Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

10K

like 0

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed challenging the order dated 3.12.2019 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Agra in Bail Application No. 6961 of 2019 (Kamal Singh v. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 211 of 2019, under Sections 376, 354A, 354D, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Pinahat, District Agra, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case.The victim is a married lady.It is stated that the appellant gave rupees two lakh to the victim on 2.7.2019 for arranging job for his wife and on being failure the appellant asked to return the money which has resulted the present case against the appellant.No such incident has ever taken place.The appellant has no criminal history.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court.The circumstances, which according to the counsel led to false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length.It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required.He is languishing in jail since 19.10.2019 and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted, therefore, he may be released on bail Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer.I have perused the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance hence this appeal as also the bail application are allowed and the order dated 3.12.2019 is hereby set aside.Let the appellant ? Kamal Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

According to the prosecution case, the accused no.1assaulted the deceased by means of knife and cycle chain.Thedeceased Mohan Babu Patil was the Sarpanch of Village Adoshi,Shirasgaon.The prosecution case against the accused no.1 is that, hewas a carpenter and he was not satisfied by the lesser amountprocured for him by way of loan by the deceased, for purchase ofarticles for carpentry.The accused no.1 held another grudge againstthe deceased, as he thought that, the deceased was deliberately notgiving him certificate of residence from the Grampanchayat.Theaccused no.2 was Head of water supply project and was a politicalopponent of the deceased.According to the prosecution case, thedeceased used to find faults with allotment of the work made by theaccused no.2 and was a constant source of interference.According tothe prosecution case, the accused no.3 was given work of diggingsome wells and the deceased was also finding faults with his work.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 :::However,the prosecution has not led any evidence to explain the circumstancesin which this FIR came to be lodged.According to theprosecution case, the incident took place near Shirasgaon bypass.Thedeceased was removed to the hospital by his son and nephew.Thedeceased was declared dead before admission in Primary HealthCentre at Khodala.As mentioned earlier, the accused no.1 wasarrested on 08/05/2006 itself.Thereafter, different panchanamas likeinquest panchanama and spot panchanama were carried out.Abroken knife and other articles were recovered from the spot.On 11/05/2006, the brother of the deceased namelyDigambar Patil made a grievance in writing to the police mentioningthat all the three accused had committed murder of the deceased.Hehad informed that there were two eye witnesses namelyChandrabhaga Patil and Sunderabai Bande.He had informed thepolice that the deceased had told his nephew Vaibhav on the spot thatall the three accused had assaulted him.The police recordedstatements of various witnesses including the aforementioned two eye URS 4 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 ::: 5 APEAL 573-08@ APEAL 266-10-Judgment.docwitnesses, son of the deceased namely Kunal and nephew of thedeceased namely Vaibhav who spoke about the oral dying declaration.PW 8 Kunal Patil, son of the deceased and PW 9 VaibhavPatil, nephew of the deceased, were examined on the point of oraldying declaration made by the deceased to Vaibhav.PW 2 DigambarPatil, younger brother of the deceased and PW 3 Chandrakala Patil,widow of the deceased, deposed about the enmity between theaccused and the deceased and they have also deposed about the factthat the deceased was taken by the accused no.3 on his motorcycle.They have further deposed that at about 4.00 p.m., the accused no.3came to their house and informed that the deceased was assaulted bythe accused no.1 and he was lying near Shirasgaon bypass.Besidesthese important witnesses, PW 1 Dinkar Khade was the panch whowas present when the spot panchanama was carried out.PW 4 BarkatInamdar was the panch for inquest panchanama.PW 13 PI ShivajiShelar was the first Investigating Officer and PW 14 PSI SidhramGhate had conducted the further investigation.PW 7 Dr. SurajkumkarPandirkar was the Medical Officer who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and he hadfound about 10 injuries including 2 stab wounds and 2 incisedwounds on the dead body of the deceased.There were imprint chainmarks also on the dead body.In his opinion, the stab wound over theleft 9th intercostal space and another stab wound on the stomach weresufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature andaccording to him, the death was due to massive harmorrhage due toinjuries to spleen.According to these witnesses PW 8 and PW 9, theywere present in the field.Pandurang came and told them that Mohanwas lying near Shirasgaon bypass.RESERVED ON :- 08 SEPTEMBER, 2017 PRONOUNCED ON :- 19 SEPTEMBER, 2017JUDGMENT ( PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) :-Therefore, both theseAppeals are disposed off by this common Judgment.All the accused areconvicted by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, underSection 302 read with 34 of the IPC and each of them was sentencedto suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and indefault of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for six months.The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.266 of 2010 is theoriginal accused no.1 Vilas Laxman Dive and the Appellants inCriminal Appeal No.573 of 2008 are the original accused no.2 URS 2 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 ::: 3 APEAL 573-08@ APEAL 266-10-Judgment.docKrushna @ Kisan Ramchandra Kharpade and original accused no.3Bhagwan Kashinath Gangurde respectively in the said sessions case.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 :::The said case pertains to the commission of murder of oneMohan Babu Patil on 08/05/2006 around 3.30 p.m. at Shirasgaonbypass ('Phata'), within the jurisdiction of Mokhada Police Station,District - Thane.The cycle chain was recovered at the instance of the accused no.1.Clothes of the accused were seized and after completion ofinvestigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC, Jawhar.Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.Charge under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC was framed againstthe accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried,::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 :::During trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses.PW5 Chandrabhaga Patil and PW 6 Sunderabai Bande claim to be eyewitnesses.In his cross-examination, he has admitted thatthere was profused bleeding and he has further admitted, that in theevent of such profused bleeding, because of rupture of spleen, instantdeath is probable and that because of such profused bleeding, instantdeath was certain.After recording the evidence and the statements ofthe accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and hearing thearguments of both sides, the learned trial Judge was pleased toconvict and sentence the accused as mentioned hereinabove.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 :::We have heard Mrs. Anjali Awasthi, learned Counsel forthe Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.573 of 2008, Mrs. Sonia Miskin,learned Counsel for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.266 of 2010and Ms. R. M. Gadhvi, learned APP, on behalf of the State ofMaharashtra in both these Appeals.With their assistance, we have URS 6 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 ::: 7 APEAL 573-08@ APEAL 266-10-Judgment.docread the entire evidence and we have gone through the record andproceedings.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 :::The prosecution case is based on the direct evidence aswell as the circumstantial evidence.The direct evidence consists ofthe deposition of PW 5 Chandrabhaga Patil and PW 6 SunderabaiBande.PW 5 Chandrabhaga has deposed that on 08/05/2006 atabout 4.00 p.m., she and Sunderabai were returning home afterfetching water from the well belonging to Shri Mombala.When theyreached Shirasgaon bypass, she saw that the accused no.2 was holdinghands of Mohan Patil and the accused no.1 was assaulting him bymeans of chain and knife.The accused no.3 was instigating them andwas telling them to kill him.She has further deposed that the accusedno.3 threatened them and told them not to come forward.After theincident, the accused nos.1 and 2 went towards Village Devbandh andaccused no.3 went towards Village Adoshi.This witness, along withPW 6 Sunderabai then gave water to Mohan and thereafter Mohan'sson Kunal and nephew Vaibhav came there on the motorcycle.Mohanwas made to sit on the motorcycle and was taken to the hospital.PW6 Sunderabai Bande has also deposed exactly the same story.Both ofthem have identified the knife and the chain produced before theCourt and they have identified the accused before the Court.Duringthe cross-examination of PW 5, she has admitted that there was onewell near the river of the village and villagers used water from thatwell for drinking purposes.She has admitted that Shirasgaon bypassis at a distance of about one mile from her residence.She has further URS 7 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 ::: 8 APEAL 573-08@ APEAL 266-10-Judgment.docadmitted that the well situated at Umbarde is near in comparison andthat it was exactly opposite to the well situated at Mombala.She hasfurther admitted that at the relevant time, digging work of the well atMombala was going on.PW 6 Sunderabai, in her cross-examination,has admitted the fact that she had gone to fetch water from the wellknown as Mombala well, was not appearing in her police statement.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 :::The analysis of their evidence shows that they are purelychance witnesses.They had no reason to go to the Mombala well tofetch water as the work of digging that well was still going on.PW 6had not even told the police that she had gone to fetch water atMombala well.Therefore, their evidence needs to be scrutinizedcarefully.PW 8 and PW 9 who had come on the spot, have notdeposed to about the presence of these two witnesses PW 5 and PW 6at the spot.This assumes even more importance because PW 5, inpara 8 of her cross-examination, has stated that she had narrated theincident to PW 8 Kunal and PW 9 Vaibhav.However PW 8 and PW 9have not stated about any such disclosure in their evidence.PW 6, in fact, in para 6 of her cross-examination, has admitted that the police had suggested them to bethe witnesses and therefore they acted as witnesses in the presentcase.PW 6 has also stated that the statement of PW 5 was recordedin her presence and their statements were recorded under one tree.The evidence of PW 5 shows that she was in constant touch with thefamily of the deceased and had narrated the incident to the family of URS 8 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 ::: 9 APEAL 573-08@ APEAL 266-10-Judgment.docthe deceased and yet none of them had asked her to approach thepolice and tell the story.She, on her own, also did not approach thepolice to give her story.This witness has tried to suppress the factthat she was a relative of the deceased and she had denied thesuggestion that her husband was cousin of the deceased Mohan.Thisdeliberate suppression of the fact shows that she is an interestedwitness and is not telling the truth, whereas PW 8 Kunal, in para 8 ofhis cross-examination, has admitted that this PW 5 is his 'cousin aunt'.In these circumstances, we do not find that evidence of PW 5 and PW6 is reliable.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 :::9. PW 8 Kunal and PW 9 Vaibhav are the son and nephew ofthe deceased Mohan respectively.PW 8 Kunal has stated that atabout 3.45 to 4.00 p.m., one Panduurang came to their field andshouted that Kunal's father Mohan was lying near Shirasgaon bypass.Thereafter both he and PW 9 Vaibhav rushed to the spot onmotorcycle and saw that Mohan was lying in a pool of blood and hadsustained knife injury on his stomach.He has deposed that PW 9Vaibhav asked Mohan as to what had happened to which Mohanreplied that all the three accused had assaulted him.Thereafter hewas taken to Khodale Government Hospital but he was declared dead.Similar version is deposed to by PW 9 Vaibhav.Their versions have tobe tested in the light of the medical evidence and the deposition ofDr.Now, obviously, Pandurang had URS 9 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 ::: 10 APEAL 573-08@ APEAL 266-10-Judgment.docseen him lying on the spot after the incident had taken place.Therefore, he had reached the field after some time from the incidentand thereafter it took further time for Kunal and Vaibhav to reach thespot.PW 8 Kunal, in para 7 of his cross-examination, has stated thattheir field is about 5 to 10 minutes walk from the Shirasgaon bypasswhere the deceased was lying.Therefore, at least some time musthave been consumed before Kunal and Vaibhav reached the spot afterthe incident.The Medical Officer has opined that looking at thenature of injuries and the profused bleeding, the instant death wascertain.Therefore in this view of the matter, it is extremely doubtfulas to whether the deceased was surviving when both these witnessesreached the spot and therefore it was not possible for him to make anyoral dying declaration before these two witnesses.Significantly, eventhe statements of these two witnesses were not recorded by the policeimmediately.PW 8 Kunal has admitted that on 08/05/2006 itselfpolice had been to their residence and yet these witnesses have nottold police about the oral dying declaration.PW 9 Vaibhavhas admitted that when they had reached the hospital, the police werethere but even this witness has not disclosed the incident narrated bythe deceased to police.It is only on 11/05/2006 that for the firsttime, the statements of these two witnesses were recorded and thetheory of oral dying declaration was informed to the police.Thus, theevidence of these two witnesses is not reliable to hold that thedeceased had made any dying declaration to them implicating theaccused.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 :::Further reference to the evidence of these witnessesindicates that PW 9 Vaibhav has admitted that deceased Mohan wasphysically stout and PW 5 Chandrabhaga has admitted that theaccused no.1 was physically handicapped and for walking and evenfor standing he needed to take help of his hands.Even the statements of these two witnesses were notrecorded immediately and it is only after 11/05/2006 that theirstatements came to be recorded.In our opinion, as rightly submittedby the learned Counsel for the Appellants, there was sufficient timefor deliberation and consultation amongst all the prosecutionwitnesses to name the accused.There is absolutely no reason as towhy the facts which were known to these witnesses were not informedto the police immediately.The motive as alleged by these twowitnesses PW 2 and PW 3 appears to be feeble.Just because theaccused no.1 was not given sufficient loan amount or was not giventhe certificate of residence, it can hardly be a motive to commitmurder.There is no piece of corroborating evidence to show that the URS 11 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 ::: 12 APEAL 573-08@ APEAL 266-10-Judgment.docaccused no.1 had applied for certificate of residence or had applied forloan from the Grampanchayat.Therefore, we are inclined to hold thatthis motive was not strong enough for the accused no.1 to commit themurder of the deceased.Both these two witnesses have deposed thatthe accused no.2 held a grudge against the deceased because he wasinterfering with the allotment of work of digging wells.The accusedno.2 was in-charge of allotting the work and he did not like theinterference caused by the deceased.Even this does not seem to be astrong enough motive for the accused no.2 to take this extreme step.The accused no.3 was given work of digging a few wells and theprosecution has not brought on record that there was any irregularityin the said work or that the deceased had caused any loss to theaccused no.3 in that behalf.Therefore, even this motive does notappear to be strong enough.In any case, the version of thesewitnesses is an afterthought because they have given their statementsafter an unexplained delay of at least three days.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 :::The learned Counsel for the Appellants rightlysubmitted that this document should not have been exhibited as it isneither an FIR nor an admissible document.However, the saiddocument was marked as Exh.22 in the said trial.Since we hold that,this document was not admissible, we need not refer to the same,except for the fact that the said witness PW 2 had made somegrievance in writing before the police.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 :::There is another disturbing aspect of this case in respect oflodging of FIR by the accused no.3 himself.The prosecution made noattempts to bring the said document on record.However, the evidenceindicates that the investigation started only after this FIR was lodgedby the accused no.3 and based on it, an offence was registered videC.R.No.I-11/2006 at Mokhada Police Station under Section 302 of theIPC.The learned Judge, in theimpugned Judgment, has relied on the said report.However, asrightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused no.1, thecontents of this document were not proved because, firstly, the authorof this document was accused no.3 himself and he was not a witnessand secondly, none of the prosecution witnesses has proved thecontents of this document.However, the fact remains that the accused no.3 had lodged some FIRat 8.05 p.m. at Mokhada Police Station which was the starting point ofthe investigation.Again, there is a serious lapse on the part of theprosecution because they have not provided the link as to at exactlywhat point of time the accused no.3 was shown as an accused insteadof the first informant.The statements of the witnesses were recordedon 11/05/2006 implicating the accused no.3 and he was arrested onlyin the month of July 2006 and there is nothing to show on record thatthe accused no.3 was absconding.Therefore, it is not clear as to howand when the accused no.3 was roped in as an accused.It appears URS 13 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 ::: 14 APEAL 573-08@ APEAL 266-10-Judgment.docfrom the investigation that it is a result of the statements given by thewitnesses after consultation and deliberation amongst themselves andtherefore their evidence of the prosecution case cannot be held to beproved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 :::There are other circumstances alleged against the accused.The first of these is recovery of cycle chain at the instance of theaccused no.1 and for this purpose, PW 10 is examined as a panch whowas present at the time of recovery of cycle chain from the house ofthe accused no.1 at his instance.For thepurpose of seizure of clothes of accused no.1, the prosecution hasexamined PW 11 Afzal Shaikh and PW 12 Panduang Dalvi.Thoughthese clothes show presence of blood of 'O' group which, apparently,was the blood group of the deceased, the seizure of the clothes fromthe accused no.1 was not proper because PW 11, in his examination-in-chief itself, has stated that those clothes were already taken out andkept on table and they were told that those clothes were of theaccused Vilas.Moreover, the prosecution has not eliminated the possibility URS 14 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 ::: 15 APEAL 573-08@ APEAL 266-10-Judgment.docthat even the accused no.1 was having blood group 'O'.Therefore,even this circumstances is not in favour of the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 :::Thus, after analyzing the evidence as above, we are of theopinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against all theaccused beyond reasonable doubt.Hence the following order.They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.(iv) High Court Legal Aid Service Authority is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each to Mrs. Anjali Awasthi and Mrs. Sonia Miskin, Appointed Advocates, for their efforts in assisting this Court during the hearing of both the Appeals.(v) Both the Appeals are disposed off in the aforesaid terms.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:42:42 :::

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioner and the second respondent have been in public life for quite long, engaged in active politics, they being associated with political parties that generally have been seen to be opposed to each other.In their interest, their names are being withheld from mention, including in the cause-title.In the wake of results of the Crl.M.C. No.2997/2015 Page 1 of 9 elections to legislative assembly of a State being announced, both had participated in a debate on a private television network channel on 20.12.2012, there also being other participants to the debate, the discussion and exchange of views being moderated by an anchor representing the news channel, the programme being telecast live, the parties herein being virtually present from their respective residence in New Delhi.M.C. No.2997/2015 Page 2 of 9The said order is subject matter of challenge in Crl.Against the same very backdrop, in the wake of exchange of legal notice, reply and letters of the two counsel on both sides as referred to above, the second respondent herein presented his own criminal complaint (CC no. 29/1A/2014), on 11.10.2013, alleging offence under Section 499 IPC having been committed by the petitioner.For preliminary inquiry, he examined himself (as CW-1), besides examining an acquaintance (CW-2), also relying on the evidence of senior legal executive (court witness) of the news channel through whom, inter alia, record of the TV debate in the form of CD Crl.The second respondent then retorted by asking the petitioner to shut up, questioning her "character" and thereafter bringing up the issue of her personal life, referring in this context to her marriage to the former husband of her close friend, she being behind their divorce.During this exchange, the other participants, and the anchor, tried to pacify but to no avail, the anchor opting to bring an end to the discussion by going into a commercial break.Both the petitioner, and the second respondent, came to be involved in a verbal exchange in the course of the said TV debate, such exchange having been carried live over the network, the same being referred by each of them to institute criminal complaint cases against the other alleging defamation, an offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), having been committed.M.C. No.2997/2015 Page 1 of 9On the basis of separate preliminary inquiries into the said criminal complaints, the courts of Metropolitan Magistrate have summoned the opposite party to appear as accused, each side having approached this Court invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) praying for quashing of the said criminal process on the plea that it is an abuse of the process of law.Both the above-said petitions came up before the Court simultaneously for final hearing.Since they arise out of different criminal cases and against separate summoning orders, they are being decided by separate judgments, albeit simultaneously.Since the background facts are almost common, for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their status in the proceedings.The criminal complaint case (CC No. 01/01/2013) was instituted by the petitioner, against the second respondent, on 01.01.2013 in the wake of a legal notice sent on her behalf on 21.12.2012 to which the latter had responded by a reply through counsel on 22.12.2012, this being followed by a letter dated 24.12.2012 sent by counsel of former it, in turn, being responded by a letter dated 31.12.2012 of the counsel for the latter.In the course of pre-summoning inquiry in above said case, the complainant examined herself (as CW-1) besides examining an acquaintance (CW-2), and senior executive editor (CW-3) of the news channel.Through CW-3, a compact disk (CD) containing the recording of the TV debate (Ex.CW-3/A) with certificates (Ex.CW- 3/B and C) was brought on record.The Metropolitan Magistrate, by his order dated 11.03.2013, found grounds to proceed against the second respondent for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 509 of IPC.M.C. No.2997/2015 Page 3 of 9 (Ex.CWA/2) along with certificate (Ex.CWA/3) were brought on record.Upon consideration of the said material, the Metropolitan Magistrate, by his order dated 06.06.2014 found grounds to proceed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 500 IPC and, thus, summoning her to appear as accused.The said order is under challenge by the petition at hand, it also invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the plea that criminal action is abuse of process of the court.M.C. No.2997/2015 Page 3 of 9The petition and the application filed therewith are disposed of in above terms.

