is the father of the deceased was not able to mobilise the dowry amount and therefore, the deceased stayed at his house for one year and thereafter, PW4/Patchamal effected compromise and the deceased was reunited with her husband and six monthshttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 thereafter, all the accused harassed the deceased again and sent her out of matrimonial home and thereafter, the deceased lived with PW1 until her suicide.24.In view of the above facts, this court is of the considered view that only due to the demand of dowry, the deceased was driven out of her matrimonial home and she lived in her parental home and only due to the harassment by the accused, she gave the complaint before the Aruppukottai Police Station and in the Police Station, all the accused were called for enquiry and due to the threat by the accused by saying that they are going to severe the marital tie, the deceased committed suicide.25.This court, after going through the records, is of the considered view that the first appellate Court has not committed any mistake or error in rendering a finding hold the revision petitioners/A1 and A5 guilty of the offence with which they stood charged.However, considering the family circumstances of the revision petitioners/A1 to A5, this Court finds that the punishment imposed on the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 requires modification.http://www.judis.nic.in 1426.In the result, this Criminal Revision is partly allowed.However, considering the family circumstances of the revision petitioners/A1 to A5, the punishment imposed by the first appellate court is reduced to three months of Rigorous Imprisonment.Further, the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each children of the deceased namely Poorvika (6-1/2 years) and Jeyashree (9 months), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.Since the children of the deceased are minors, the compensation amount shall be deposited in Recurring Deposit Scheme in the Bank of India, Mandapasalai Branch, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District, till they attained majority.The period of sentence, if any already undergone by the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.26.11.2018 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No erhttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 To,1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 16 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J er Judgment made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.546 of 2010 26.11.2018http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Crl.RC(MD)No.167 of 2009http://www.judis.nic.in 18 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J This matter is posted today under the caption “For reporting compliance.”2.When the matter is taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the order of this court, dated 20.08.2018 has been complied with and he has also filed a memo, dated 02.11.2018 to that effect.3.Today, as per the order of this Court, the revision petitioner gave two demand drafts bearing registration Nos. 314334 and 314335 for Rs.1,00,000/- each to the son and daughter of the deceased Malathi @ Chandra namely R.Pavithra and Naveen Balaji, which were also received by them.4.Recording the above, this criminal revision is closed.02.11.2018 er T.KRISHNAVALLI,Jhttp://www.judis.nic.in 19 Crl.R.C(MD)No.167 of 2009 02.11.2018http://www.judis.nic.in 20http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Thereafter, charge sheet was submitted against the applicant under Section 413 IPC alongwith 394 IPC, therefore, he has filed present bail applicant after rejection of the bail application by the Court below.Applicant is having criminal history of certain cases, which are explained in the affidavit.Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.