['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

They have no bad antecedents.They have their permanent residence.Government also announced them ex gratia payments.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that inside the factory, in a tank, toxic gas has been stored.There was leakage in the connecting pump inside the tank.An employee went inside to repair the valve in the pump.Due to the inhaling of the toxic gas 7 persons died.A pump in the ETP Tank in which water is processed got repaired.Using a ladder, mechanic Ananthakumar stepped into the tank to repair the pump.No information about him.He swooned.Like him those who went inside the tank also swooned.7 persons died inhaling the toxic gas released through the leakage in the pump.11 employees got injured.A-1 to A-3 are working in the factory.Bhopal gas disaster took place.Thousands and thousands of innocent people and animals have lost their lives.Crl.O.P.No.9136 of 2014P.DEVADASS, J.Petition for bail.2. Offences alleged are under Sections 304(ii) and 337 of IPC.According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, a tragedy took place inside the factory, 7 persons have lost their lives and 11 persons sustained injuries.Petitioners are Factory Manager, Personnel Officer and ETP Plant Incharge respectively.It must be an act that has contributed/responsible for the death.However, in this case, except the petitioners being the staff of the company they have not committed any act which has connection with the deaths inside the factory.Petitioners cannot be held to have committed an act with requisite knowledge that it is likely to cause the death of the employees.In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners cited the following decisions.They have roots in society.They will not evade/flee away from justice.Employees who have sustained injuries also have been treated in a private hospital at the cost of the management.11 persons injured.Further, there was no proper training to the employees on how to escape when such a situation arises.In his inspection report the authority under the Factories Act, has also stated that there was no proper precautionary measures inside the factory.I have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor, perused the averments in the bail petition and the decisions cited.It employs several persons.It is a textile processing unit.On 18.3.2014, at about 10.30 a.m., inside the factory, a great tragedy took place.They were treated in a hospital.Suresh, an employee of the said factory lodged the complaint.Many got maimed.The accused administered him injections.After half an hour the patient died.In DR.JEPPIAR AND ANOTHER Vs.STATE OF TAMILNADU AND ANOTHER [2013 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 45] in connection with a college function, a trust was constructing a big arch.It fell down.Even as per the prosecution version no act resulting in the death of the employees could be directly and personally attributable to the petitioners.The version of the prosecution that the petitioners as supervisory staff had not taken any precautionary measure, such as proper training to the employees as to how to safeguard themselves when such a mishap occurres will not be overtact for the purpose of Section 304(ii) r/w 299 IPC.They have fixed place of residence.(ii) Petitioners shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.(iii) Petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Since both the applications are connected with the same crime therefore, decided by a common order.At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays to withdraw the present application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant Pramod.The present application filed by the applicant namely Pramod is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.Remaining applicants are in custody since 6.10.2014 relating to Crime No.183/14 registered at Police Station Lodhikheda, District Chhindwara for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 149 and 323/34 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality.They do not have any criminal past alleged against them.It is alleged against the accused Pramod that he threw the deceased on the earth with a forceful manner therefore, the deceased died due to head injury.It is not alleged against the applicants that they had any weapon at the time of incident, whereas it is alleged against them that they assaulted the deceased by kicks and fists.Under such circumstances, there was no intention of the applicants to kill the deceased.No common intention of the applicants can be presumed with the co-accused Pramod.Hence, no offence under Sections 302 or 307 of the IPC is made out against the applicants either directly or with the help of Sections 34 or 149 of the IPC.At the most, the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is made out against the applicant, which is bailable.The applicants are unnecessarily kept in the custody.Consequently, they pray for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.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 applicants may be accepted.It is directed that the applicants namely Amol, Someshwar, Vijay and Gopal be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.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 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.No offence under Section 327 or 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC whereas remaining offences are bailable.Co-accused Surendra Kamariya (Yadav) was released on bail vide order 2 Mcrc.15027.2016 Mukesh Vs.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail on the ground of parity.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.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 pd

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

R.K. Garg, Prith Raj, U.R. Lalit, R.L. Kohli, ShivpujanSingh, Manoj Prashad, Dalveer Bhandari, T. Sridharan (N.P.)and B.S. Chauhan for the appearing parties.1981 at about 8 A.M. agrave rioting took place in the village of Tirro in VaranasiDistrict.1n the course of the said rioting two personsMahendra Singh and Virendra Singh deceased Nos. 1 and 2 werekilled and Vijay Narain Singh, P.W. 1, Uma Shankar Singh,P.W. 2 and one Kailash Singh577received injuries.In respect of these offences 14 accusedwere tried under Sections 148 and 302 read with Sec. 149I.P.C. Chirkut Singh, Accused No. 6 was tried for offencepunishable under Section 307 I.P.C. for attempting to committhe murder of P.W. 1 and the remaining accused under Section307 read with Sec. 149 I.P.C. for causing injuries to UmaShankar Singh, P.W. 2 and Kailash Singh.It is alleged thatthe material prosecution witnesses, deceased persons and theaccused belong to the same village.Since 1972 there havebeen disputes between these two rival groups.A number ofcases were also pending in the courts.The time andplace of occurrence are not in controversy.All of them werecontusions and he opined that they might have been caused bya blunt object like lathi.P.W. 3 is another eye-witness.He deposed that Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 were armed with-guns and the other were armed with lathis.Accused No. 1fired at the deceased No. 1 and Accused No. 3 also fired athim as a result of which he fell down and when deceased No.2 tried to move, Accused No. 4 shot at him and deceased No.2 also fell down.From the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.1984 in theAllahabad High Court in Crl.On the day of occur-rence at 8 A.M.P.W. 1 went to his pumping set.P.W. 2 UmaShankar Singh and his relation Kailash Singh were also atthe pumping set.Deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were proceedingalongwith the rasta towards the pumping set for taking bath.When they reached near the Khandhar (old building) of VijayPratap Singh Accused No. 5 Lallan Singh exhorted the otheraccused who were all lying in wait to kill them.All the 14accused emerged out of the Khandar.Out of them Accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 (accused Nos. are being referred to as arrayedbefore the trial court) were armed with guns and the restwere armed with lathis.Accused No. 1 fired a shot which hit deceased No. 1and he was immediately also shot at by accused No. 3 RanjitSingh and he fell down.In the meanwhile Accused No. 4 RamBriksh Singh fired at Deceased No. 2 Virendra Singh who felldown and both deceased died on the spot.The other accusedcarrying lathis advanced towards P.W. 1 who ducked andescaped unhurt.Then the lathis-wielding accused assaultedP.W. 1 Vijay Narain Singh, P.W. 2 Uma Shankar Singh andKailash Singh.P.W. 1 managed to escape and ran away.The trial court relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and2, who are the main eye witnesses, convicted all the 14accused of the offences for which they were charged and thesubstantial sentence awarded is imprisonment for life underSection 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. The convict-ed accused preferred appeals.The State also filed appealfor enhancement of the sentence.A Division Bench of theAllahabad High Court consisting of Justice Katju and JusticeAgrawal heard the appeals.Justice' Katju allowed the ap-peals filed by the accused and dismissed the appeal filed bythe State but the other learned Judge disagreed and dis-missed all the appeals concurring with the trial court.Thematter came up before a third Judge Seth, J. He took theview that only such of those accused to whom specific overtacts were attributed could be convicted and the other shouldbe given benefit of doubt.Before we consider these rival contentions some of thefacts which are not indispute may be noted.There was alongstanding rivalry between the two groups.On the same day, he examined P.W.1 and on his person he found four contusions which couldhave been caused by Lathis.The Doctor also examined KailashSingh, who was not examined as a witness.and found twocontusions.P.W. 4 another Doctor who conducted postmortemon deceased No. 2 Virendra Singh found two gun-shots woundson the cranial cavity.Injury No. 1 is an entry wound andinjury No. 2 is an exist wound.He found two in-juries, the first one is on579the left nipple which is an entry wound and injury No. 2 ison the left palm.On internal examination he found a bulletembedded and the same was recovered.P.W. 5 is the Investi-gating Officer.After registration of the crime he undertookthe investigation, went to the scene of occurrence, held theinquest of the two dead-bodies and recorded the statement ofthe witnesses.He also found two live cartridges one of 16bore and another of 12 bore.When P.Ws 1, 2 and Kailash Singh rushedtowards the place, accused No. 6 fired at P.W. 1 but heescaped.Then the lathi-wielding persons beat P.Ws 1 and 2and Kailash Singh.To the same effect is the evidence ofP .Ws 1 and 2 also.Under Section 3 13 Cr.P.C. all thecircumstances appearing against the accused were put tothem.They in general denied the offence.However, amongthem, accused Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14 admitted theirpresence at the scene of occurrence.Accused No. 6 in par-ticular stated that P.W. 1 and others armed with guns,spears and lathis tried to do fishing in the pond in whichaccused No. 6 had a share.Accused No. 6 and others went tothe pond for fishing.He then went to the policestation and lodged a report and deposited his gun and thatP.W. 1 has falsely implicated him.As regards this reportwhich is purported to have been given by accused No. 6, P.W.5 the Investigating Officer was questioned.He admitted thatwhen he returned to the Police Station on 30th May, 1980 hecame to know that, accused No. 6 has surrendered his gun.Healso admitted in the cross examination that the crime wasregistered on the basis of the report given by Chirkut Singhand the same was also investigating but it appears that noaction was taken.Investigating Officer also admitted thatwhen he saw accused Nos. 13 and 14 he found injuries onthem.The other circumstance strongly relied upon by thedefence is that there were gun shots injuries on accused No.It may be noted that the same has not been explained bythe prosecution.P.W. 7 the Doctor admitted that he examinedAccused No. 14 and found on him a skindeep 12" x 2" lacerat-ed wound on the left thigh and a wound certificate wasissued.He also admitted that he examined accused No. 13 andhe found five tiny abrasions in the area of 4cm x 4cm onouter surface of right thigh just above knee joint and theinjured was refer-red to the radiologist.P.W. 7, however, stated that he hasnot seen the report of the radiologist.The defence examinedDr.He deposed that he took the X-rayof the right thigh of the accused No. 13 Mahendra Kahar andthe report was marked as an exhibit.He further deposed thatthe shadows in the X-ray go to show that there were 10 radioopaque round shadows and these shadows may very well corre-spond to the pallets fired by some fire arms and the sameappear to have pierced upto muscles and bone.His examina-tion further showed that the pallets remained embedded inthe thigh.Before the trial court as well as before the High Court,firstly it was contended on behalf of the accused that theeye witnesses are highly interested and therefore, theirevidence cannot be accepted and even otherwise they have notcome out with the whole truth and the injuries found on twoof the accused would go to show that the accused.acted infight of self-defence.Relying on the presence of gun-shotsinjuries on accused No. 13 it was strongly contended thatthe prosecution party have also used fire-arms and, there-fore, the accused were entitled to the fight of privatedefence.The trial court accepted the evidence of all thethree witnesses holding that their evidence is consistentand does not suffer from any serious infirmity.So far asthe plea of self-defence is concerned, the trial court heldthat the plea taken by accused No. 6 was to be rejectedmainly on the ground that there was no material to show thatat the pond the fishing operations were going on.As regardsthe presence of injuries on the accused persons, learnedSessions Judge having regard to the nature and size of theinjuries found on accused Nos. 13 and 14 took the view thatthey are simple and that it is not proved that these in-juries were received during the occurrence.Regarding thepresence of the alleged gun-shots injuries on accused No. 13he pointed out that the medical evidence is inconclusive onthe point whether those injuries were caused at the timewhen this incident took place.In the appeal before the HighCourt, Justice Katju took the view that the theory that theinjuries on accused Nos. 13 and 14 were self inflictedcannot be accepted and that the plea taken by accused No. 6appears to be probable in view of the fact that the bulletfound in the dead body of deceased No. 2 was fired by a 16-Bore gun and that as admitted by the Investigating Officer,P.W. 5, it was accused No. 6 only in that area who had alicence for 16-Bore gun which was deposited by him in thepolice station after the occurrence.Coming to the injuriesfound on accused Nos. 13 and 14 Justice Katju took the viewthat they received injuries during the course of the sameoccurrence and that the three eye-witnesses have not fur-nished any explanation regarding those injuries and thatthese581witnesses have falsely implicated some of the accused due toenmity and, therefore, their evidence cannot be relied uponand accordingly ordered total acquittal.As already men-tioned Justice Agrawal, on the other hand, agreed with thetrial court completely.Justice Seth, to whom the case wasreferred because of the difference of opinion took a thirdview and convicted only accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 to whomspecifically overt acts were attributed.Dealing with theplea of self defence Justice Seth held that lacerated injuryon accused No. 14 was a simple one and he could have re-ceived that even subsequent to the occurrence.With regardto the gun-shots injuries found on accused No. 13 MahendraKahar, the learned Judge himself examined accused No. 13 whowas present in the Court when the appeal was being heard andfound that hard substance were palpable underneath the fleshround about the location of his injury.In the circumstancesit does appear that fire-arm shots to exist underneath thelocation of injury found on the person of accused MahendraKahar.But he ultimately held that in all probability thepallets found in the leg of accused No. 13 Mahendra Kaharmust have been there long before the incident, as in theview of the learned Judge it was doubtful that those palletscould have entered the body through the external injurieswhich are described as tiny abrasions.Seth, J. accordinglyrejected the plea of self defence.Before we advert to the above contentions it becomesnecessary to consider whether the accused No. 13 MahendraKahar and accused No. 14 Sant Singh received the injuriesduring the course of occurrence.1980 at about 6 A.M.and he found the following injuries.Five tiny abrasions in the area of 4cm x 4cm on outersurface of fight thigh just above knee joint.The injured complained of pain in the right thumb andleft forearm.In respect of injury No. 1 the Doctor advised X-ray witha view to ascertain whether or not there were pallets, andpending the same he reserved his opinion.P.W. 7,however, stated that the X-ray report was not shown to him.The evidence of P.W. 7 makes it clear that accused No. 13Mahendra Kahar received these injuries during the course ofthe582occurrence.D.W. 1 is the Doctor who took the X-ray.On the basis of the X-rayplate he opined that he noticed 10 radio opaque round shad-ows in the injured and they correspond to the pallets firedby some fire-arm.Justice Seth considered the evidence ofthese two Doctors.He also examined the accused in the Courtand he found that hard substance were palpable underneaththe flesh.As already mentioned he was of the view thatthese appeared to be pallets but according to him they musthave been there long before the incident.The learned Judgetook this view because he was doubtful that those palletscould have entered the body through the external injurieswhich are described as tiny abrasions.The injuries are not self-in-flicted.Therefore, there is no basis whatsoever to presumethat the pallets under the flesh must have been there al-ready even before this occurrence took place.As a matter offact accused No. 13 Mahendra Kahar was referred to theDoctor P.W. 7 since there was an injury.P.W. 7 havingexamined him found that there were 10 ' radio opaque roundshadows underneath the injury and it was only for thatreason he referred the injured to the radiologist and D.W. 1the radiologist after taking the X-ray concluded that under-neath the injury pallets discharged from a fire-arm wereembedded in the flesh.Therefore, the only view that ispossible is that accused No. 13 Mahendra Kahar receivedgun-shot injuries during the course of this occurrence only.P.W. 7 also examined accused No. 14 Sant Singh on the sameday.He found a skin-deep 12' x2' lacerated wound verticallyinflicted on the front and outer surface of left thigh fromwhich blood was oozing and the injured complained of pain.The Doctor pointed out that the injury was simple and couldhave been caused by blunt weapon like a lathi.The injurywas also stitched.It is suggested by the prosecution thatthis could have been a self-inflicted one but again there isno basis for such presumption.The Investigating Officersaid that on finding the injury on him he was sent formedical examination.As a matter of fact accused No. 6 inhis statement under Section 313 stated that accused Nos. 13and 14 received injuries and he also went to the policestation and lodged a report to that effect.It, therefore,emerges that accused No. 13 received gun-shot injuries andaccused No. 14 received lacerated injury during the courseof the same occurrence and these injuries must have beencaused by some member583belonging to the prosecution party.Now the question is whether the prosecution has ex-plained these injuries and if there is no such explanationwhat would be its effect? We are not prepared to agree withthe learned counsel for the defence that in each and everycase where prosecution fails to explain the injuries foundon some of the accused, the prosecution case should automat-ically be rejected, without any further probe.He placedconsiderable reliance on some of the judgments of thisCourt.P.Ws 1 and5852 are the injured witnesses and P.W. 1 gave a report givingall the details.In the case before us as per the evidence of the materi-al witnesses the two deceased were only proceeding alongwiththe rasta towards the pump set for taking bath.Even in theplea set up by Chirkut Singh, accused No. 6, it is notstated specifically that deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were armedwith any deadly weapons.Therefore, the assailants haddefinitely exceeded the right of private defence when theywent to the extent of intentionally shooting them to deathby inflicting bullet injuries.Therefore, the offence com-mitted by them would be one punishable under Section 304Part 1 I.P.C.We accordingly set aside the conviction of the.appel-lantsaccused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6, Vijayee Singh, RanjitSingh, Ram Briksh Singh and Chirkut Singh respectively foran offence punishable under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and thesentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The facts as stated by the Petitioners are that Petitioner No.1 is the Director of Comex Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Petitioner No.2 his son and has no relation with the company.Comex Infratech awarded a contract for construction of road in Ujjain by main contractor company.He sub let the contract (further awarded a petty contract) to the Respondent's company namely Golden Anushree Highways Pvt. Ltd. for construction of the said road.To carry out the contractual work, Rs.70,00,000/- lacs cash and diesel worth Rs.70,00,000/- was provided to the Respondent company.The Respondent insisted for some security also.Petitioner No.1 in good faith, issued some posted dated cheques amounting Rs.48,00,000/- in favour of the Respondent with an understanding that the said cheques were not meant for encashment as the contracted work was not completed by theC.No.11716/2015 Respondent and bills/amount were not finalized and the total liability was not settled due to black listing of the main company which awarded the contract to the Petitioner 's company.Owing to failure of the Respondent to execute the contract, the Petitioner terminated the contract.However, some remaining amount could not be paid on time due to black listing of the main company.Due to this nonpayment, the Respondent presented the cheques, which were dishonoured because of insufficient funds.The facts stated by the Respondent /complainant are that under the petty contract awarded by the Petitioner's company, he completed the work of Rs.50,00,000/- (fifty lacs).For payment of this work, the Petitioner s issued some post dated cheuqes but the same were bounced due to insufficient funds.The Petitioner s have taken his two water tankers also stating that they will return the same after completion of the work, but later they refused to return them also.The Respondent filed a private complaint before the JMFC, Nagda under Section 420, 406, 409, 466, 467, 468, 120-B, 34 of IPC alleging that the Petitioner s have conspired together, played fraud with him and have dishonestly misappropriated his dues and that they were bound to pay Rs.50,00,000/- to him, for which they have issued the post dated cheques which were later bounced.It was further alleged that taking advantage of their good relations, they have also taken his 2 water tankers fraudulently and when he asked them to refund his money and tankers, they used filthy language, abused him and even threatened to kill him, but some passerby intervened and saved him.Undisputedly, both the parties have entered into a contract.They went to the spot and saw some hot talk going on in regard to some payment.The Petitioners were trying to overpower the Respondent.(Passed on 03/10/2017) Seeking indulgence of this Court under inherent jurisdiction, the Petitioners have come-up challenging the validity of the order dated 23/09/2015 passed by JMFC, Nagda.The learned Magistrate recorded statement of the complainant u/s 200 and sent the complaint for inquiry to the Police Station Nagda.The Police submitted a report stating therein that there was some contractual dispute between theC.No.11716/2015 parties.The dispute was of civil nature; therefore, no offence was made out.Elements of cheating or fraud were not present at its inception.(iv) The learned Magistrate has ignored the report submitted by Station In-charge, Police Station Nagda dated 31/08/2015 wherein it has clearly been stated that the matter is purely of civil nature and pertains to dishonour of cheque relating to recovery of amount.(v) The complainant has civil remedy available and without taking recourse to that civil remedy, he has filed the complaintC.No.11716/2015 with an ulterior motive only to pressurize and harass the Petitioner s.As we know that at this stage we have to consider the evidence at its face value.Before the trial Court, the Respondent examined himself under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and further examined witnesses; Anand Kumar, Nilesh Singh and Kailash under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. but all three witnesses examined under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. have stated nothing against the Petitioners.They have only stated that when they were passing through the house of the Respondent, they heard some voice of scuffle.They interfered and saved him.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is said to have established a centre at Mantalai in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.On July 1, 1976 Aparna Ashram made an application to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Banking to exempt payment of customs duty on the import of the said aircraft.On August 19, 1976 the Director-General of Civil Aviation issued a certificate of airworthiness to this aircraft.Thus the Aparna Ashram imported the said aircraft.(3) Pursuant to General Elections held in the country in March, 1977 there was a change in the Government.We are A told that the charge-sheet as a consequence of that investigation has since been filed.The same read as under: Notification Appointing The Shah Commission Gazette Of India Extraordinary Ministry Of Home Affairs Notification New Delhi, the 28th May, 1977 S.O.374(E).Whereas there is a widespread demand from different sections of the public for an inquiry into several aspects of allegations of abuse of authority, excesses and malpractices committed and action taken or purported to be taken in the wake of the emergency proclaimed on the 25th June, 1975 under Article 352 of the Constitution;ANDwhereas the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purposes of making inquiry into a definite matter of public importance, that is, " excesses, mal-practices and misdeeds during the Emergency or in the days immediately preceding the said proclamation, by the political authorities, public servants, their friends and, or relatives and in particular allegations of gross misuse of powers of arrest or detention, maltreatment of and atrocities on detenus and other prisioners arrested under.Dl Sir, compulsion and use of force in the implementatton of the family planning programme and indiscriminate and high-handed demolition of houses, huts, shops, buildings, structures and destruction of property in the name of slum clearance or enforcement of.town planning or land use schemes in the cities and towns resulting, inter alia, in large number of people becoming homeless or having to move far away from the places of their vocation.JUDGMENT Prakash Narain, J.the petitioner invoked the above provision of the Constitution by declining to take oath and give testimony when called upon to do so before a Commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Commission being ^ of the view that the said action of the petitioner constituted an offence under Sections 178 and 179 of the Indian Penal Code directed the lodging of a complaint against the petitioner.The complaint was lodge and the petitioner prosecuted.After seine proceedings had taken place in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate the A petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution claiming various reliefs, to which we will advert hereafter, the principal one being that the lodging of the complaint was illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the alleged refusal of the petitioner was in furtherance of the right guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and so, cannot constitute an offence.This institution is claimed to be a charitable institution founded to advance the cause of Yoga, to make research in.Yoga in its mainfold aspects, and to organise conferences as well as lectures and seminars in furtherance of that objective.The Aparna Ashram, under its constitution, is entitled to make applications for money and funds and accept gifts, donations and subscriptions in cash and kind.On May 28, 1977 the Central Government appointed Shri J. C. Shah, a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, as Chairman of a Commission under the Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Commission).The terms of reference of this Commission and the reason for its appointment are evident from a reading of the notification No. S.O. 374(E) dated May 28, 1977 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.(4) On July 25, 1977 the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case against the petitioner under Section 406, Indian Penal Code .and started investigation with regard to certain allegations of cheating.The petitioner wrote back to the Commission on February 7, 1978 staling that the said aircraft had since been seized by the customs authorities with regard to which he had filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court and that further enquiry regarding the matter referred to in the letter of request may be pestle poned.On March 6, 1978 the Commission issued a notice under Rule 5 (2) (a) of the Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, calling upon the petitioner to furnish to the Commission a statement relating to import of the aircraft by him, recommendations of the D.G.G.A. grant of customs clearance permits, acquisition of the aircraft etc. It also directed the petitioner that the statement be furnished as required by clause (aa) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules and should be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the facts set out in the statement.The petitioner was further called upon to furnish along with the said statement a list of documents on which he proposed to rely and forward to the Commission the originals or true copies of such documents as may be in his possession or control and also state the names and addresses of the persons from whom the remaining documents may be obtained.No statement as required by the said notice was furnished to start with.The Commission on the same date, i.e. March 6, 1978, issued summons to the petitioner under Section 4(a) of the Act. This document reads as under :TOShri Dhirendra Brahmachan A/50, Friends -Colony, Now Delhi.WHEREASthe Commission set up under the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Notification No. S.O. 374 (E) dated the 28th May 1977 under Section 3 of the Commission's of Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire into the matters specified in the said Notification, thinks it necessary to record your evidence orally.ADDwhereas it appears that it is necessary to inquire into your conduct in regard to those matters, it is hereby proposed to give you an opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence in your defense.YOUare, therefore, hereby directed under authority vested in the Commission by Section 5(2) read with Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 to appear before the Commission in person on 27th and 28th March 1978 at 10 A.M. at the Patiala House, New Delhi, to give evidence on oath in regard to all the facts within your knowledge pertaining to :1.Import of Aircraft by Dhirendra Brahamchari of Aparna Ashram recommendations of the office of the Dgca grant of customs clearance permit acquisition of the aircraft etc. ANDnot to depart without the permission of the Commission.You are further directed to produce on that date the documents and records in your custody or power, which you may consider relevant to the Inquiry.YOUare informed that you will be given opportunity to cross examine persons, whose statements have been recorded in regard to the matters specified hereinbefore and that you will be entitled to address the Commission, and that you will be entitled to be represented before the Commission by a legal practitioner or with the permission of the Commission by any other person.YOUare requested to sign the duplicate copy of the Summons and return it to the undersigned.By Order of the Commission SD..00 (P.R. RAJGOPAL) Secretary, Commission of Inquiry NOTE:(I)If you desire to examine any .witness or witnesses in your defense in the aforesaid matter, the witness or witnesses may be kept present before the Commission on the date on which you are directed to appear.(II)If you desire that summons be issued to procure the presence of such persons as your witnesses, you are requested to apply to the Commission for issuing summons to such persons at least a week before the date fixed for your appearance.(III)If you desire to cross-examine persons whose statements have been recorded in regard to matters hereinabove, you are requested to intimate the names of such persons to the Commission at least 10 days before the commencement of the hearing so that summons to such persons may be issued in time."Immediately on receipt of the said summons the petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being Civil Writ No. 296 of 1978 in this court praying that the said summons be queshed and pleading that his being called for giving testy moony with regard to the matters mentioned in the said summons amounted to testimonial compulsion in violation of his rights guaranteed by Article 20(3) of the Constitution.The Commission considered the application and heard counsel for the petitioner on the, submissions made therein- In the view of the Commission the contentions raised were not tenable.An oral order was pronounced rejecting the application.The petitioner who was present before the Commission was called upon to enter the witness box, take oath and give his testimony.The petitioner declined claiming that he was legally not compellable by the Commission to either take oath or to give testimony before it.On this the Commission passed the impugned order directing the petitioner's prosecution under Sections 178 and 179 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner was summoned by that court.The application was dismissed and the trial proceeded with.C.W. No. 296 of 1978 was withdrawn by the petitioner on May 25, 1978 with liberty to file a fresh petition.He then moved the present petition and obtained rule nisi.Now, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Commiissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (60 of 1952), the Central A Government hereby appoints a Commission of Inquiry consisting of the following, namely, CHAIRMAN: Shri J. C. Shah, Retired Chief lustice of the Supreme Court of India.2.The terms of reference of the Commission shall be as follows:(A)to inquire into the facts and circumstances relating to specific instances of (I)subversion of lawful processes and wellestablished conventions, administrative procedures and practice, abuse of authority, misuse of powers, excesses and/or malpractices committed during the period when the Proclamation of Emergency made on 25th June, 1975 under Article 352 of the Constitution was in force or in days immediately preceding the said Proclamation.(II)misuse of powers of arrests or issue of detention orders where such arrests or orders are alleged to have been made on considerations not germane to the purposes of the relevant Acts during the aforesaid period.(III)specific instances of maltreatment of and/or atrocities on persons arrested under Disir or detained and their relatives and close associates during the aforesaid period.(IV)specific instances of compulsion and use of force in the implementation of the family planning programme during the aforesaid period.He had submitted that the impugned notice and summons issued to him were not valid and that his being called upon to give testimony on oath would violate' his fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.It was alleged in' the application' that what the Commission was doing really amounted to enquiring into the commission of an offence by the petitioner and, therefore, he was an accused and could claim the benefit of the protection against testimonial compulsion.The validity of Rule 5(2)(a) A was also challdnged.It was, therefore, pleaded that in those circumstances the petitioner could not be compelled to give testimony on oath before the Commission and the notice and summons be withdrawn.As already noticed earlier, these contentions were negatived by the Commission which, however, did not give a finding on .the B validity of his appointment.Respondent No. 1 had denied the averments and allegations of the petitioner.Shri B. K. Panigrahi, Inspector General of Police attached to the Shah Commission, has filed an affidavit in which he has relied upon the assessment order made by the Income-tax Department in which Aparna Ashram has been held not to be a charitable institution.He has stated that preliminary investigation revealed that the said aircraft was not donated to Aparna Ashram but was purchased by the petitioner.He admits that a case under Section 406 Indian Penal Code . had been filed against the petitioneir.After hearing the counsel we declined leave to the petitioner to withdraw the petition by a short order dated November 29, 1978 wherein we stated that the reasons for our dec-lining the prayer would be recorded later.We now proceed to record those reasons.(12) In his application dated nil but moved on November 29, 1978 the petitioner submitted that, inter alia, in view of the admitted facts specially on the point of Article 20(3) of the) Constitution, his defense in the trial Court would be adversely affected in, case the writ petition was dismissed by this court.When the Commission rejected his prayer he appeared before the Chief ^ Metropolitan Magistrate and moved a similar application there.In this view of the matter now when the peititioner himself has moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution he cannot be allowed to play hide and seek an,d take the matter once again to the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate when the arguments have almost concluded on the points in this court.It has been submitted in the reply that if the petitioner succeeds in the present writ petition the prosecution would automatically come to an en,d but if he fails important questions of law would have been settled and proceedings in the trial Court could be concluded expeditiously.

['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been brought under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashment of letter dated May 9, 1987 by which the Investigating Officer investigating the case pertaining to Fir No. 1 14 of 1987 under Sections 380, 467, 468, 470 and 420 of Indian Penal Code had intimated the Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd. restraining them from handing over any immovable property standing in the name of the petitioner, petitioner's wife and in the name of any other member of the petitioner's family as the investigation in the aforesaid case was pending.The copy of the letter issued by the Investigating Officer was not filed Along with the writ petition as no such letter has been served on the petitioner by the Investigating Officer.The contents of the said letter have been read out in Court from the Police File.It is useful to re-produce the contents of the said letter which is dated May, 1987. "To The Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Limited, Kasturba Gandhi Road, Ansal Bhavan, New Delhi.Sub: Request to withhold the properties in r/o Shri J.C. Arora, Mrs. Uma Arora Miss Shivani Arora and Mr. Gaurav Arora R/oAI/228,S.J. Enclave.New Delhi in connection of an Fir No. 114/87 under Sections 380/420/467/462 Ipc, P.S. Vinay Nagar.Sir, You are hereby directed not to transfer the above-said properties as a criminal case (above) is pending investigation with us against Shri J.C. Arora and others family members mentioned above are his dependant.Flat No. 802 situated at 21, Bara Khamba Road.Flat No. 402 situated at 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg.Flat No. 1413, situated at 38, Nehru Place.Flat No. 219, 6 Bhikaji Camma Palace, New Delhi (Possession of this flat has already taken).Flat No. D-2022, Palam Vibar, New Delhi.

['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

She challenges an order of the second respondent made in BDFGISSV No.17/2010 dated 4.4.2010, whereby her husband was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda.2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.The Court also looked into the materials available including the grounds of detention.3.Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in three adverse cases namely (1) Mamallapuram PS Cr.No.192/2009 under Sections 147, 148, 120(b), 302 IPC r/w 3 & 4 of Indian Explosive Substances Act; (2) Chunambedu PS Cr.No.59/2010 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC and (3) Chunambedu PS Cr.No.60/2010 under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 394, 307 IPC r/w 3 of Indian Explosive Substances Act and also in one ground case registered by Chunambedu PS Cr.No.154/2010 under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 394, 307 IPC r/w 4 of Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908 for an occurrence that took place on 17.2.2010, and he was arrested on 1.3.2010 and remanded to judicial custody, the detaining authority after scrutiny of the materials placed, formed an opinion that the detenu should be detained under Act 14/82 and hence passed the order which is under challenge.4.The learned Counsel while assailing the order under challenge, put forth only one ground.According to him, the authority before stating that the detenu would indulge in such activities in future, has not even formed an opinion that he was likely to come out on bail, or there was a real possibility or imminent possibility of his coming out on bail, and this shows the non-application of mind on the part of the authority, and hence, the order has got to be set aside.(M.C.,J.) (M.S.N.,J.) 30-8-2010Index: yes/noInternet: yes/nonsvTo:2.The District Collector & District Magistrate Kancheepuram Kancheepuram District3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.H.C.P.No.695 of 2010

['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J:One Bisheswar Yadav was residing in Baikuntha Palli, Police Station Bhakti Nagar, Siliguri.He sold one of his properties at and for a sum of Rs.2.51 lacs.2 His daughter was getting married at Bihar.She, however, telephoned PW-1 to enquire whether Bisheswar had reached Bihar or not.After five/six days, PW-1 again enquired about Bisheswar over telephone when Gandhi Devi told him that she did not lodge any missing diary.PW-1 wanted to come to Siliguri.Gandhi Devi told him to stay back and informed him that she would come to Bihar within two/three days.Gandhi Devi went to Madhepura where her daughter Sanjana was residing.PW-1 came to know that Gandhi Devi had been visiting Madhepura with Shyam Yadav, the appellant no.1 who was staying with Bisheswar and Gandhi Devi in their Bhaktinagar residence.PW-1 went to Madhepura and met Gandhi Devi.Gandhi Devi told her that she was suspecting Umesh, Chandra Kishore and Khoka Yadav in the matter of disappearance of Bisheswar.PW-1 informed Gandhi Devi that since December 7, Umesh was in Bihar.According to PW-1, Shyam Yadav was involved in abduction of Bisheswar.PW-1 then came to Siliguri and lodged a complaint on December 26, 2005 suspecting Gandhi Devi and Shyam Yadav having killed Bisheswar and buried him in a room in the premises where they were living.PW-1, Sadananda Yadav, the brother of Bisheswar reiterated what he had stated in the written complaint made before the police.Elaborating his stand, PW-1 stated that on December 8, he received a call from Gandhi Devi that Bisheswar had left Siliguri with 10 k.g. tea and a sum of Rs.1.75 lacs for the purpose of marriage of Sanjana, their daughter.Sadananda told her that Bisheswar did not arrive at Bihar.After five/six days, Gandhi Devi again telephoned him and enquired of Bisheswar.Getting a negative reply, she advised him to stay back and expressed her desire to go to Bihar on the next day.She also informed that she had not yet lodged any missing diary with the police.After five/six days Gandhi Devi, being accompanied by Shyam visited Madhepura where Sanjana was staying.On being informed by would be father in-law of Sanjana, Sadananda went to Madhepura and met Gandhi Devi.Gandhi Devi told him that she was suspecting Umesh, Chandra Kishore and Khoka in the matter of missing of Bisheswar.Sadananda however suspected Shyam in the matter of abduction of Bisheswar.After meeting Gandhi Devi at Madhepura Sadananda rushed to Siliguri and tried to search out Bisheswar.The neighbours advised him to lodge a diary.Sadananda informed Gandhi Devi over phone at Madhepura.He also admitted that he did not lodge any missing diary at Bihar.PW-2 Sanjana, the daughter of the deceased deposed that Shyam was residing in the same house as a tenant.He initially paid rent and thereafter stopped.The relationship between Bisheswar and Shyam was cordial.Bisheswar loved Shyam as his brother.After her marriage was settled she went to Madhepura according to the wishes of her in-law's family.Bisheswar talked to Sanjana over telephone and informed her that he would be coming on the next morning with money.PW-6 was the brother in-law of Bisheswar and the brother of Gandhi Devi.He also corroborated what PW-1 and 2 had said with regard to fixing of marriage and sale of land.According to him, on December 10, at about 10.00 a.m. Shyam 7 came to him and enquired him about Bisheswar, thereafter Shyam told him that he received a telephone call from Bihar that there had been a demand of money on account of "Tilak" and the land had been sold for that purpose and Bisheswar left for Bihar.Later on Gandhi Devi told him that Bisheswar took Rs.1.75 lacs along with him before leaving.On enquiry, after three/four days, from Gandhi Devi, PW-6 came to know that there had been no information about Bisheswar.Gandhi Devi paid him a sum of Rs.50,000.00 and told him to keep it safely which might be required for marriage purpose.At that time Shyam was not in the house.The next morning Gandhi Devi and Shyam left for Bihar.He then narrated the incident after arrival of Sadananda.The money was seized by the police from his residence.He came to know that Bisheswar was murdered and buried.PW-7, Pradip Roy, the only tenant in the house could not give any clue as to the murder.He only deposed that he was witness to the recovery of body.The other witnesses were seizure witnesses, the Investigating Officer and the masons who cemented the floor.There had been initial confusion with regard to the civil contractor.PW-13 Bikash Roy deposed that he, along with Bapi and Lalbahadur Tahpa, was sent by Dhanbahadur Subya for undertaking a masonry work at the house of Bisheswar.According to Bikash, they were engaged for cementing work in a kaccha room.They wanted to dig up the floor.The inmates of the house 8 however told them that they should dig up only upto two feet and then they themselves asked them not to level the floor and wanted to do it of their own.Thereafter, they cemented the floor by applying cement morter prepared by them.The lady in the house lighted "Dhupkathi" in the corner of the room.After completion of the work they left the place.He deposed that his actual name is Dhanbir Deon.According to him, one lady and one man went to him and asked him to make the floor cemented.Initially he refused and then agreed.1 Form No. J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present :The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore Kumar Prasad Death Reference Case No.3 of 2008 WITH CRA NO. 805 OF 2008 Shyam Yadav & Gandhi Devi YadavHe left his residence at Bhaktinagar along with a sum of Rs.1.75 lacs for Bihar for his daughter's marriage.After he went missing, his wife Gandhi Devi, the appellant no.2 above named, did not lodge any complaint with the Police Station.Gandhi Devi and Shyam were arrested.They pleaded innocence and faced trial.The learned Sessions Judge held them guilty of the offence and convicted them under Section 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.According to the learned Judge, this was rearest of the rear cases and as such sentenced them for capital punishment.Hence, this appeal by Gandhi Devi and Shyam.The death reference was made to this Court under Section 366(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for confirmation of the sentence passed against the appellants before this Court.The appeal of the accused and the death reference case were heard together and this judgment will govern both the reference and the appeal.Altogether twenty witnesses were examined by the prosecution.Gandhi Devi arrived on the next day at 5 a.m. along with Shyam.Sadananda lodged a complaint with the Police Station written by Chandra Kishore.After lodging the complaint, Sadananda came to know from "some vanwalas" that Bisheswar might have been murdered and the dead body was buried in the room.On December 9, Gandhi Devi telephoned her and enquired of Bisheswar.She again telephoned in the evening on the same day and she was weeping.According to her, Bisheswar was murdered for grabbing the money arranged for her marriage.She deposed that her mother was not so bad but since Shyam started residing there he used to offer her mother drinks and cigarette.Sanjana stated that she used to raise objection to the relationship of Shyam had with her mother and Shyam used to beat her for that purpose.She also deposed that she found blood stain on the wall of the room where his father used to sleep as well as on the pillow and bed.She also deposed that the house consisted of nine rooms.PW-7 was a tenant.Bisheswar was a van puller carrying tea leaves.She denied the suggestion that Sadananda, Umesh or Chandra Kishore were involved in the murder of Bisheswar.PW-4 Chandra Kishore also corroborated PW-2 and 3, so was PW-5 Khoka Yadav.He was, however, paid Rs.1,100.00 for five days work.He deposed that Lalbahadur Thapa, Bapi and another person, possibly Bikash Roy (PW-13) whose name he could not recollect.PW-20, the Investigating Officer gave details of the investigation.On a combined reading of the deposition and on a careful analysis it appears that the following facts were proved through witnesses who corroborated each other :-i) Bisheswar and Gandhi Devi were residing in Siliguri at Baikuntha Palli, in their own house having nine rooms including one kuccha room having bamboo structure.Shyam was also residing in the same house.ii) Bisheswar was a rickshaw puller, mainly involved in transportation of tea leaves.iii) Bisheswar allegedly left with Rs.1.75 lacs on December 8, 2005 for Madhepura where he did not reach.He was thereafter not seen by any one either at Siliguri or at Madhepura.iv) Gandhi Devi enquired of Bisheswar from Sadananda, PW-1, on December 9 whether he had reached Bihar.Similar telephone call was made to Sanjana in the morning as well as in the evening.However, during evening telephone call Gandhi Devi was weeping when Sanjana told her to visit her.v) Gandhi Devi never lodged any missing diary with the local police station.Written complaint was made only on December 26, 2005 by Sadananda at Bhaktinagar Police Station after being informed by "vanwallas" that Bisheswar might have been killed and buried in his own room.vi) The floor was cemented by PW-13 and two other masons being engaged by PW-19 at the instance of the appellants.A lady in the house lit up an Agarbatti in the room, possibly offering respect to the departed soul. 10Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the only tenant Pradip Roy being PW-7 categorically deposed that he did not see anything pertaining to the murder of Bisheswar.According to Mr. Mukherjee, Pradip Roy, one of the inmates of the house could not throw any light on the unfortunate murder of Bisheswar.In absence of such proof it would be too risky to affirm the conviction of the appellants.Mr. Mukherjee further contended that from the evidence it could only be proved that the dead body was unearthed by digging up the floor.Even if it is held by this Court that the job of cementing work was done at the instance of the appellants as proved through masons deposed before the 11 Court the accused could at best be convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for hiding the dead body.According to Mr. Mukherjee, there was no direct or indirect evidence which could complete the chain of circumstance to come to a definite conclusion that the accused were guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code.Mr. Mukherjee further contended that the PW-1, 2, 4 and 5 were relations and their evidence should be weighed with great caution.With regard to the deposition of PW-13 and 19 Mr. Mukherjee pointed out the anomalies with regard to the name of the labour contractor.Her visit to Madhepura and her prolonged stay with Shyam obviously raised sufficient cloud that was not removed by the defence.According to Mr. Dastoor, when Gandhi Devi enquired of Bisheswar over telephone from Sadananda as well as Sanjana, she could enquire also from the local police station and should have lodged a missing diary to this said effect.No explanation was offered by either of the appellants on that score.Mr. Dastoor further contended that when the dead body was unearthed from the premises where Bisheswar, Gandhi Devi as well as Shyam were residing, the appellants owed an explanation in that respect and the court below was competent to draw an adverse inference in absence of any explanation.Mr. Dastoor further remarked about the ostensive livelihood of Bisheswar and commented that being a rickshaw puller he had properties at Siliguri worth lakhs of rupees.He did not reach Bihar.His dead body was unearthed after about sixteen days from his own house.Cementing was done by the masons who identified the accused having engaged them for the purpose of cementing of the floor.PW- 13 also deposed to the effect that both the accused supervised the work of cementing.Gandhi Devi lit up an Aganbatti on the cemented floor, possibly to show respect to the departed soul.This incriminating evidence coupled with a complete silence on the part of the accused offering no explanation as to the cementing of floor from which the dead body was unearthed, would obviously raise a pointer to the accused and the accused only.Even if we 14 accept that there was no direct evidence to the incident of murder, even if we accept the argument that the doctor was not called to support the postmortem report, the very fact that the body was unearthed from the residence of the victim as well as the accused would certainly raise a pointer and such pointer was to be rebutted by the accused.No attempt was made to that extent.Dead body was found lying in a sugar cane field on the next day when she was found missing on the way to her school.Two witnesses saw the deceased being carried on a bicycle by the accused.Accused was interrogated.We have checked up the records.In the instant case, Bisheswar, Gandhi Devi and Shyam were staying together in the house.When the dead body was recovered from the house of the victim as well as the appellants, the appellants, in our view, must owe an explanation.However, when the circumstances demand an explanation from the accused to unfold the narrative that is within their special knowledge total silence on their part must go as against them.We find from the evidence that the appellants were close to each other.Even if it is not proved that such relationship was illicit from the evidence of Pradip Roy, an independent witness, the relationship was established.They also did not lodge any complain with the police at any point of time.We also find from the evidence that when the police came with the mason to dig up the floor both the appellants resisted and cautioned the police that in case they were unsuccessful they would be proceeded with in accordance with law.There is one more salient feature.When a child loses one of his/her parents as a natural course he/she would not let the other to be lost and consequentially he/she would try his/her best to save the other.Kishore Kumar Prasad, J:

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants, application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant No.1 Arvind is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.The remaining applicants are in custody since 16.09.2015 relating to Crime No.349/2015 registered at Police Station Rehli, District Sagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 326/149, 427, 294, 506 of IPC , Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality, who do not have any criminal past alleged against them.It is alleged against the applicants that they assaulted with axes to the various victims, however, none of them have sustained grave injury caused by any sharp cutting weapon.Prima facie no offence under Section 326 of IPC is made out against the applicants, either directly or with the help of Section 149 of IPC.At the most, offence under Section 325 of IPC may constitute which is bailable.There is no allegation against the applicants that they threw any bomb.It is alleged against co- accused Arvind that he exploded one bomb.The applicants were not aware that co-accused would commit such a crime.Prima facie no offence under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act is made out against the applicants, either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.Though offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is triable by the Court of Special Judge but is punishable with maximum 5 years' R.I. only.Under these circumstances, the allegations made against the applicants are not so grave.Consequently, they pray for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

I. The anticipatory bail application Nos. 1211/2019 and 1174/2019 are hereby allowed.In the event of arrest of applicant - ARUN S/O.BHAUSAHEB PALANGE in ABA/1211/2019 and applicant - CHANDARANI W/O. SACHIN SHINDE, in connection with Crime No.293 of 2019 registered with Tuljapur Police Station, District Osmanabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 r/w 34 of IPC, they be released on bail on furnishing P.B. of Rs.5000/- each, with one surety each of the like amount, on the following conditions;a) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.b. The applicant - ARUN S/O. BHAUSAHEB PALANGE shall attend the concerned Police Station once in a week i.e. on every Sunday::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:29:38 ::: 11-ABA-1211-2019.odt -6- between 08.00 am to 11.00 am till filing of the charge-sheet.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:29:38 :::c. The applicant - CHANDARANI W/O. SACHIN SHINDE shall make herself available as and when required by the Investigating Officer in carrying out the further investigation, if any.Both anticipatory bail applications are disposed of accordingly.(V. K. JADHAV, J.) Sam...::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:29:38 :::

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

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

It is further alleged that Then one of his associate Thiru.Subash forcibly robbed Rs.150/- from the pocket of the complainant and another associate Thiru.Padaleeswaran forcibly robbed Rs.200/- from Thiru.In the first adverse case dated 11.9.2001, the allegation is that the detenu and his 5 associates formed an unlawful assembly with a common object of damaging a bus and in furtherance of their common object, they damaged the front and rear wind screen glasses,side glasses, head light with casuarina sticks and thereby caused damages to the tune of Rs.20,950/- and they also assaulted the witness and caused injuries.On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, a case has been registered in Manalmedu P.S Cr.In the second adverse case dated 29.3.2003, the allegation is that the detenu and his 3 associates attacked one Dhanasekaran with veecharuval due to previous enmity and caused the death in pursuance of their common intention.A case has been registered in Cr.No.178/2003 under Sections 449, 302 r/w. 34 IPC.In the ground case dated 24.1.2004, it is alleged that the detenu and his 3 associates criminally intimidated the public and vendors demanding mamool by threatening that they were already involved in the cases like murder and robbery and that in order to conduct such cases and other expenses they should part with money and they subsequently threatened the persons with weapons like vicharuval and country made bombs.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.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)

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

W.P.(CRL). No.1081/10 Page No.5 of 24W.P.(CRL).No.1081/10 Page No.5 of 24Before analyzing the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate if the background facts leading to the extradition request are briefly mentioned.As per the documents on record, the case against the petitioner is that on 30.03.2007, the police authorities of Phoenix, Arizona, USA found the dead body of one Navneet Kaur in her home at 4218, East Redwood Lane, Phoenix.The police also found a broken glass in the kitchen floor, a knife on the bed of the Master Bedroom and a ceiling fan torn away from the ceiling.The W.P.(CRL).No.1081/10 Page No.6 of 24 body of Navneet Kaur was found lying face down in a bath tub located on the first floor of the said house.There were blood stains throughout the house and primary indications were that Navneet Kaur had suffered blunt force trauma and strangulation as a cause of her death.A note which purportedly was signed by the fugitive criminal (the petitioner herein), confessing to his killing his wife (Navneet Kaur) and stating his intent to kill himself also was found in the said home.One Mr Ganesh Kumar Kodavuru, a neighbour of the deceased, had seen the petitioner backing out from the driveway of the deceased in a black BMW car.The petitioner is said to have spoken briefly to the said neighbour and then parked the said BMW car in the garage of the house and then left the place in a taxi.The investigation further revealed that the petitioner, who resides in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada, flew to Phoenix from Vancouver on 29.03.2007 following a discussion with Navneet Kaur during which she allegedly told him that she wanted a divorce.The prosecution case against the petitioner is further that friends of the deceased Navneet Kaur had told the investigating authorities that she (Navneet Kaur) had narrated to them that she had asked her husband (the petitioner herein) for a divorce and that he had told her that a divorce would only happen if she were dead.Further investigation revealed that from the petitioners credit card activity, the petitioner, following the W.P.(CRL).OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AVTAR GREWAL, on or about the 29th day of March, 2007, acting either alone or with one or more persons, committed or attempted to commit Burglary, Second Degree, and in the course of and in furtherance of such offense, or immediate flight from such offense, AVTAR GREWAL or another person caused the death of NAVNEET KAUR, in violation of A.R.S. 13- 1105, 13-1101, 13-702, 13-702.01, 13-703, 13-703.01 and 13-801."On 21.05.2007, the Embassy of the United States of America requested for the extradition of Avtar Singh Grewal (the petitioner herein) to the United States in connection with the said indictment.It W.P.(CRL).No.1081/10 Page No.8 of 24 may also be pertinent to mention that the petitioner had been arrested by the authorities in India at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on 31.03.2007 pursuant to an Interpol Red Notice.W.P.(CRL).No.1081/10 Page No.8 of 24Thereafter, by an order dated 28.05.2007 under Section 5 of the said Act and pursuant to the said Treaty, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi was requested to inquire into the alleged offence.Thereafter, the learned ACMM conducted the inquiry and, after examining the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prescribed procedure had been followed inasmuch as the extradition had been received through diplomatic channels alongwith the documents and the required documents as per Article 9(1)(2)(3) of the said Treaty.The seal has W.P.(CRL).In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 19.07.2010 passed by the learned ACMM, New Delhi directing the detention of the petitioner pursuant to the inquiry report dated W.P.(CRL).No.1081/10 Page No.1 of 24 09.07.2010 be set aside and the petitioner be set at liberty.The impugned inquiry report dated 09.07.2010 was made by the learned ACMM under the provisions of The Extradition Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).The impugned order dated 19.07.2010, whereby the petitioner, being a fugitive criminal, was committed to prison to await the orders of the Central Government, was also passed pursuant to the inquiry report under the said Act.W.P.(CRL).No.1081/10 Page No.1 of 24Mr K.T.S. Tulsi, the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has challenged the said order on three counts.W.P.(CRL).No.1081/10 Page No.2 of 24The second point urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that Article 8 of the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of India entered into on 25.06.1997 in Washington, USA (hereinafter referred to as the said Treaty) would also come into play and, therefore, the Requested State may refuse extradition.Mr A.S. Chandhiok, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, controverted the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner.No.1081/10 Page No.4 of 24On the basis of the investigation, the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa, on 03.04.2007, passed an indictment charging that in Maricopa County, Arizona:W.P.(CRL).No.1081/10 Page No.6 of 24W.P.(CRL).No.1081/10 Page No.7 of 24"COUNT 1:The petitioner has invoked our extraordinary writ jurisdiction and, in doing so, we do not have to examine as to whether the inquiry report / order is right or wrong, but we have to examine whether the same are legal or illegal and whether the procedure prescribed in the Extradition Act, as also in the said Treaty, have been followed or not.W.P.(CRL).No.1081/10 Page No.23 of 24In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.The parties are left to bear their own costs.BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MANMOHAN SINGH, J JULY 15, 2011 dutt W.P.(CRL).No.1081/10 Page No.24 of 24W.P.(CRL).No.1081/10 Page No.24 of 24

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

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

It was alleged that the contract was awarded to the said company after changing the specifications of the helicopters, in order to favour the said company after taking huge commission/bribe.Subsequently, on the basis of said case, present ECIR case was registered for the offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Act. During the investigation, it was revealed that total 70 BAIL APPLN.1518/2017 Page 2 of 16 million Euros was paid as kick backs by the said company.Petitioner and co-accused Gautam Khaitan, Rajiv Saxena (husband of petitioner, based in Dubai) and others were instrumental in laundering the bribe money in India and abroad.They were the carriers of proceeds of crime.The money laundering was done through several consultancy contracts executed between the said company and other companies, namely, M/s Gordian Services Sarl, M/s Tunisia and M/s IDS Sarl, Tunisia etc. These companies further executed consultancy contracts with M/s Interstellar Technologies Ltd., Mauritius, M/s IDS Infotech Ltd., Chandigarh, M/s Aeromatrix Info Salutations Pvt. Ltd., India and others.M/s IDS, Tunisia received Euro 24.37 million from M/s Agusta Westland.M/s Interstellar Technologies Ltd., Mauritius had received 12.4 million Euros.These proceeds were then transferred to foreign locations including the companies owned by the petitioner and her husband, namely, M/s UHY Saxena, Dubai and M/s Matrix Holdings Limited, Dubai.Petitioner was partner/director in both the companies.Petitioner was arrested in Chennai on 16 th July, 2017 and her custody remand was taken.She was confronted with the BAIL APPLN.1518/2017 Page 3 of 16 records but she gave evasive replies.She also avoided to furnish information regarding companies situated in Mauritius and Dubai with which she and her husband (co-accused) were associated.Petitioner did not cooperate in the investigation.Huge transactions were noticed in the HDFC Bank accounts of the petitioner in India.Petitioner did not disclose other banks accounts, which found reflected in her HDFC Bank account.Petitioner was also associated with M/s Matrix Group Limited, Dubai, M/s Matrix Holdings Limited, Dubai, M/s Cronimet Mercon Invest.BAIL APPLN.1518/2017 Page 2 of 16BAIL APPLN.1518/2017 Page 3 of 16Learned senior counsel has contended that petitioner is a woman aged about 53 years.She is a house wife and is also sick.Petitioner is unwell, which is evident from the remand application dated 21st July, 2017 filed by the respondent before the learned Special Judge.Orders dated 17th July, 2017, 21st July, 2017 and 26th July, BAIL APPLN.1518/2017 Page 5 of 16 2017 passed by the learned Special Judge also show that petitioner is sick and needs medical attention.During the investigation, respondent was directed to provide necessary medical assistance to the petitioner vide aforesaid orders.Her husband is a chartered accountant and manages his profession and the companies.She has done Masters in Finance.BAIL APPLN.1518/2017 Page 8 of 16Relevant it would be to refer and rely upon Section 45 of the PMLA at this stage, which reads as under :-Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.BAIL APPLN.1518/2017 Page 15 of 16SEPTEMBER 15, 2017 ga BAIL APPLN.1518/2017 Page 16 of 16Brief facts of the case are that Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), registered a case vide RC 217 2013 A0003 dated 12 th March, 2013 under Sections 7, 8, 9, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PMLA read with Section 120-B and 420 IPC, in respect of a contract signed by Ministry of defence with M/s Augusta Westland International Limited, for supply of 12 numbers of AW 101 VVIP helicopters.Ltd., Dubai, M/s ReCom Properties Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Whitespring Estate Pvt. Ltd. as a director or otherwise.As per the respondent, the proceeds of crime were routed to India by way of investments made by the petitioner, her husband and their companies, details whereof, as could be traced till now, are as under :-BAIL APPLN.1518/2017 Page 4 of 16BAIL APPLN.1518/2017 Page 4 of 16BAIL APPLN.1518/2017 Page 13 of 16She was actively involved in the affairs of the various companies by virtue of her holding responsible positions, inasmuch as, she was holding power of attorney in her favour from M/s Atlanta Natural Resources PTE.Ltd., Cronimet Mining GmbH, Matrix Holdings Limited etc. In the order dated 23rd August, 2017, learned Special Judge has recorded, on the basis of medical reports regarding health condition of the petitioner, that physiotherapy was being provided to her.

['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

By knowing all those facts, A1 sold the land of 1.26 acre having Survey No.186/9 in the same village (including the above said lands of 117 cents) wilfully to A2 through a registered sale deed.These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed to set aside the judgments dated 09.02.2012 made in Crl.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 respectively passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, District and Sessions Court No.2, Kancheepuram, confirming the judgment dated 02.09.2010 made in C.C.No.309 of 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, TiruvallurA case in Crime No.04 of 2004 was registered by the respondent police against the revision petitioners/A1 & A2 for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 r/w 34 IPC.After trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, convicted the accused by judgment dated 02.09.2010 and sentenced them as follows:-2/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.Nos.270 & 217 of 2012 Accused Offence Sentence A1 420 and 468 IPC 2 years Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 420 IPC and 2 years Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 468 IPC .A2 420 and 468 r/w 34 IPC 2 years Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 420 IPC and 2 years Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 420 IPC Trial Court directed the sentences to run concurrently.Challenging the said judgment, the accused filed the appeal in Crl.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 before the learned District Sessions Judge, District Sessions Court No.2, Kancheepuram.After hearing the arguments, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeals on 09.02.2012 by confirming the judgment of the trial Court.There against, A1 preferred the Crl.RC.No.270/2012 and A2 preferred the Crl.RC.No.217/2012 before this Court.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are so many variations in Survey numbers regarding the lands in the village and civil suits are pending in respect of the same and there is no mens rea for A1 to create such false documents with false claim and there is no evidence to show that A2 is not a bona fide purchaser.Further, he would submit that PW-1 has admitted that 3/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.Nos.270 & 217 of 2012 the survey numbers in the S.L.R would clearly show that the lands conveyed by the father of A1 to the father of defacto complainant with pymash numbers are not that the lands claimed by the defacto complainant S.No.186/9 and the same clearly proved that the defacto complainant's family is not having 117 cents upon the land in S.No.186/9 and therefore, it cannot be held that A1 wilfully conveyed the land of 1.26 acres of land in S.No.186/9 to A2 and it is clearly proved that there is some dispute in the title and right over the property.So, it cannot be concluded that A2 was having common intention.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the first accused, knowing fully well that the property is not belonged to him, has created the forged document and sold the property to the second accused.A2 also knowing fully well that the property belongs to the defacto complainant's family, purchased the property, which shows that he is not the bona fide purchaser.A2 is residing in the same village and he was acting as President in the said village and also he knows very well about the 4/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.Nos.270 & 217 of 2012 property.Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that without knowing the fact, A2 purchased the property cannot be accepted.Both the Courts have rightly appreciated the entire evidence and convicted the accused, which does not warrant interference.5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.A reading of the evidence of PWs-1 to 3, it is seen that the property mentioned in the sale deed executed by the first accused in favour of the second accused belongs to the family of the defacto complainant and in the said sale deed, survey number has been mentioned.The survey number is not tallied with the pymash number as stated by the revision petitioners.There is discrepancies in the Revenue records and knowing fully well about the property, the petitioners/accused have created the false documents.PWs-1 to 3 categorically stated that property in S.No.186/9 belongs to the family of the defacto complainant, the first accused forged the document and executed the sale deed in favour of the second accused.The father of PWs-1 to 3 viz., Varadhan purchased the said property under sale deed dated 21.07.1958 vide document No.2786 of 1958, sale deed dated 24.03.1958 vide document 5/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.PWs-7 to 10 have clearly stated that the suit properties belong to PWs-1 to 3 and they are only in possession of the said property.The patta for Survey No.186/9 is shown as 666 and 667 in the joint patta book.When the revision petitioners/accused created the forged documents, there is no pymash number in the said period and they have not stated that how they have mentioned the pymash number in the disputed document and how they are in possession.PWs-1 to 3 only paying the property tax.From the evidence of PWs-1 to 5, the land owners and also PWs-7 to 10/official witnesses have clearly stated that the property covered under the sale deed belong to PWs-1 to 3 and they are in possession of the said property.The revision petitioners/A1 & A2 also knew very well about the said property.Since the second accused was the Ex-President of the said Village Panchayat, he very well knew about each and every property of the said village.The first accused sold the property to the second accused through a sale deed (Ex.P7) and the second accused, knowing fully well that the property belongs to PWs-1 to 3, purchased the property from the first accused, which shows that A1 and A2 have cheated the defacto complainant and also forged the documents.The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts through the prosecution witnesses and the knowledge of the revision petitioners/accused 1 and 2 about the property was also established.In this present case also, this Court, being the Revisional Court, cannot sit in the arm chair of the Appellate Court and re-appreciate the entire evidence.This Court does not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence.There is no merit in these revisions and the same are liable to be dismissed.7/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.Nos.270 & 217 of 2012In the result, these Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed.The judgment dated 09.02.2012 in Crl.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, District and Sessions Court No.2, Kancheepuram, is hereby confirmed.30.07.2019 Index: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking Order KMI ToThe District and Sessions Judge, District and Sessions Court No.2, Kancheepuram.The Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruvallur.8/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.Nos.270 & 217 of 2012 P.VELMURUGAN, J KMI Crl.R.C.Nos.270 and 217 of 2012 30.07.2019

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

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

Shri Vinod Kumar Dhakar, counsel for the complainant.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Special Judge (under SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act) [hereinafter it would be referred to as "the Special Act''] Shivpuri, whereby the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant relating to Crime No.369/2016 registered at Police Station AJAK District Shivpuri for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506, 147, 148, 149, 307 of IPC and Sections 3 (1)(r), 3 (1)(s) and 3 (2)(v.a) of the SCST Act, was dismissed.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a youth of 27 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.The offence under Section 307 of IPC is triable by the court of session and other offences registered under the Special Act but remaining IPC offences, are triable by the Magistrate and, therefore, they are not so grave.It is alleged against the appellant that he assaulted the victim on his head causing head injury, however, no fracture was found below the injury nor the treating doctor opined that the injury was fatal in nature.Hence, prima facie no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the appellant.It is not 2 CRA.1196/2016 Shivram Dhakar Vs.State of M.P.established that the victim was assaulted because of his caste and therefore prima facie no offence under Section 3 (2)(v.a) of Special Act is made out against the appellant.Offences under Section 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Special Act are punishable by five years imprisonment and therefore those are not so grave so that the appellant may not be released on bail.Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the order dt.11.11.2016 be set aside and the appellant be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the appeal.Learned counsel for the complainant also opposes the appeal.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that order dt.11.11.2016 passed by the Special Court was not dependent upon the sound principles of law.It was for the trial court to examine as to whether prima facie offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out or not.Under these circumstances, it is a good case in which the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted.Consequently, the appeal is allowed.The order dt.11.11.2016 is reversed.This order shall remain in force till the disposal of the case.A copy of the order be sent to the court below for its information.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge SP

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

As per prosecution's own case, the applicant has not assaulted the complainant.The applicant is a government servant.Nothing is required to be seized from his possession.He is ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial.The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, his reputation will be tarnished as well as his services will be adversely affected, therefore, he be enlarged on anticipatory bail.Shri Manish Datt, Senior Counsel with Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Vijay Soni, Panel Lawyer for the State.This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail.As per prosecution, it is alleged that complainant Shabnam is a child and the applicant, his wife Shireen and daughter Ajleena are alleged to have restrained her in their house and treated her as slave.(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB

['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 application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) ( Sudip Ahluwalia-J.)

['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 17.2.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No. 248 of 2004 (State Vs Balwant Singh and others) under Sections 364 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Basti passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, FTC Court No. 3, whereby the application of accused/revisionist Balwant Singh for declaring him juvenile has been rejected.As per the office report dated 8/7/2013, notices were issued to the revisionist Balwant Singh to engage another counsel.Notices have been served personally but no one has appeared on behalf of the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 even in second reading of cause list.The date of occurrence is 22.11.2000 as such he was merely 16 years and three months on the date of occurrence.Learned trial court on the basis of High School and Intermediate Certificates came to the conclusion that the date of birth of revisionist is indeed 15.8.1984 but at the time of alleged occurrence i.e. on 22.11.2000 the provision of 'Juvenile Justice 'Act 1986'' (in short 'Act 1986') were in vogue wherein the male offender could only claim juvenility if he had not attained the age of 16 years.Aggrieved the present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist.Sessions Judge, cannot be sustained.Under the circumstances, the criminal revision is allowed.Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below within a fortnight for compliance.Order Date :- 17.01.2014 RavindraKSingh

['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his argument on the ground that the detaining authority has taken into consideration the representation of the Sponsoring Authority that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to take him on bail by filing another bail application in respect of one adverse case and the ground case.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the materials available on record.For the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Murugan (a) Nondi Murugan, S/o.Kesavan made in BDFGISSV No.90 of 2013 dated 29.03.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.The present order is only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and shall not have any bearing upon connected criminal pending cases.1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ii) Raghu/P.W.7 was allotted with a house by the HousingBoard.The said conductof Vellaiyan/P.W.2 was seriously objected to by the accused/ Manikandan, whowas residing in the downstair of the said house and the same resulted in aquarrel between them.Mariyammal/P.W.3, who is the mother of Vellaiyan/P.W.2, went to the house of the accused/ Manikandan and expressed her displeasureover the quarrel picked up by Manikandan/accused with her son Vellaiyan/P.W.2.The accused beat Mariyammal/P.W.3 annoyed of her intervention.The accused proclaimed that he will do away with the life of Vellaiyan/P.W.2 and thedeceased/ Muraleetharan.iii) Vasudevan/P.W.1 was working in Balaji Hotel in Erode.On16.5 .2002 at about 12.00 pm, when he was proceeding towards his house afterpurchasing materials for the Hotel, the accused was proceeding just in frontof him with a wooden reaper in his hand.As the accused was proceedingtowards his house, P.W.1 followed him at a faster phase.At that time,Muraleetharan/deceased was sleeping along with his younger brotherKrishnan/P.W.5 on a cot in front of his house.Krishnan/P.W.5 woke up on hearing some noise and found the accused beating his brother Muraleetharan.Vellaiyan/P.W.2, Mariyammal/P.W.3 and Subramani/P.W.4, who woke up on hearing some noise which emanated from the house of Vasudevan/P.W.1, witnessed the accused beating on the head of Muraleetharan with wooden reaper.In spite ofthe efforts taken by the witnesses to catch hold of the accused, the accusedsped way from the scene of occurrence.iv) Vasudevan/P.W.1 and Vellaiyan/P.W.2 took the injuredMuralidaran in an Auto to the Government Hospital at Erode.Balakrishnan/P.W.12 examined Muraleetharan, who was brought to the hospital by his father at about 1.05 hrs on 17.5.2002 and pronounced the death ofMuraleetharan.He sent death intimation/Ex.P.8 to the Police Station.v) Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Erode North Police Station atabout 1.30 hrs on 17.5.2002 and gave a statement/Ex.He dispatched the original FIR to the learned JudicialMagistrate and copies thereof to the higher officials concerned.vi) The Inspector of Police/P.W.20, who received a copy of theFIR at 2.15 hrs on 17.5.2002, rushed to the scene of occurrence and preparedobservation mahazar/Ex.P.3 in the presence of Sengottaiyan/P.W.8 and he alsodrew rough sketch/Ex.P.19 reflecting the scene of occurrence.The bloodstained earth/M.O.5, sample earth/M.O.6, blood stained cot/M.O.2 and its legportion/M.O.3 were recovered under seizure mahazar/Ex.P.2, in the presence ofthe above said witness.With the assistance of Selvam/P.W.9, the occurrenceplace was also photographed.P.W.20 also recovered blood stained shirt/M.O.4from Krishnan/P.W.5 under Ex.P.4 in the presence of Sengottaiyan/P.W.8.P.W.20 also conducted inquest on the dead body of Muraleetharan at Government Hospital, Erode, in the presence of panchayators and prepared inquestreport/Ex.He examined the witnesses who were present there and recorded their statement.He sent a requisition/Ex.P.6 through the Grade-IConstable/P.W.17 for the purpose of conducting postmortem examination on the dead body of Muraleetharan.vii) Dr.Right Lung  350 gms.Left Lung -300 gms.Stomach: Undigested Rice particles present about 200 ml.Liver: 1300 gms.Spleen: 1000 gms.BRAIN:- Wt-300 gms.Left cerebral Brain particles, and membranes, BloodVessels are crushed.Clotted blood seen.Spinal Cord: Intact."On completion of the postmortem examination, he has opined in his postmortem certificate/Ex.P.5 that the deceased appeared to have died of CerebralHaemorrhage and shock due to the head injury, about 10.00 to 14.00 hrs priorto autopsy.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.JEYAPAUL, J.) The accused, who was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC inS.C.No.181/2002 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, haspreferred the present Appeal.The learned Principal Sessions Judge convictedthe accused for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentence him to undergo lifeimprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo RI for afurther period of one year.2.The charge as against the accused is that on 17.5.2002 at about 00.30 hrs at Tiruvalluvar Nagar, Erode, due to previous enmity the accusedattacked Muraleetharan/deceased, when he was sleeping on a cot in front of hishouse, with wooden reaper with an intention to cause his death and therebycommitted the offence punishable under Section 30 2 IPC.3.As many as 21 witnesses were examined besides marking 20 documents and 13 material objects on the side of the prosecution.No evidence eitheroral or documentary was let in on the side of the defence.M.L.K.Rajan/P.W.10, on receipt of the aforesaidrequisition, conducted postmortem examination on the dead body ofMuraleetharan at 11.45 am on 17.5.2002 and he found the following injuries andother features on the body of Muraleetharan/deceased:"EXTERNL INJURIES:-1.CRUSH INJURY SEEN ON LEFT SIDE EYEBROW 7CM X 2CM X UPTO BRAIN MATTER.2.CRUSHED INJURY SEEN ON THE LEFT FRONT OF PARIETAL REGION OF THE SKULL 4 1/2 CM X 2CM X bone depth.OPENING OF THORAX:-Heart: Weight - 200 gms.Kidneys: Both 150 gms.Hyoid Bone: Intact.Bladder : Empty.OPENING OF THE HEAD:-Left side Parietal region of skull fractured.Just above front of theforehead to lower end of Parietal region of left side skull.Size 12 cm x 4cmx upto Brain matter.viii) After the postmortem examination was over, the personalapparels found on the dead body of Muraleetharan viz. M.O.10 to 13 wererecovered by P.W.17 and the same were entrusted to P.W.20 for the purpose offurther investigation.The accused gave a voluntary confession statement in thepresence of P.W.13/P.Srirangan.On the basis of the admissible portion foundin the confession statement of the accused, which is marked as Ex.P.9, woodenreaper/M.O.1 and shirt/M.O.9 were recovered near a thorny bush underneath anoverbridge in Roja Nagar.As the accused was found with some injuries, he wassent to the Government Hospital with a Police Medical Memo for treatment.Kannan/P.W.11 admitted the accused for treatment.The accused informedP.W.11 that he sustained injury on account of a fall on 17.5.2002 at about00.30 hrs at Lakshmi theater, Agraharam.P.W.11 found a contusion over theright shoulder measuring 8cm x 5cm x 3cm.The ultimate opinion of the saidDoctor, which is found in the accident register/Ex.P.7, is that thedislocation of right shoulder of the accused was grievous in nature.x) The accused, thereafter, was remanded in judicial custodyby the investigating officer/P.W.20, who paid a visit to the GovernmentHospital, where the accused was taking treatment.The incriminating portion found in the evidence adduced on theside of the prosecution was culled out and put to the accused in the form ofquestionnaire under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused responded that therewas a quarrel between himself and the deceased and Vellaiyan/P.W.2 in front ofhis house at 11.00 p.m. on 16.2.2002 and the deceased attacked him withThe learned counsel for the appellant would submit that theprosecution has failed to convincingly explain the grievous injury found onthe right shoulder of the accused.The very fact that the accused hassustained such a grievous injury would speak volume about the suppression ofthe fact that the accused had to react having received some injury on hisperson.The accused had reacted in such a fashion after he received a blowfrom the deceased.He would further submit that as all the ocular witnesseshave suppressed the above factum, the whole case of the prosecution will haveto be disbelieved.He further contends that at any rate, the accused wouldnot have intended to cause the death of Muraleetharan/deceased as he has usedthe weapon only after he retrieved the weapon and attacked Muraleetharan/deceased.7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that theocular testimony of P.W.1 to 5 would establish the case of the prosecutionthat it was only the accused, who attacked the deceased/ Muraleetharan andcaused his death.It is his submission that the fatal blow, which caused thedeath almost instantaneously, would speak about the vehemence with which the weapon was handled by the accused.It is his further submission that thetrial Court, rightly placing reliance on the evidence of ocular witnesses, hasconvicted the accused for the offence as mentioned above, which does notwarrant interference.This Court finds that there is no dispute with regard to the factthat there had been frequent quarrels between the accused party and theprosecution party for about one long year prior to the occurrence.P.W.1 toP.W.5 and P.W.7 would state that Vellaiyan/P.W.2 took a woman straight fromthe Cinema theater to the house of Raghu/P.W.7, whereunder the accused was residing.Such an immoral activity of Vellaiyan/P.W.2 had given raise to aquarrel between the prosecution party and the accused party.P.W.1 to P.W.5would also speak to the fact that the accused, who was residing in the downstairs of the house of P.W.7 allotted by the Housing Board, had earlierattacked not only Vellaiyan/P.W.2 but also his mother Mayyriammal/P.W.3 asthey objected to the attitude of the accused blowing the issue out ofproportion.It is found from the evidence of P.W.1 to 5 that on the day ofoccurrence at about 5.00 p.m. there was a quarrel between Vellaiyan/P. W.2and the deceased on one side and the accused on the other side.Ofcourse, thewitnesses would state that the accused went away proclaiming that he would doaway with the life of not only Vellaiyan/P.W.2 but alsoMuraleethanran/deceased.The accused admits that he attacked the deceased and caused injury.The prosecution has not convincingly explained asto how the accused received such a serious injury of dislocation of rightshoulder.None of the ocular witnesses has spoken as to how such an injurywas caused to the accused.The Doctor Kannan/P.W.11, who treated him and issued a copy of the accident register/Ex.P.7 has detailed such a grievousinjury.The case of the prosecution is that the accused voluntarily informedthe Doctor that he sustained injury when he fell down on the ground.We arenot inclined to believe the cock and bull story of the prosecution that such adislocation of right shoulder was caused by a mere fall on the ground.The accused has stated, when he was questioned under Section 313of Cr.P.C, that he had to attack the deceased retrieving the weapon from thedeceased in order to save his life.Such an explanation given by the accusedis found to be quite acceptable to us.In view of the seriousness of theinjury sustained by the accused, the explanation offered by the prosecutionthat a fall on the ground had caused such an injury on the accused standsrejected by us.We are now inclined to believe the version of the accused thatthe accused attacked the deceased only after Muraleetharan/deceased attacked him.Under such circumstances, the question of attackingMuraleetharan/deceased, when he was fast asleep on a cot does not appear to be believable.P.W.1 to P.W.5 would have witnessed the occurrence, but they havecome out with embellishment that the accused attacked the deceased when he was sleeping on a cot.As rightly defended by the learned counsel for theappellant, in the aftermath of the quarrel preceding the occurrence thedeceased would have attacked the accused and thereafter, the accused wouldhave given a fitting reply to the deceased.Further, the Postmortem Doctor-P.W.10, of course, has stated inhis postmortem Certificate/Ex.P.35 that the deceased sustained two injuries,which were found correlated to each other.P.W.2 has categorically deposedthat the accused delivered only one blow with the reaper on the head of thedeceased.The single blow delivered by the accused would have caused both theinterconnected injuries found in the postmortem certificate/Ex.We are inclined to accept the version of the accused that theoccurrence took place only when the accused first launched a virulent attackon the accused in the aftermath of a quarrel.Then the question arises as towhether the accused exercised his right of private defence as contemplatedunder Section 96 of IPC.As already discussed, the deceased sustained only one injury andthe accused has also sustained equally one injury.If the deceased had not been relieved of the reaper,which he possessed and matchingly paid him back in his own coin the accused would have received a deadly blow and succumbed to his injury.In order tosave his life, the accused had defended himself and used only the forcerequired to ward off the attack launched against him.At this juncture, it is also useful to see Exception 2 to section300 IPC, which reads as follows:"Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in theexercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person of propertyexceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the personagainst whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, andwithout any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose ofsuch defence."We find that the accused had excised his right of private defence only to theextent necessitated and that he had not exceeded the right of private defencegiven to him under law.The accused need notseparately let in any evidence when the prosecution evidence available onrecord suggests that the accused attacked the deceased to defend himself, asheld in the authority cited hereinabove.ssvTo,The Principal Sessions Judge,Erode.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Subsequently, as the deceased was not in good relationship with her husband, therefore, she subsequently married with Shivnarayan out of her own will.The aforesaid statements of the parents of the deceased recorded in the case registered under Section 376 of IPC, wherein they have categorically stated that the deceased out of her own will she married with Shivnarayan despite of the fact that the parents were trying to stop her.It is further submitted that thereafter she has returned back to her matrimonial house and started residing with her husband- Monu and after 40-45 days, she has committed suicide in her matrimonial house.It is submitted that the whole story has been created only on the basis of suicide note which is said to read over by the prosecution.It is submitted that applicants are aged about 65 and 60 respectively.1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-38405-2020 (RAMNARAYAN AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF MP) Gwalior, Dated : 23.10.2020 Shri Amit Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail.In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.The parties are being represented by the respective counsels through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.Applicants have been arrested on 19.08.2020 by Police Station Dehat, Basoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.329/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/S 306 and 34 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that applicants have been falsely implicated in the case.They have not committed any offence in any manner.It is submitted that on earlier occasion an FIR was got registered against the son of the present applicants for offence under Section 376 of IPC.It is argued 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-38405-2020 (RAMNARAYAN AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF MP) that the deceased came to the house of the present applicants and as per allegations that their son-Shivnarayan has committed rape with her.(ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate.For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The appellant has mentioned that his age is 85 years and in support he has filed Adhar Card.However, at the time of pronouncement of judgment, in the year 2015, his age was shown to be 60 years and no attempt was made to rectify his age during the course of trial.Hence, no ground for suspension is made out.7. List for final hearing in due course.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice".Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of 10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within a week from today.Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs within a week thereafter and handing over its copy to the Investigating Officer, FIR No.665/2014, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of CRL.M.C. 477/2019 Page 2 of 3 IPC, registered at Police Station Mianwali Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.CRL.M.C. 477/2019 Page 2 of 3This petition is accordingly disposed of.

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

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

As per the prosecution story, 13/11/2019 at about 9.30 a.m., in village Nayagaon, some fair was organized in which some dispute has arisen between the appellant and co-accused and the police which were present on duty for controlling the mob.It is alleged that applicant and other 40-50 persons have attacked with the help of sticks and stones, due to which complainant and Police Personnel sustained injuries.Constable Rohit was found to be serious and he was taken to the hospital.MLC of other injured Police Personnel have been done.This appeal is directed against the order dated 31/10/2020 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, Hoshangabad.In view of the aforesaid, a prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant on regular bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.On going through the copy of charge-sheet, it appears that one of the Police Personnel is said to be injured and his injury was alleged to be opined serious, but no MLC or medical report is filed with the charge-sheet.Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, application of the present appellant seems to be acceptable.C. stands allowed and disposed of.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 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 is First application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Applicant Narayan Singh is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.153/16 for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 323 and 506 of the IPC registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Rajgarh (Biaora).These all offences are bailable, even though the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 02.04.2016 rejected the application on merit.Otherwise also the applicant is an agriculturist, having no criminal antecedent.He has been falsely implicated in this case.In such circumstances, the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.Learned Govt. Advocate for the non-In such circumstances, the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable, therefore, it be rejected.Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the application is disposed of with the direction that the applicant is apprehending his arrest for the offences which are bailable, hence, the applicant be released on bail as per law.Copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court as well as concerned Police Station for compliance.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Since both these appeals have been arisen from the same FIR and the impugned judgment and involve the same incident, therefore, arguments were heard together in these appeals and the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.The prosecution case in brief is that in the morning of 30.10.1999, appellants Man Singh and Tej Pal etc. threw glass scraps of broken electric tubes opposite the house of the complainant Prem Chand (PW1), which was objected to.Resultantly, womenfolk of appellants started abusing and a petty quarrel had taken place.Both the parties allegedly went to the Police Station where the matter was settled.In the evening at about 7.30 PM, appellant Tejpal, working in Delhi Police, came to complainant's house and threatened that he had belittled the complainant party and because of fear, they tendered apology and compromised the matter.Allegedly Jai Bhagwan asked them not to pick up quarrel.In the meantime, appellant Tej Pal alongwith appellants Bijender, Dinesh and deceased Man Singh dragged Jai Bhagwan (PW5) inside their house and started giving beatings to him.In the meantime, Parminder (PW2), Manit (PW7), Saheb Singh (PW3) and Anil (PW4) came there to save PW5, whereas other appellants, namely, Attar Singh, Lakhmi Chand and Surender Singh armed with lathi, DAV and knife respectively came from the side of appellants Man Singh (since deceased) and Tej Pal and attacked the complainant party as a result of which complainant Prem Chand sustained injuries on his left thumb whereas Crl.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 2 of 30 Jai Bhagwan sustained injuries on his head and feet, Parminder sustained injuries on his ribs, Manit sustained knife injuries in his stomach, Saheb Singh and Anil sustained injuries on their heads whereas Chandro (PW6) wife of complainant Prem Chand received injuries on her left arm.In medical examination, injury on the person of Chandro, Saheb Singh and Jai Bhagwan were opined to be grievous, whereas injuries on the person of Manit, Parminder, Prem Chand and Anil were opined to be simple.Statements of the witnesses were recorded by the police.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 2 of 30Man Singh.Learned counsel submitted that there was a long standing enmity based on caste between the complainants' party and the appellants as the complainants belong to Jat Community and are in majority in the village and appellants belong to Brahmin Community and are in minority in the village.He submitted that the present case is a counter blast to the case FIR No.212/99 already got registered against the complainant party by the appellants.Learned counsel further submitted that on 30.10.1999 in the morning there had been a quarrel between wife of appellant Tej Pal and one opposite party member over throwing of glass scraps of tubes.Matter was reported to Police Station Kapashera.Subsequently, written apology was tendered by the complainants and settlement was arrived at between the parties, which prove that the complainants were at fault.Thereafter in the evening, at Crl.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 4 of 30 around 8.00 PM complainants came in the street opposite appellants' house and addressed their women present there that "Hum Tumhare Khasam Aa Gaye Hain Hamare Ko Mala Dal Do".Appellants advised them to desist but they did not do so rather other members of complaints' family also came there.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 4 of 30Learned counsel further submitted that after seeing those persons, wife of appellant Man Singh (since deceased) Smt. Savitri complainant in FIR 212/99, had shut down the door of her house and gave a ring to the police.Thereafter, within 20 minutes police reached at the spot.MLC of Attar Singh has been proved as Ex.PW6/H. Injuries on his persons have been opined to be grievous.His X-Ray report has been proved as Ex.PW 13/E. According to this report he sustained nosal bone fracture and multiple fractures of ribs.MLCs of other injured persons have been proved as Ex.PW 6/A-G which show that injuries were caused on head and scalp but were opined as simple caused by blunt object.MLCs have been proved by Dr. Rekha Tirkey PW 6 ....."It is submitted that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the deposition of prosecution witnesses, which had been ignored by the learned Trial Court.Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Trial Court ignored Crl.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 16 of 30 the testimony of Vijay Singh (DW2), who stated that on the day of incident, he saw that Prem, Tarif, Saheb Singh, Dharampal and Ram Kumar were standing in front of house of Late Man Singh and were abusing his family members.He further stated that when Sh.Admittedly, the prosecution has proved its case that in the morning of 30.10.1999 an altercation had taken place between wife of appellant Tej Pal and injured Maneet over throwing of glass scraps and matter reached Police Station Kapashera, where it was compromised as the complainant had tendered written apology.It is also borne out from the record that thereafter two cross FIRs, i.e.,212/99 and 213/99 were registered at the Police Station Kapashera.It is noted that FIR No.212/99 was registered by Smt. Savitri wife of appellant Crl.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 17 of 30 Man Singh (since deceased) against the complainant party alleging that at about 8.00 PM accused Tarif Singh (PW8), Prem (complainant), Dharampal and Ram Kumar came in the street opposite their house and addressed her and women of her family Hum Tumhare Khasam Aa Gaye Hain Hamare Ko Mala Dal Do.They were allegedly advised them to desist but they did not do so rather other members of their family also came.Complainant allegedly shut down the door of her house and gave a ring to the police.Within 20 minutes police allegedly came at the spot.The complainant allegedly opened the door of her house on seeing the police.In the meantime, appellant Tej Pal, brother-in-law of the complainant, also reached there from his duties.Mohinder Singh @ Muchla on the pretext of talking with the police party took the police to the house of Dharampal but quietly told Tarif (PW8) and his brothers that he was taking the policemen to other side and that they should thrash the complainant party.After some time Prem, Dharampal, Happy and Mappy, Ravinder, Maneet, Sandeep, came from their houses armed with Jaili (prong), Dao, Iron road etc. Dharampal was allegedly armed with danda, Tarif had Iron road, Happy was armed with Jaili, Mappy was armed with Dao, Jai Bhagwan had an iron rod in his hand and other persons were armed with lathies and were allegedly pressing Tej Pal to accompany them to the house of Dharampal, therefore, complainant allegedly asked Attar Singh to stop Tej Pal from going to the house of Dharampal.All the aforesaid persons allegedly attacked Attar Singh with the arms they were having.In order to save Tej Pal and Attar Singh, Dinesh, Vijender, Surender and Laxmi Chand, reached there, who were also given severe beatings by the complainant party.In the meantime Madhu, Pawan and Sunil also rushed to save them and to bring their Crl.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 18 of 30 family members to their house but complainant party allegedly entered their house and gave beatings to them.After sometime PCR vehicles came and complainant party except Jai Bhagwan @ Lala fled away from there.PW5 Jai Bhagwan was apprehended.It is alleged that the family members of the complainant sustained injuries on their persons, therefore, police took Attar Singh, Laxmi Chand, Tej Pal, Dinesh, Vijender and Suresh to hospital.Both these appeals are directed against the judgement dated 10.09.2002 and the order on sentence dated 11.09.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in S.C. No.97/01 arising out of FIR No.213/99 registered at Police Station Kapashera, Delhi.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 1 of 30On completion of the investigation, chargesheet under Sections 147/148/149/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') was filed against the appellants.On 28.07.2001, after hearing the parties, charges under Sections 148/308/323/149 IPC were framed against all the appellants and additional charges under Section 342/34 IPC were framed against appellant Tejpal, Bijender Kumar, Dinesh and deceased Man Singh to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The learned Trial Court on the basis of the material brought on record held that the prosecution had been able to establish its case against appellants Bijender, Surender, Dinesh, Lakhmi Chand, deceased Man Singh, Attar Singh and Tej Pal for the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 308/149 IPC.However, noted that since prosecution had failed to prove its case for the offence punishable under Section 342/34 IPC, therefore, acquitted the appellants Tej Pal, Bijender Kumar, Dinesh and deceased Man Singh of the aforesaid charge.While passing order on sentence dated 11.09.2002, the learned Trial Court released all the appellants on probation for a period of three years on their furnishing bond in the sum of Crl.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 3 of 30 Rs.10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount with condition that they shall maintain good behaviour and shall not commit similar offence during the above said period.Also directed, in case the terms and conditions of the bond are breached by any of the appellant, in that eventuality, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for offence under Section 148 IPC each and for offence under Section 308/149 IPC shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 3 of 30Mr. Sameer Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that FIR in question, i.e., 213/99 is a cross-case registered after lodging of FIR No.212/99 at the same Police Station at the instance of Smt. Savitri wife of Late Sh.She opened the door of her house on seeing the police.In the meanwhile, appellant Tej Pal, brother-in-law of the complainant also reached there from his duties.It is submitted that Mohinder Singh @ Muchla, accused in FIR No. 212/99, on the pretext of talking with the police party took the police to the house of Dharampal but quietly told Tarif (PW8) and his brothers to thrash the appellants.After sometime Prem (complainant), Dharampal, Happy and Mappy, Ravinder, Maneet, Sandeep, came from their houses armed with Jaili (prong), Dao, Iron road etc.Thereafter, all the accused persons in FIR No. 212/99 attacked appellants Attar Singh and Tej Pal with the arms they were carrying with them.In order to save appellants Tej Pal and Attar Singh, other appellants Dinesh, Vijender, Surender and Lakhmi Chand, reached there, who were severely beaten by the complainant party.After some time PCR vehicles came and accused persons other than Jai Bhagwan @ Lala fled away from the spot.Accused Jai Bhagwan was apprehended and handed over to the police.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 5 of 30Learned counsel submitted that initially a call was made to the police from the appellants' party and subsequently an FIR No. 212/1999 was lodged under Sections 147/148/149/308/452/509 IPC against the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and subsequently, they were arrested by the police.However, they got registered a false case, i.e., FIR in question regarding above narrated incident against the appellants.Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant and other prosecution witnesses had also faced trial in Sessions Case No.53/2000 arising out of FIR No.l97/95, wherein all accused except Saheb Singh were convicted under Section 325/34 IPC vide judgment dated 05.02.2003 and sentenced vide order dated 07.02.2003; however, benefit of probation of Offenders Act was given to them.Similarly, in FIR No.212/1999 all accused (prosecution witnesses herein) were convicted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 10.09.2002 and while passing order on sentence dated 11.09.2002, benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act was given to them and all were released on probation for a period of three years.Learned counsel submitted that in the present case also, all the appellants were convicted under Sections 148/308/149 IPC, however, benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act was given to them and all were released on probation for a period of three years.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 6 of 30 147/148/149/308/452/509 IPC.Moreover, conviction of the complainants in the earlier case has also been upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 18.07.2013 passed in Crl.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 6 of 30It is relevant to mention here that because appellant Lakhmi Chand had got registered FIR No.197/95 under Sections 308/34 IPC against Sahib Singh (PW3), Dharam Pal, Anil Kumar (PW4) and Parvinder Kumar (PW2), since then, the complainants were nursing a grudge against the appellants.There was severe enmity between the complainant group and accused group.There relations were fiercely inimical.The aforesaid rule that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of an interested eye-witness is subject to the limitation that the testimony of such a witness is trustworthy and consistent and court finds it safe to fully rely upon the deposition of such a witness in regard to the nature of the occurrence and the involvement of the accused.In present case, however, it was prudent to look for corroboration on material particulars.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 7 of 30xxxx xxxx xxxxThe High Court on appreciation of evidence has held that no independent witness had been examined as also that the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries received by the accused persons.Not having seen as to what had Happened and who had killed their father, the three brothers, thought of involving the appellant in this Crl.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 8 of 30 case so that he may be removed from the scene and lodged in the jail as thy, on account of the enmity, were highly interested in securing his conviction and in achieving this object, they did not shudder in lying before the court, ignoring, in the process, what WILLIAM HAZLITT had said that "Lying is the strongest acknowledgement of the force of truth."A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 8 of 30In the present case, PW3 Saheb Singh has Crl.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 13 of 30 not sustained any teeth injury and MLC was fabricated.Common sense guides that loss of teeth cannot be possible without receiving injuries on lips.The mere perusal of MLC Ex.The testimony of witnesses specially PW4 and PW6 proves that the Appellants caused simple hurt to them in furtherance of the common intention.The Appellants were charged for offences punishable under Section 308/34 IPC for causing such bodily injury on the person of Smt. Rajia in furtherance of the common intention, that if such act had caused death of Rajia the Appellant would have been guilty of causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder.The learned Trial Court convicted the Appellants and the co- accused person for offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC, that is, for the act in pursuance whereof injury is caused on the person of Smt. Rajia.Though the learned Trial Court considered that the prosecution evidence showed that PW4 and PW6 suffered simple injuries.However, the Appellants were not convicted of the said offence.Thus, the Crl.The State has not preferred an appeal against the said acquittal.However, the facts proved in the present case are that the Appellants in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused simple hurt to Ishrafi and Mohd. Ibrahim.This cannot be said to be a minor offence of the major offence charged as the facts required to be proved by the prosecution case in both the charges were different, that is, in one bodily injury and intention of causing such injury to Rajia whereas in the later voluntarily causing simple hurt to Ishrafi and Mohd. Ibrahim.Thus in the absence of an appeal against the said judgment this Court cannot convict the two Appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 14 of 30For the reasons stated the Appellants are acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 308/34 IPC.The appeals Crl.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 15 of 30 are according allowed.The bail bond and the surety bond are discharged."A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 15 of 30Tej Pal reached the spot the complaint party took the police official aside and started beating Tej Pal and Attar Singh.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 16 of 30Also argued, prosecution did not even produce the weapon of offence as alleged to have been used by the appellants for the commission of the alleged offence.On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the prosecution has been able to establish the offence alleged against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court do not call for interference by this Court.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.Madhu, Pawan and Sunil also allegedly sustained injuries.On the basis of this report police registered a case and commenced investigation.Injured persons were got medically examined, place of incident was inspected, site plan was prepared and the statements of witnesses were recorded.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 17 of 30A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 18 of 30As regards the present FIR, at the cost of repetition, it is stated that in the evening at about 7.30 PM, appellant Tejpal, working in Delhi Police, came to complainant's house and threatened that he had belittled the complainant party and because of the fear, they tendered apology and compromised the matter.Allegedly Jai Bhagwan asked them not to pick up quarrel.In the meantime, appellant Tej Pal alongwith appellants Bijender, Dinesh and deceased Man Singh dragged Jai Bhagwan (PW5) inside their house and started beating him, though both the witnesses requested them to desist from their action but they did not do so, therefore, he raised a noise.In the meantime, Parminder (PW2), Manit (PW7), Saheb Singh (PW3) and Anil (PW4) came there to save PW5, whereas other appellants, namely, Attar Singh, Lakhmi Chand and Surender Singh armed with lathi, DAV and knife respectively came from the side of appellants Man Singh (since deceased) and Tej Pal and attacked the complainant party as a result of Crl.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 19 of 30 which complainant Prem Chand sustained injuries on his left thumb whereas Jai Bhagwan sustained injuries on his head and feet, Parminder sustained injuries on his ribs, Manit sustained knife injuries in his stomach, Saheb Singh and Anil sustained injuries on their heads whereas Chandro (PW6) wife of complainant Prem Chand received injuries on her left arm.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 19 of 30As submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that there was a long standing enmity based on caste between the complainants' party and the appellants, I do not find any substance therein.Moreover, the learned Trial Court had correctly observed that no witness was examined in defence other than the family members and if there had been some enmity based on caste, certainly any independent witness from either side would have come forward to depose on the same lines.So far as submission that MLC Ex. PW 11/D of Saheb Singh (PW3) was fabricated as he did not sustain any teeth injury is concerned, it is noted that though except Tarif Singh (PW8) who is serving in Delhi Police as driver and Chandro, no other prosecution witness explained the nature of injuries suffered by the injured.Moreover, PW8 only deposed that Saheb Singh (PW3) sustained injuries on his head and had not stated that the said witness received any injury on his face and lip resulting fall of six teeth from upper jaw and eight teeth from lower jaw.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 20 of 30To corroborate, the aforesaid fact it is noted that in the chargesheet also complainant Jai Bhagwan (PW1) deposed that Saheb Singh sustained injuries on his head, which fact is also evident from the impugned judgment wherein recorded that Saheb Singh and Anil sustained injuries on their heads.Even perusal of MLC Ex.PW11/D of Saheb Singh clearly indicates that there is no injury to the lower lips and only a 2x1 cm CLW on the left side of upper lip is recorded.The next question remains to be examined is whether by causing injuries to the prosecution witnesses, the appellants had committed an offence punishable under Section 308 IPC or not?In medical examination, injury on the person of Chandro, Saheb Singh and Jai Bhagwan were opined to be grievous, caused by blunt object.Whereas injuries on the person of Manit, Parminder, Prem Chand and Anil Crl.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 24 of 30 were opined to be simple and they were also opined to be caused by blunt object.The prosecution has failed to produce the weapon of offence allegedly used by the appellants in the commission of offence.Moreover, intention or knowledge has to be ascertained from the nature of injuries suffered by the victim.The doctor, in the present case, has not stated that the injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death.The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, 2008 (1) ALD (Cri) 830, the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that:-" While the first charge is exclusively for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, the second one is for the offence under Section 307 read with 149 IPC.To that extent, both the charges become untenable."When the case in hand is judged on the aforesaid touchstones, it can be inferred that:-(i) There is proved enmity between the parties.(iii) In the morning of 30.10.1999 there had been a quarrel between wife of appellant Tej Pal and one opposite party member over throwing of glass scraps of tubes.Matter was reported to Police Station Kapashera.Subsequently, written apology was tendered by the complainants and settlement was arrived at between the parties, which prove that the complainants were at fault.(iv) The fight between both the parties was not premeditated as the incident took place due to heated arguments and altercations between them and could be termed as a result of sudden and grave provocation.The learned Trial Court has not considered this aspect correctly.A.Nos.844 & 872 of 2002 Page 29 of 30In view of the legal position discussed above and the facts and circumstances of the case, these appeals deserve to be partly allowed.Accordingly, conviction of the appellants under Sections 148 and 308/149 IPC is hereby set aside.The appellants are convicted under Section 325/34 IPC.No similar offence has been committed by the appellants during the probation period.The appeals are disposed of on the above terms.TCR be sent back.SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 22, 2016 sb Crl.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Since the door number was changed to 38A as per the wish and will of the complainant, the accused persons demanded a further sum of Rs.4,51,283/- in excess.When questioned, the accused persons stated that the said plot is a corner plot with free flow of air and that the complainant can put up an garden in that.The petitioner/A3 in Crime No.155 of 2015 has come forward with this application to quash the FIR which is filed against him for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.The case of the prosecution is that during the year 2012 the defacto complainant, intended to purchase a house and hence, approached the accused persons who were running the construction/real estate business in the name and style of M/s.Unitech Ltd.. The said company developed individual 'Villas' at Nallambakkam Village, Chengaplet Taluk, Kancheepuram District.The accused persons took the complainant to the said place and showed Plot Nos. 37, 42, 78, 86, 48, 51, 56 to her.Out of the said plots, the defacto complainant selected Plot No.42. A1, one Kalaivani also agreed to construct a house for the complainant in the said Plot.They also showed a fully constructed house to the complainant.On the next day when the complainant was ready and willing to part with 10% of the total amount, she was informed that Plot No.42 was sold out and that if she wishes, she may take plot No.37 as all the houses will be looking identical.Since No.37 is not a lucky number, the complainant refused.But the accused persons pacified her by saying that they do not want to lose a customer like the complainant and that they would change the plot number as 38A and would construct a house for her within one year.Believing the same, on 27.06.2012, she parted with a sum of Rs.6,52,790/- out of which Rs.50,000/- was taken as token advance for construction and the remaining amount as the undivided share amount for her plot.Since the accused party accepted for the change of plot number as per her wish, the complainant accepted to pay the said amount.On 14.08.2012, she remitted Rs.60,00,000/- through RTGS.After completion of the construction, the accused persons informed the complainant about the same through telephone.When the complainant demanded for completion certificate, the accused persons threatened her saying that if she does not accept the said house, she has to pay 5% interest for the balance amount to be remitted by her.Since the accused persons cheated her, she came forward to file a private complaint before the learned Magistrate, on whose orders, the present complaint in Crime No.155 of 2015 for the offences u/s.406 and 420 IPC, was registered.Even if that be the case, the complainant could have taken the matter to an Arbitrator by invoking the Arbitration clause and though the company has informed the complainant about the completion of the building as early as 21.01.2013, she kept quiet for nearly one year and thereafter, had preferred a complaint for the reasons best known to her.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant would submit that the complainant had asked for 'Villa" No.42 at the first instance.Thereafter, an agreement for sale and an construction agreement had been entered into between them on the same day.Immediately, she issued notice on 01.09.2013 refusing to take possession.Since the second notice also went in vain, the 2nd respondent had chosen to prefer the present complaint.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is the Assistant General Manager of Unitech Limited and only as per the statement recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C., the case was taken up for investigation and on investigation, it was found that the said case is of civil in nature.However, he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Original Petition.The payment made by way of Cheque, Demand Draft, RTGS was also not in dispute between the parties.The complaint has to be read as a whole.

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

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

For the purposes of this application brief facts may be stated thus: that one Sanjay Purohit S/o Ram Avtar Purohit was working as Commission Agent in the firm named; Automatic Crystal Silver, run under the proprietorship of one Vinod Chandra Sharma prior to the occurrence.He was found unconscious on 08.01.1996 in Train No. 118 at Mathura Cantt Station and was deboarded from the said train with the assistance of the Railway Guard of the concerned Train and the local GRP and given in the supardagi of the GRP, Mathura Cantt for sending him to the Hospital for treatment but Sanjay Purohit succumbed to the suspected poisoning in the Hospital on 08.01.1996 midnight.The father of the deceased is alleged to be at Kanpur at the time of the incident.After about four months of the alleged incident levelling allegations against six persons namely, Vinod Chandra Sharma, Sudhakar S/o of said Vinod Chandra Sharma, Girraj Kishore, Neeraj, Madan Lal Varshney and Raghunath Taliwal (applicant), an FIR was lodged by Ram Avtar Purohit, father of the deceased, wherein it was stated that the aforesaid firm was engaged in manufacturing and supplying chemical namely; Silver Nitrate and Sanjay Purohit (deceased) was employed as Commission Agent to transport Silver Nitrate to different places.It was further alleged that since proprietor and partners of the said firm were involved in illegal activities also, like smuggling Silver Nitrate, the son of the informant, Sanjay Purohit (deceased), was reluctant and preparing to quit the aforesaid job of the said firm any time.It is further submitted that at the back drop of the above conversations, Ram Avtar Sharma in collusion with his son Sharad Kumar and his friend Bobby alias Girraj, who are known criminals and gangsters hatched a conspiracy and concocted false applications and sent them to all the higher authorities of the country and tried to scandalize the entire issue to extract money and in this shape and design the applicant and different reputed and respectable businessmen of the locality have been falsely implicated in highly, improbable, unnatural and absurd prosecution story just to harass, pressurize and blackmail for his ulterior motives.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, opposite party no. 2, learned AGA and perused the materials on record.That on 08.01.1006 Sudhakar S/o of said Vinod Chandra Sharma, Girraj Kishore, Neeraj, Madan Lal Varshney and Raghunath Taliwal (applicant) wheedled his son Sanjay Purohit (the deceased) for the purposes of sending him to Jaipur along with some ready materials on the assurance that they will get his dues cleared from the firm on his return from Jaipur and managed to administer poison to him, through some noxious substance, due to which the said Sanjay Purohit died.In furtherance of the allegations it was stated in the FIR that as the said Vinod Chandra Sharma, owner of the aforesaid firm, was indulged in illegal business, i.e. smuggling and his misdeeds and illegal activities were unravelled to Sanjay Purohit (the deceased), he was done away with by the other accomplices of Vinod Chandra Sharma, including the present applicant.The matter was investigated and charge sheet was submitted against the aforesaid persons in Case No. 750 of 1996 at P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura, under sections 147, 149, 302, 201, 328 and 120-B IPC, in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offence and vide order dated 17.03.2001 summoned the applicant and others to face trial for the aforesaid offence.Hence, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not even bleakly concerned with the incident, with the proprietor of the aforesaid firm or with the deceased, who was the son of opposite party no. 2 and alleged to be in the aforesaid firm under the proprietorship of Vinod Chandra Sharma as a Commission Agent.It is further submitted that it is established from the record that the deceased was sent by the said proprietor of the firm to Jaipur and on the way while travelling in train, he was administered some noxious substance by some miscreants, who fled away from the scene with the suitcase of the deceased containing Silver Nitrate worth Rs. 41,000/- when the deceased fell unconscious.Further submission was that it was not in dispute that the deceased was taken to the District Hospital, Mathura in a critical condition, as is apparent from annexure 1 the initial medical report of the deceased, where he was admitted by one Sanjay S/o Mahendra, who was returning from Mathura to Hathras and at the relevant time he happened at the Mathura Railway Station and identified the deceased.On assessing the grim scenario of the critical condition of Sanjay Purohit, he flung into action and accompanied the deceased along with the GRP, Mathura to the District Hospital .It is next submitted that Sanjay S/o Mahendra, also informed the family members of Sanjay Purohit, who also reached at the Hospital but they were not satisfied with the medical treatment being given in the District Hospital, therefore, without informing the Hospital authorities, as per bed head ticket annexure 5 to the application, absconded along with Sanjay Purohit to get him admitted to another Hospital but unfortunately Sanjay Purohit could not be saved and died on the way to another hospital.Thereafter the family members of Sanjay Purohit carried the dead body of the deceased to Hathras and cremated him there on 09.01.1996 at Hathras itself.without any involvement/interference with the business of Vinod Chandra Sharma or his family.Learned counsel for the applicant argued that after the death of Sanjay Purohit, his father Ram Avtar Purohit, opposite party no. 2, visited the applicant, who was Pradesh Sangathan Mantri of Vyapar Mandal, Hathras of which co-accused Madan Lal, a reputed Jeweller, Girraj, reputed Kirana merchant, were Secretary and Nagar Mahantri respectively.Ram Autar Purohit asked all of them, being office bearers of Vyapar Mandal, to persuade and influence Vinod Chandra Sharma to pay huge compensation to him.Thereafter on such a request, the applicant and all the said members of Vyapar Mandal contacted Vinod Chandra Sharma for payment of compensation as requested by Ram Awatar Purohit, at which they were informed by the said Vinod Chandra Sharma that sufficient amount of compensation has already been paid to Ram Avtar Sharma as the death took place in discharge of business of the firm and now he (Vinod Chandra Sharma) is not intending to pay any further amount in the shape of compensation to the father of the deceased.As the above said fact was narrated to Ram Avtar Sharma (opposite party no.2), he got infuriated and threatened the applicant and the said office bearers of the Vyapar Mandal to get all of them fastened in fake case.The Investigating Officer after completing his investigation in the matter recorded his conclusion in detail wherein he expressed serious doubts on the correctness of the prosecution story and raised more than two dozen points and was of the view that there was no admissible evidence on which the applicant can be prosecuted and the case could stand and be proceeded any further in the court of law.Accordingly, he submitted his report to his senior officer (annexure 14), which discloses that the Investigating Officer was reluctant to submit charge sheet but since the matter was within the domain of Human Rights Commission, superior officers of Police, being under pressure of the circumstances, transferred the investigation to another Investigating Officer, who submitted charge sheet (Annexure 15 to the application).Learned counsel for the applicant also strengthen his castle of arguments by submitting that the witness Sanjay S/o Mahendra Kumar, who was all through present during the factual developments with the complainant and his family members, never even named the applicant in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., which is well established from Annexure 4 to the affidavit.In the said statement Sanjay did not utter a single word as to who was responsible for missing of the suitcase or administration of poison.Perusal of Annexure 5, copy of Bed Head Ticket to the affidavit and the statements of Dr. Raja Babu Gupta Dr. KG Singh and Smt. Shanti Devi (annexures 6, 8 and 7 respectively to the application) reveal that the deceased was not in a state to mumble a single word to anyone in the Hospital.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the witness, Sharad Kumar, who is the son of the complainant, is an interested witness having criminal antecedents and against him 10 criminal cases have been registered which is established from annexure 10 to the petition).As against witness, Bobby alias Girraj Kishore, who is a close friend of the said Sharad Kumar is having 6 criminal cases in his count (annexure 11 to the petition), therefore, the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, recorded by the SHO concerned, loose its sanctity.

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Vijaya Lakshmi is a widow; her husband and the appellant were close friends.P.W.1 and the appellant was working in a Package Company.Her case is that on 24.03.2015 at around 1.00 p.m when P.W.1 returned home, she saw the appellant committing rape on her mentally retarded daughter.4.Upon seeing P.W.1, the appellant ran out of the house.PW.1 called her friend as well as her brother-in-law.They took the victim to Coimbatore General Hospital.Upon advice from the Doctors, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 on 25.03.2015 i.e on the next day 2/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.06.2018 passed by the learned Principal Sessions 1/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.618 of 2018 Judge, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore in S.C.No.233 of 2016, holding that the appellant is charged for the offences U/s 376(1) r/w 511 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- .618 of 2018 before Kuniamuthur Police Station.It was registered as Crime No. 200 of 2015 for the offence U/s 376 of I.P.C and the same was taken on file and after completing the usual formalities, final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore.5.Charge was famed against the appelant under Section 376 of I.P.C. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to P.15 .On the side of the accused two witnesses were examined EX.D1 was marked.The learned trial Judge after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record come to the conclusion that the charges was established and the accused is liable to be found guitly U/s 376 r/w 511 of I.P.C. and he was sentenced as mentioned above.Challenging the same, this appeal was filed.3/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No. 618 of 20187.The learned counsel for the appellant re-iterated all the contentions set out in the memo.He also would contend that the appellant was none other than the friend of the father of the victim.The relationship between the parties was more than a decade old.That being so, it is improbable that the appellant could have commit the offence in question.4/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No. 618 of 20189.I am not persuaded by the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.PW.1 had out of malafide intention falsely implicated the appellant.Even in the examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the appellant has not come out with any convincing defence version.But then, the complaint was registered only on the next day.If the mother of the victim had any malafide intention, she would not have taken the victim to the hospital on 24.03.2015 and then come to the police station on the next day.More than anything else, the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4/Saroja.When P.W.2 asked the PW.1 as to what happened, PW.1 had stated that the appellant had committed rape on her daughter.When P.W.4 visited the house of P.W.4, she found that the dress 5/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.618 of 2018 of Ponni was not in order.Thus, the evidence of P.W-1 stands fully corroborated.It is not the case of prosecution that P.W.4 had inimical motive against the appellant.10.As regards the contention of the appellant's counsel that the ingredients of attempt to commit the offence of rape are absent in this case, I must concur with the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge in this regard.The appellant had no business to enter the house of the PW.1 when the victim was alone.If PW.1 had not returned at that time, it is quite possible that the offence of rape itself would have been committed.Therefore, the trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant attempted to commit the offence of rape had been established.I find no ground to interfere.11.The appellant is now aged about more than 60 years.The learned counsel for the appellant pleaded certain mitigating 6/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.618 of 2018 factors.Taking note of the same, even while confirming the conviction imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 376(I) r/w 511 of IPC, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge is reduced from five years to three years rigorous imprisonment.The fine amount had already been paid by the appellant herein.The fine imposed remains unaltered.The impugned judgment is modifed only as regards the sentence.In all other respects, the judgment of the trial Judge is confirmed.This appeal is allowed in part.22.02.2020 Speaking/None Speaking Order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No smn NOTE : Issue order copy by 11.03.2020 To The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhi Mandram ( Mahila Court) Coimbatore.7/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.618 of 2018 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.smn Crl.A.No.618 of 2018 22.02.2020 8/8http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The Petitioner states that the marriage was conducted as per Hindu customs and rituals after Nisha, a Muslim, embraced the Hindu faith.It is stated that the marriage was registered with the Marriage Registration Officer-V, Ghaziabad.A copy of the marriage certificate is enclosed with the petition as Annexure P-The Petitioner further states that on 2nd July 2018, Nisha's father, namely Mohd. Intzar (Respondent No.3), visited his residence at the campus of Jawaharlal Nehru University ('JNU') and created a ruckus and threatened both the Petitioner and Nisha with dire consequences.The Petitioner states that at around 8 pm on July 2018, the local police from PS Vasant Kunj (North) accompanied by JNU security personnel and others in civilian clothing forcibly took away Nisha and also handed over the Petitioner to "other people" who were in civilian clothing.The Petitioner- states that he was then taken to PS Loni in Ghaziabad and kept in a police lockup for three days and two nights and was abused and beaten.He names SI Sharad Kant Sharma of PS Loni as the officer who threatened to implicate him in a false case of rape if he tried to reunite with Nisha.The Petitioner further states that his attempts thereafter to locate his wife were in vain.He states that Nisha called him on 11th July 2018 sounding extremely distressed, expressed her desire to return to him and informed him that even her life was under threat.Having received advance notice of the petition.W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 3 of 35Nisha requested us to call her mother so that she could again reiterate, what she had said to us before her mother.We then spoke to Nisha's mother and explained to her that although she may have reservations about Nisha's marriage to someone of a different religion, Nisha is entitled to make her choices as she was an adult and cannot be put under any pressure in that regard.Nisha's mother stated before us that it would be up to Nisha to decide what she wanted to do with her life.Since Nisha has reiterated before us, both in the Court as well as in chamber, that she wishes to return to the Petitioner, we direct that she can return from the Court itself with the Petitioner who is also present and has been identified by his lawyer as well as by Nisha.In order to ensure that there is no untoward or unpleasant incident hereafter, the SHO of PS Vasant Kunj (North) is directed to visit the house of Sandeep and meet Sandeep's family and provide any security which he thinks might be necessary.We also direct SI Sharad Kant Sharma, who is present here before us, to take all necessary steps to' ensure the safety and security of Nisha's parents and family.In the status report filed today nothing is stated about how the police of PS Loni could so easily come to JNU and take away the Petitioner and Nisha and how Nisha, despite being over 21 years of age, was simply "handed over to her parents by the investigating officer" knowing fully well that she had married Sandeep of her own free will.Inspector Rajesh Kumar, W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 4 of 35 Additional SHO of PS Vasant Kunj (North), stated that he had no prior intimation of the visit by police officials from PS Loni in Ghaziabad.If that is the case, it begs the question as to why they did not insist on following the letter of the law and instead simply allowed the police officials from PS Loni to take away two adults from the JNU campus.W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 4 of 35He will also specifically answer the allegations about Sandeep having been kept in custody in the police lockup at PS Loni from 3rd July 2018 till the night of 5th July 2018 without being produced before a Court.The Court also directs Inspector Gagan Bhaskar, the SHO of PS Vasant Kunj (North), to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which he permitted Sandeep and Nisha to be taken away from JNU by the police of PS Loni without the requirements of law being complied with.Both these affidavits of SI Sharad Kant Sharma and Inspector Gagan Bhaskar will be filed before the next date of hearing.Both of them will remain present in the Court on the next date.They will also report to the Court about the compliance of the other directions.On the next date of hearing, the Petitioner and Nisha need not be present.In its order dated 24 July 2018, this Court has adverted to a police officer from PS Loni in the State of Uttar Pradesh, viz. SI Sharad Kant Sharma, coming to Jawaharlal National University ('JNU') and taking away the Petitioner and his wife Nisha without intimating the local police at PS Vasant Kunj (North).The Court had also taken note of the Petitioner's claim that he had been taken to PS Loni in Ghaziabad, kept in police lock-up for three days and two nights, and was abused and beaten.He had specifically named SI Sharma of PS Loni as the office "who threatened to implicate him in a false case of rape if he tried to reunite with Nisha".In this context, this Court had directed Inspector Gagan Bhaskar, the Station House Officer ('SHO') of PS Vasant Kunj (North), as well as SI Sharma of PS Loni to file separate affidavits disclosing their respective conduct in this matter.In an affidavit dated 4th August, 2018 filed by Inspector W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 6 of 35 Bhaskar, it is stated that as per the record of PS Vasant Kunj (North), "Sharad Kant Sharma neither informed the undersigned nor lodged the arrival or departure in daily diary of PS Vasant Kunj (North)".It is further stated in para 10 as under:W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 6 of 35That on further enquiry after hearing of dated 24/07/2018, SI Sharad Kant Sharma informed that on 3.7.18 he met HC Rambir beat Head Constable posted in JNU beat of Police Station Vasant Kunj North.On enquiry from HC Rambir he stated that on 03/07/18 he was present at JNU and met SI Sharad Kant Sharma of Police Station Loni, Ghaziabad, UP who came for investigation of a case.He went to H N. 471, Pashchiamabad, JNU Campus, New Delhi with SI Sharad Kant Sharma.SI Sharad Kant Sharma conducted the enquiry and took the girl with him.HC Rambir stated that he asked SI Sharad Kant Sharma to go to the Police Station Vasant Kunj North and lodge a DD entry in this regard and then proceed accordingly with the investigation.SI Sharad Kant Sharma assured him that he is going to Police Station Vasant Kunj North.On this assurance he continued with his work in JNU.However for his lapse departmental action have been initiated."The affidavit is silent on whether SI Sharad Kant Sharma came to JNIJ in his uniform or in plain clothes.In a country governed by the rule of law, this is simply unacceptable.There are also instances of persons impersonating police officers, producing fake identity cards and taking away persons or property.It appears that the extant instructions on the procedure to be followed by police officers of one State seeking to arrest persons or conduct searches and investigation in another State or Union Territory are not being observed.It is time to revisit the procedures devised to ensure that the life and liberty of persons is not compromised on account of the lawlessness of the police force.The Committee will be given full access to the relevant records and is permitted to question the police personnel in both PSs.The Committee will also be provided with all relevant circulars, instructions and rules governing the procedure to be followed by the police of one State when they go into some other State or Union Territory while investigating a complaint/FIR.As part of the report, the Committee will give suggestions on how the system can be improved and such instances of violations by the police of the procedure minimised.The Committee is free to speak to such number of professionals, experts and former and serving police officers including those in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh as the Committee may consider appropriate.The honorarium of the members of the Committee (which will be fixed on the next date) and the reimbursement of the expenses of travel, transport, secretarial assistance, and incidental expenses will be borne in equal halves by the State of UP and the Government of NCT of Delhi.It will be open to the members of the Committee to seek further directions.A complete set of paper book will be supplied to each of the members.It will be open to the Standing Counsel as well as the counsel for the Petitioner to make a submission before the Committee.W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 11 of 35(ii) After marriage, both Sandeep and Nisha started living at Sandeeps residence at the JNU Campus in Delhi.While Sandeeps parents had no objection, Nishas relatives were unable to reconcile with it.Instead of filing a writ petition for habeas corpus to seek her production, they visited her at the JNU Campus and insisted that she accompany them.She however declined.(iii) On 3rd July, 2018, Nishas brother Azhar lodged a written complaint with PS Loni levelling false allegations that Sandeep had kidnapped Nisha at 4 am on 28th June, 2018 and that she was not traceable.As a result, FIR No.1217 of 2018 was registered at PS Loni against Sandeep under Section 366 IPC.(iv) The investigation of the above FIR was assigned to SI Sharad Kant Sharma.The police officials were in uniform.(v) At the gate of JNU Campus, they met Head Constable (HC) Rambir Meena, a Beat Constable from PS Vasant Kunj (North).HC Meena who knew Sandeeps residence pointed out his house to the UP police.Nisha and Sandeep and his parents were in the house at that time.Nisha was not in W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 12 of 35 illegal detention.She was unwilling to go with her relatives.W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 12 of 35(vi) Sandeep and Nisha were taken in the Scorpio vehicle to PS Loni against their wishes and consent.SI Sharma did not visit PS Vasant Kunj (North) to record any arrival or departure entry.At PS Loni, Nisha was sent along with her parents to her house.(vii) Nishas statement was recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate - V under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr PC).She disclosed that due to a quarrel with her sister Arshi, she had left the house in anger.The statement was not voluntary.It was given under emotional stress when she was informed that her father was ill.She was prevailed upon to stay with her parents.(viii) Nisha was given false assurances of her marriage with Sandeep.During her stay with her parents, she was not permitted to talk to anyone.She got a mobile from her father and spoke to Sandeep at around 2 am and informed him that she was being illegally detained and that her parents planned to marry her of to someone else.She insisted that Sandeep should take her away from there.(ix) Sandeep then filed the present writ petition in the Court for directions.When Nisha was produced before this Court, she informed the Court that she desired to stay with Sandeep.She then accompanied Sandeep to her matrimonial home from the Court itself.SI Sharma recorded a false entry GD No.59 (Ex. PZ) at PS Loni to the effect that on the basis of secret information received by him about the presence of Nisha at Tiraha Loni, she was recovered from there.The Committees categorical finding is "this is absolute falsehood."The possibility of manhandling could not be ruled out.Turning to HC Rambir Meena, the Beat Constable from PS Vasant Kunj (North), the Committee has recorded that he failed to ensure if SI Sharma had prior to arriving at the JNU Campus, visited PS Vasant Kunj (North) or had recorded any entry to seek assistance of local police.Even after SI Sharma took Sandeep and Nisha away in the vehicle, HC Meena did not inform the SHO of PS Vasant Kunj (North).On return to the PS Vasant Kunj (North) in the evening, HC Meena did not record any entry showing that SI Sharma and his team had visited Sandeeps residence and had taken Nisha and Sandeep away with him.The Police Officers should take their identity cards with them.All police officers in the team should be in uniform; bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations.Before visiting the other State, the Police Officer must endeavour to establish contact with the local Police Station in whose jurisdiction he is to conduct the investigation.Compensation to the Petitioner and his wifeDr. S. Muralidhar, J.:This petition raises significant questions regarding the procedure to be followed by the police of one State, when they go to some other State or Union Territory, to effect an arrest while investigating a complaint or a First Information Report (FIR) disclosing a cognisable offence.The background in which the question arises is noticed in some detail in the first order passed by this Court on 24th July, 2018 in the present petition, which is essentially a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus filed under W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 1 of 35 Article 226 of the Constitution of India.The said order reads as under:W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 1 of 35The present petition by Sandeep Kumar seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the Respondents to produce his wife, Nisha, before the Court.He states that at the instance W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 2 of 35 of Nisha's father, FIR No. 1217/2018 was registered at PS Loni on 3rd July 2018 under Section 366 IPC.The complainant was Azhar, the brother of Nisha, who reported that Nisha had been abducted by the Petitioner Sandeep Kumar.W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 2 of 35The status report goes on to state that, on 3rd July 2018, SI Sharad Kant Sharma of PS Loni came to JNU along with his staff and found Nisha present here.It is stated that she was produced subsequently before the concerned Court where she stated that she left her home in anger due to a quarrel with her sister and is now returning to her family members of her own free will.The status report further notes that Nisha was accordingly "handed over to her parents by the investigating officer".It is stated that on 20th July 2018, SI Sharad Kant Sharma was again contacted telephonically and he confirmed the, above facts.Azhar, the brother of Nisha, was also contacted and he too stated that Nisha was present at home.Today, Nisha has appeared along with her mother.SI Sharad Kant Sharma of PS Loni, who is also present, states that Nisha had made a statement under Section 164 Cr P C before the ACJM-5, Ghaziabad that she was returning to her parents of her own free will.However, he did not have a copy of the said statement.On her part, before this Court Nisha expressed her desire to return to the Petitioner.At that stage, we decided that we should meet Nisha in the chambers.Nisha reiterated that she wishes to return to Sandeep.It should be noted at this juncture that even according to her brother, Azhar, on whose complaint the aforementioned FIR was registered, Nisha is 20/21 years old.In other words, there is no dispute that Nisha is an adult who is entitled to take her own decisions.Nisha confirmed to us that she had married Sandeep, the Petitioner, of her own free will.She also confirmed that the marriage was conducted in accordance with Hindu customs and W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 3 of 35 rituals.They also had a registered marriage at Ghaziabad.She explained that she gave a statement before the ACJM-5, Ghaziabad about, returning to her parents of her own free will under pressure from her parents.She was worried about something happening to her parents.She was expecting to convince them to reconcile with the fact that she had married Sandeep of her own free will and that is why she decided to return to them.Order appointing a CommitteeThereafter on 23rd August, 2018, the Court discussed the affidavit dated W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 5 of 35 4th August, 2018 filed by Inspector Gagan Bhaskar, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station (PS) Vasant Kunj (North), as well as the affidavit of the same date of Sub-Inspector (SI) Sharad Kant Sharma of PS Loni in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.Not satisfied with the two affidavits, the Court decided to constitute a Committee to conduct an enquiry into the matter and in particular the legality of the actions of the police attached to PS Loni (Ghaziabad) and PS Vasant Kunj (North).The said order dated 23rd August, 2018 of this Court reads as under:It is also silent on whether the Petitioner was found in the room from where Nisha is supposed to have accompanied SI Sharad Kant Sharma and whether SI Sharad Kant Sharma in fact took the Petitioner also along with him.It is of concern that the deponent of the above affidavit, Inspector Gagan Bhaskar, SHO of PS Vasant Kunj (North), W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 7 of 35 who is present in Court today, states that he did not ask HC Rambir whether SI Sharad Kant Sharma came there in plain clothes and whether the Petitioner was also picked up by him.Inspector Bhaskar has shown to the Court a copy of a letter dated 3August 2018 written by him to the Deputy Commissioner of Police ('DCP'), South District, New Delhi enclosing a 'misconduct report' and seeking initiation of disciplinary action against HC Rambir [who is attached to PS Vasant Kunj (North)].It is surprising that Inspector Bhaskar has till date not brought to the attention of the DCP (South District) or the Commissioner of Police to the obvious failure of SI Sharad Kant Sharma, attached to PS Loni in Ghaziabad to inform the SHO of PS Vasant Kunj (North) before proceeding to JNU.W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 7 of 35The Court has also perused the affidavit dated 4th August, 2018 of SI Sharad Kant Sharma.He gives no explanation as to why he did not inform the officials at PS Vasant Kunj (North) before proceeding to JNU.He merely states that when he reached JNU, one "local beat officer met me" and that thereafter, he along with his own staff and the said beat officer reached H.No.471, Pashchiamabad, JNU Campus, New Delhi and then after some conversation, Nisha agreed to accompany him of her own free will.He states that HC Rambir "was left at JNU and was asked to inform PS Vasant Kunj (North) about the girl's recovered".Apart from being silent about whether he went in civil clothes, SI Sharma is in complete denial of having picked up the Petitioner as well or having taken him to PS Loni.The Court is not satisfied with this affidavit filed by SI Sharma wherein he does not appear to have disclosed the complete facts.It appears improbable that having proceeded on the basis of an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence naming the Petitioner as the main accused, SI Sharad Kant Sharma left JNU without arresting the Petitioner.It is perhaps not a mere coincidence that the affidavits filed by the police officers are both dated 4 August 2018 and have W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 8 of 35 been attested by the same notary public.Further, consecutive serial numbers appear on them.All of this points to both these affidavits being prepared simultaneously.Neither of these affidavits seem to address the concern of this Court with regard to the blatant violation by SI Sharma of his legal obligation to inform the officials at PS Vasant Kunj (North) of his coming to JNU in plain clothes and taking into custody the Petitioner and his wife.W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 8 of 35In Tasleema v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) ILR 6 Del 486, this Court noted with consternation that police officials from Gujarat were able to arrest and takeaway a juvenile from Delhi without informing the Delhi Police.Such practice is obviously contrary to the police manuals and if such actions go unchecked, it will amount to condoning lawlessness by the police force.This Court accordingly constitutes the following Committee to conduct an enquiry into the matter and in particular the legality of the actions of the police attached to PS Loni (Ghaziabad) including SI Sharad Kant Sharma and the PS Vasant Kunj (North):Justice S.P. Garg, former Judge of this Court W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 9 of 35The matter will be treated as part-heard and be listed on 12th October, 2018 at 2.15 p.m.Certified copies of this order be delivered forthwith through a Special Messenger to the members of the Committee along W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 10 of 35 with a complete set of the paperbook and the previous orders.The Committee's reportThere are specific findings of the Committee after examining 13 witnesses including the police personnel attached to both the police stations, i.e., PS Loni and PS Vasant Kunj.These findings could be summarized as under:(i) Nisha and Sandeep got married as per Hindu customs and rites on 28 th W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 11 of 35 June, 2018 with mutual consent.The marriage was registered at Ghaziabad.This was an inter-religious marriage.On the next day, she was taken for medical examination but declined to undergo it.Had Sandeep not taken recourse to W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 13 of 35 legal remedy, the investigating officer, i.e., SI Sharma would have been successful in handing over Nishas custody to her parents without her consent.W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 13 of 35Findings on the role of the policeAs regards the role of the different police officials of the two PSs, the Committee has returned the following categorical findings.(i) SI Sharma of PS Loni manipulated the official record and made wrong, incorrect and false entries.(iii) SI Sharma avoided showing Nishas presence at Sandeeps house; he suppressed his visit to Delhi without any prior permission of the higher officers.SI Sharma did not make any departure entry at PS Loni indicating his intention to visit Delhi along with Nishas relatives in the Scorpio arranged for by them.The Committee has drawn attention to Rule 22:50 of the Punjab Police Rules (PPR) which prescribes a deterrent punishment for W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 14 of 35 making false entries in the Daily Diary (DD) knowingly or having reasons to believe it to be untrue.W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 14 of 35(iv) It stood proved that Sandeep was taken by SI Sharma along with Nisha in the same vehicle to PS Loni.SI Sharma did not follow the due procedure.He did not seek prior permission from senior officers to visit Delhi; he did not report his arrival or departure at the local police station; he did not seek any assistance, co-operation and permission from the local police to effect recovery at Sandeeps residence.He did not verify the contents of the written complaint by Nishas bother/parents.He along with Nishas relatives proceeded to Delhi for her recovery in a vehicle arranged by her relatives.He did not join any respectable person from the locality.He did not prepare any document at the spot that he was taking Nisha and Sandeep to PS Loni.(v) The Committee has found that Sandeep was not produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate at any time.His detention, for whatever duration, remained illegal.Further, the Committee found that the moment police officials of UP took Sandeep into the vehicle, it amounted to taking him into custody.It is "highly unbelievable" that Nisha had accompanied UP police willingly of her own accord.The UP police officials in uniform accompanied by Nishas relatives forced Nisha to sit in the same vehicle by instilling fear in her mind.SI Sharma did not follow the law and legal procedure while removing Nisha from the custody of her legally wedded husband Sandeep.She was taken to PS Loni against her wishes.(vi) The Committee has found that the power to arrest was grossly misused W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 15 of 35 by SI Sharma.She was living there of her own free will after marriage and was entitled to exercise her choice and freedom.It smacks of preplanning and a deliberate move.(vii) According to the Committee, there was no credible evidence to infer if Sandeep was tortured or physically beaten in the lock up before release.Sandeep did not get himself medically examined after release.It is on record that Sandeep was criminally intimidated.HC Meena did not intervene to protect W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 16 of 35 Nisha from being taken away without reason and legal authority from an area within his jurisdiction.No information was recorded at PS Vasant Kunj (North) that the UP police was taking with them individuals residing within the jurisdiction of that PS.W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 16 of 35As regards the other police personnel, the Committee observed that:In Tasleema v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra), a Division Bench of this Court was called upon to decide whether the Petitioner should be compensated by the State of Gujarat, as a public law remedy, by way of strict liability, for the misadventure of its police officials in taking away her minor son, without reason and without the authority of law, from Delhi to a lock-up in Ahmedabad.These questions were to be decided in the backdrop of the allegation that the Petitioner, her husband and children were Bangladeshis.After finding the State of Gujarat liable to pay compensation to the victim, this Court turned its attention to question of computation of compensation and held:Now comes the question of how to calculate the amount of compensation that should be awarded to the petitioner and her son Shamim.In Bhim Singh (supra), a case decided in 1985, the Supreme Court had awarded a sum of Rs 50,000/- by way of compensation for the deprivation of personal liberty of Mr Bhim Singh by the police officials of the J & K Government.We see no reason to award anything less, particularly, as, in the present case we are concerned with the deprivation of the personal liberty of a minor...."In the facts and circumstances, the Court directs that compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to both Sandeep and Nisha shall be paid by the State of W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 32 of 35 Uttar Pradesh for their illegal detention by the UP police which stands established prima facie by the report of the Committee.The amounts should be paid within a period of four weeks along with a letter written by the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh himself, apologizing to each of them for the conduct of his police officials.W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 32 of 35(iii) The suggestions of the Committee as set out in paras 15 and 16 of this judgment are directed to be adopted for implementation both by the Delhi Police and the police in the State of Uttar Pradesh.Orders to this effect shall be issued by the DGP, Uttar Pradesh and the CP Delhi within two weeks W.P. (Crl.)2189/2018 Page 33 of 35

['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.C.No.3663/2016 bailable and therefore, the applicant prays for anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State oppose the application.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge Anil

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is first application, under section 438 of the Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 141/2017 registered at Police Station Lahar, District Bhind for the offences punishable under sections 457, 458, 323, 324, 308 of the IPC.As per prosecution story, short facts of the case are that in the night of 30/08/2017, the applicant entered into the house of complainant situated in Lahar and inflicted a knife blow on his mother Saraswati Bai's neck.When he came to rescue his mother, he also suffered injuries by the knife blow on his hand and neck.Police authorities registered FIR against the applicant under section 457, 323, 324 of IPC and enhanced the offence punishable under section 458 IPC.Earlier, the application was released on bail by this Court vide order dated 05/01/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 27268/2017, but during investigation, the police authorities have enhanced the offence punishable under section 308 of IPC and, therefore, the applicant is apprehending his arrest.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant aged 28 years has no criminal antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.The police must seek an order for cancellation of bail already granted to a person.On these grounds, the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail.In response, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application on the ground that in the instant bail application offence under section 308 of IPC has been added which has not been considered by this Court while granting earlier bail to the applicant and prays for its rejection by contending that from the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

PER COURT:1] Heard the learned counsel for the applicants andlearned APP for the respondent.2] Perused the application and other relevant documentsincluding the impugned judgment and order passed by the learnedtrial court.The applicants and their accomplices were chargesheeted for the offence punishable udner Sections 307, 324, 504and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC.The learned trial court, after consideringthe entire evidence on record held the applicants guilty for theoffence under Sections 324 r/w. 34 of IPC.The appellant No.1 -Ravindra Hilal Mali is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years, and topay a fine of Rs. 10,000, in default, R.I. for 9 months whereas, theappellant No.2 - Hilal Bajirao Mali is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for6 months.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 04:17:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 04:17:13 :::{2} 1 sr.no..odt3] The learned counsel for the applicants submits that thelearned trial court did not appreciate the facts and circumstances ofthe present matter in its proper perspective while convicting theappellants for the charges pitted against them.There are materialdiscrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.Theevidence on record is also not sufficient to bring home the guilt ofthe accused for the offence of causing grievous hurt to the victim ofthe crime.According to learned counsel for the applicants, it wouldbe unjust and improper to curtail the liberty of the applicantspending appeal.The appellants/applicants have every hope ofsuccess in the appeal.The applicants were on bail during thependency of trial.They have also deposited the entire fine amountbefore the learned trial court.The applicants are ready to abide bythe conditions, if any, imposed for admitting them on bail aftersuspension of substantive sentence.4] Learned APP raised the objection and submits that thecharges levelled against the appellants/applicants are serious andanti-social in nature.The learned Sessions Judge, afterappreciating the evidence on record convicted the appellant and,therefore, there is no propriety to suspend the substantive sentenceof imprisonment.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 04:17:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 04:17:13 :::{3} 1 sr.no..odt5] I have given anxious consideration to the argumentsadvanced on behalf of both sides.As referred supra, the appellantswere tried for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trialcourt held both the appellants guilty for the offence punishableunder Section 324 r/w. 34 of IPC and imposed the sentence, asindicated above.The appellant No.2 is the senior citizen of 70 yearsold, whereas, the appellant No.1 is his son, and he is also 40 yearsold person.In view of nature of subject matter and the gravity ofthe allegations nurtured against the appellants, I find that there isno propriety to curtail the liberty of the appellants pending appeal.It is essential to take note of the fact that the applicants were onbail during the course of trial.There were no allegations of misuseof liberty granted in their favour nor there are allegations abouttampering with the evidence of prosecution witnesses.In case,the short term sentence is allowed to run pending appeal, it wouldcause injustice and hardship to the applicants and the very purposeof filing the present appeal would become infructuous one in allrespects for the applicant.Therefore, the application forsuspension of substantive sentence deserves to be allowed.6] Accordingly, the application stands allowed in terms ofprayer clause (B).The substantive sentence of imprisonmentimposed on the applicants/accused by the Additional Sessions Judge,Shahada in Special Case No. 64 of 2014 is hereby suspended ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 04:17:13 ::: {4} 1 sr.no..odtpending appeal.Meanwhile, the applicants be released on bail onfurnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twentythousand only) with one solvent surety of like amount, each.Bailbefore the trial court.Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 04:17:13 :::[K.K. SONAWANE] JUDGE.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 04:17:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 04:17:13 :::

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

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

Case diary perused.This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P. C. for grant of bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested in connection with crime No.617/2018, registered at P. S. Kundipura District Chhindwara for commission of offence punishable under Sections 450, 376 of IPC.As per prosecution story, on 17.11.2018 at about 12.30 p.m. when the prosecutrix aged about 19 years was alone at her home at the same time the applicant entered in her house and after laying her on the floor committed forcefully intercourse with her.It is also alleged that prosecutrix made hue and cry, on hearing it her father has reached on the spot, looking him to come the applicant has fled away from the spot.The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her father, who called his wife.The prosecutrix lodged the report of the incident on the same day.On that basis aforesaid crime has been registered against the applicant.Trial will take time to conclude.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application for grant of bail to the applicant.Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 04/02/2019 22:38:04 2 MCRC-4408-2019 The Prosecutrix is said to be the aged about 19 years while the applicant is 21 years young boy.Both are previously known to each other.The prosecutrix was medically examined on the same day of the incident but no external injury was found on any part of her body.The applicant was also medically examined, although he was found enough competent to perform intercourse but no external injury was found on his person also.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the like 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 Code of Criminal Procedure.C. C. as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE kkc Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 04/02/2019 22:38:04

['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is submitted by the learned counsel that applicant proceeded on casual leave after getting it sanctioned from the concerned authority and he rejoined his services one day delayed upon that an inquiry was conducted and accordingly he was punished for "no work no pay" for two days.Later on it was revealed that sanction order of casual leave by the concerned authority was procured by forging signature of the concerned authority and after an inquiry, first information report was lodged against the applicant and consequently charge-sheet has been submitted.It is also submitted that F.I.R was lodged against the applicant due to ulterior motive and he was already punished for two days as "no work no pay" and again action has been initiated against him.From the facts it can not be said that no case is made out against the applicant.There is an order that is said to forged one and was not issued by the competent authority.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

According to the prosecution accused killed his wife- Anisha, three daughters namely, Gulfsha, Nisha and Anta @ Munni aged 9 years, 6 years and 4 years respectively and son Babu aged 2 = years.The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur had found the charge for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC to have been proved and imposed the death sentence.Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: On 10.12.2005 at about 6 A.M. Alladeen (PW-1) submitted a written report at Police Station, Nagaur stating inter alia that In the evening of 9.12.2005 the appellant Bablu gave beating to his wife and children.But they were rescued on his intervention.He described Bablu as a person of notorious character.It was further averred that in the morning at about 5 a.m. his brother appellant Bablu came out of the house shouting and making declaration that he has killed all the five bastards by strangulation one by one.He killed his wife Anisha, daughters Gulfsha, Nisha, Anta @ Munni and son Babu.The dead bodies were found placed on the mattresses tying the thumbs of each leg of the dead bodies by thread.J U D G M E N T(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4765 of 2006)Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur confirming the death sentence awarded to the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').The trial Court had imposed a death sentence and, therefore, made a reference for confirmation of death sentence by the High Court in terms of Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code').Appellant also filed an appeal and both the case under reference and the appeal were taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.On this information police registered a case for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and proceeded with investigation.All the dead bodies were sent for postmortem.A Medical Board consisting of three doctors conducted the postmortem of all the five dead bodies.The appellant was arrested.After usual investigation police laid charge-sheet against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. On being committed the appellant was tried of the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. by the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur.The trial court on consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 I.P.C.The trial Court relied upon the following circumstances to find the accused guilty.(1) Extra judicial confession made by the appellant before Murad Khan (PW-1), Bablu Kalva (PW-2), Mohd Sharif (PW-3) and Alladeen (PW-4).(2) The presence of the appellant in the house wherein the alleged incident took place.(3) Recovery of ear ring of the wife from the possession of the appellant.At the time of hearing the reference and the appeal the primary stand taken by the accused appellant was that the extra judicial confession relied upon by the prosecution is not correct.It was submitted that the alleged confession publicly standing on a platform is highly improbable.The High Court found that the evidence of Murad Khan (PW-1) and Bablu (PW-2) was cogent and credible.PW-1 was a neighbour and PW-2 is the brother of the accused-appellant.There is no reason as to why they would falsely implicate the accused-appellant by making an untruthful statement.Added to that, evidence of PW-1 about the behaviour of the appellant was relevant.The third circumstance was the recovery of ornament from the possession of the appellant.The circumstances highlighted by the prosecution according to the High Court presented a complete chain of circumstances.He deliberately planned and meticulously executed the same.There was not even any remorse for such gruesome acts.On the contrary, he was satisfied with what he had done.

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

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

When respondent no.1/accused Shantabai left the house for going to market, Vandana poured kerosene on her person and set herself ablaze.Respondent no.2/accused Sanjay doused the fire by pouring water.Vandana was taken to MGM Hospital at Vashi.Then he came to know that Vandana is shifted to Sion Hospital, Mumbai.1 By this appeal, the appellant / State is challenging the judgment and order dated 18th May 2002 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No.490 of 2001, thereby acquitting respondents/accused of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::Joshi married respondent no.2 Sanjay Joshi two years prior to the incident in question.Out of this wedlock, she gave birth to a child.Vandana was residing with her husband - respondent no.2/accused Sanjay Joshi and her mother-in-law i.e. respondent no.1/accused Shantabai Joshi at Turbhegaon in Navi Mumbai.3 According to the prosecution case, both respondents/accused used to ill-treat Vandana by suspecting her character.Respondent no.2/accused Sanjay Joshi had purchased a plot from maternal uncle of Vandana by paying consideration of Rs.4 lakh.This transaction was not approved by respondent no.1/accused Shantabai.She was insisting her son respondent no.2/accused Sanjay Joshi to cancel the said transaction and get the amount back from the maternal uncle of Vandana.On this count also, respondents/accused used to harass Vandana.4 On 25th July 2001, in the morning hours when Vandana was fetching water, respondent no.1/accused Shantabai avk 2/18::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 ::: APPEAL-1301-2002.doc obstructed her by uttering that house does not belong to Vandana and everything belongs to respondent no.1/accused Shantabai.On getting information of admission of Vandana to hospital, PW6 Subhash Kokate, Police Sub-Inspector, got her statement (Exhibit::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::26) recorded through PW1 Dr.Rajesh Iyer, Special Executive Magistrate.On the basis of that statement, Crime No.102 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against respondents/accused persons.However, during the course of her medical treatment, Vandana succumbed to burn injuries on 28th July 2001, and that is how, Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was added to the case diary of the crime on completion of investigation.Both respondents/accused persons were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::examined in all six witnesses to prove offences alleged against respondents/accused persons.Respondents/accused persons did not enter in defence.After considering the evidence of prosecution, the learned trial court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit respondents/accused persons of offences alleged against them.6 I have heard Shri S.V.Gavand, the learned APP appearing for the appellant/State.He argued that evidence adduced by the prosecution demonstrated that Vandana was subjected to cruelty by her husband/respondent no.2/accused Sanjay and mother-in-law/respondent no.1/accused Shantabai, but there is no cross-examination of prosecution witnesses to demonstrate that Vandana was a short tempered lady who indulged in self effacement.Her relatives are pointing out cruel treatment meted out to her by the accused persons by suspecting her character as well as for getting refund of Rs.4 lakh.The learned APP further argued that the learned trial court considered avk 4/18::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 ::: APPEAL-1301-2002.doc alleged suicidal note written by deceased Vandana which was not even proved during the course of evidence.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::7 Per contra, the learned advocate appearing for respondents/accused persons justified the impugned judgment and order of acquittal by arguing that vague and general allegations are made against the accused persons.There is no evidence to point when incident of cruelty took place and statement of independent witnesses as well as neighbours are not forthcoming to point out guilt of the respondents/accused persons.8 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the record and proceedings including deposition of prosecution witnesses as well as documentary evidence placed on record.The defence avk 5/18::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 ::: APPEAL-1301-2002.doc has admitted the report of postmortem examination of dead body of Vandana Joshi (Exhibit 17) which shows that Vandana died because of shock following burns.Certificate at Exhibit 16 recording cause of death of Vandana, inquest notes Exhibit 13 are also the documents which are admitted by the defence.These documents point out that Vandana sustained burn injuries and died because of the resultant shock.Spot panchnama at Exhibit 10 is also a document not disputed by the defence.This spot panchnama shows that the incident of sustaining burns by Vandana took place on 25th July 2001 in the kitchen of her residential house.The floor of the kitchen was wet and smelling kerosene.Burnt clothes were found in the kitchen.A can containing about 3 litres of kerosene, a burnt matchstick as well as a matchbox was also found in the kitchen.A chit allegedly written by deceased Vandana was also found in the house.All these articles were seized by the Investigator vide panchanama Exhibit::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::The spot of the incident does not reflect any material to infer that Vandana sustained accidental burns.On the contrary, it is defence of respondents/accused persons that Vandana is indulged avk 6/18::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 ::: APPEAL-1301-2002.doc in self effacement by pouring kerosene on her person.This is even reflected from plea of her husband i.e. accused Sanjay Joshi.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::10 Now let us examine whether by this evidence, prosecution has established that respondents/accused persons or any of them had subjected Vandana to cruelty, and thereby, instigated, provoked or encouraged her to commit suicide by setting herself on fire.11 It is case of the prosecution that dying declaration of Vandana came to be recorded officially on the day of the incident i.e. on 25th July 2001 itself through the Special Executive Magistrate at MGM Hospital, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, in presence of PW6 Subhash Kokate, Police Sub-Inspector.It is in evidence of PW6 Subhash Kokate, Police Sub-Inspector, APMC Police Station, Navi Mumbai, that on getting message from the MGM Hospital, avk 7/18::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 ::: APPEAL-1301-2002.doc Vashi, regarding admission of Vandana with burn injuries, he went there.Then, he went to Sion Hospital and ascertained from the Medical Officer as to whether Vandana was in a position to give her statement.Then, as deposed by PW6 Subhash Kokate, Police Sub-Inspector, he called the Special Executive Magistrate Dr.Rajesh Iyer and in presence of the attending Medical Officer, Special Executive Magistrate PW1 Dr.Rajesh Iyer interrogated Vandana and under dictation of the Special Executive Magistrate, he took down the dying declaration of Vandana Sanjay Joshi (Exhibit 26A).::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::12 Exhibit 26A - statement of Vandana Joshi, claimed to have been recorded by PW6 Subhash Kokate, Police Sub-Inspector, was considered as the First Information Report (FIR) and accordingly, Crime No.I-102 of 2001 came to be recorded against accused persons at APMC Police Station.This statement, on death of Vandana Joshi, can be construed as her dying declaration.The statement of deceased Vandana at Exhibit 26A is to the effect that avk 8/18::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 ::: APPEAL-1301-2002.doc after her marriage, her husband used to suspect her character.Her husband - Sanjay Joshi had decided to purchase a plot of land from her maternal uncle PW5 Ramnath Patil for a consideration of Rs.4 lakh, but as her mother-in-law respondent no.1/accused Shantabai Joshi had not approved the said transaction, her husband respondent no.2/accused Sanjay Joshi used to harass her for getting back the money.Deceased Vandana in her statement Exhibit 26A has further stated that her husband used to assault her.It is also disclosed in the statement at Exhibit 26A that in the morning hours of 25th July 2001 when Vandana was fetching water, her mother-in-law respondent no.1/accused Shantabai obstructed her by uttering that everything in the house belonged to respondent no.1/accused Shantabai Joshi.There was quarrel and when respondent no.1/accused Shantabai left the house, Vandana committed suicide.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::13 Now let us consider whether explicit reliance can be placed on the so called dying declaration at Exhibit 26A. As the dying declaration is generally made in absence of the accused, and avk 9/18::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 ::: APPEAL-1301-2002.doc as the accused has no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, no explicit reliance can be placed on the dying declaration unless and until it gains support and corroboration from other material on record and unless and until its truthfulness is established.14 PW1 Dr.Rajesh Iyer is the Special Executive Magistrate on whose dictation, PW6 Subhash Kokate, Police Sub-Inspector, has claimed to have written the dying declaration at Exhibit 26A. Evidence of PW1 Dr.Rajesh Iyer, Special Executive Magistrate, shows that he had received a telephonic call on 21st July 2001 from Sion Police station and therefore, he went to Sion Police Station.At Sion Police station, statement of Vandana was read over to him.PW1 Dr.Rajesh Iyer further deposed that he went to Sion Hospital and saw Vandana.She was in a position to make a statement.PW1 Dr.Rajesh Iyer claimed that he took down statement Exhibit 9 of Vandana.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::15 Careful scrutiny of PW6 Subhash Kokate, Police Sub- Inspector and PW1 Dr.Rajesh Iyer, Special Executive Magistrate, avk 10/18::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 ::: APPEAL-1301-2002.doc unerringly point out that statement at Exhibit 26A dated 25 th July 2001 was not at all recorded in dictation of PW1 Dr.Rajesh Iyer.Evidence of PW1 Dr.This is a certificate issued by PW1 Dr.Rajesh Iyer.Certificate at Exhibit 9 in handwriting of Dr.Rajesh Iyer dated 24th July 2001 is to the effect that statement of Vandana is true and it was shown to the relatives of Vandana, who verified it to be true.PW1 Dr.Rajesh Iyer has not clarified as to which statement of Vandana was found to be true by him.Neither on 21st July 2001 nor on 24th July 2001, Vandana Joshi was admitted to hospital at Sion.Cross-examination of PW1 Dr.Rajesh Iyer, so also his answers to the court questions makes it clear that he did not record any statement of deceased Vandana.Statement of Vandana was already recorded when he visited the hospital.It does become clear that in every probability, subsequently, PW1 Dr.PW6 Subhash Kokate, Police Sub-Inspector, so also, PW1 Dr.Rajesh Iyer, Special Executive Magistrate, do not appear to be witnesses of truth, but it is seen that the record has been created to show that statement of deceased Vandana was got recorded through the Special Executive Magistrate i.e. PW1 Dr.Rajesh Iyer.Hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved dying declaration Exhibit 26A of deceased Vandana Joshi, allegedly recorded by PW6 Subhash Kokate, Police Sub-Inspector through PW1 Dr.Rajesh Iyer, Special Executive Magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::16 The rest of the evidence, in order to establish cruelty and resultant abetment, adduced by the prosecution is coming through mouth of PW2 Narayan Bhagat - father, PW3 Bebitai Bhagat - mother, PW4 Kishore Bhagat - brother and PW5 Ramnath Patil - maternal uncle of deceased Vandana.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::Vandana four months prior to the incident.At that time, she told that accused no.2 Sanjay used to ill-treat her, beat her and was suspecting her character.This witness further stated that Vandana used to be ill-treated by accused no.1 Shantabai as Shantabai did not like transaction of purchase of plot by accused no.2 Sanjay from her relative and as accused no.1 Shantabai wanted to get back the amount of Rs.4 lakh.As per version of PW2 Narayan Bhagat, in his re-visit to Vandana, she told him about ill-treatment and when he questions accused no.2 Sanjay, accused no.2 Sanjay replied that he can do anything with Vandana.18 PW4 Kishor Bhagat - brother of deceased Vandana had deposed that four months prior to the incident at her house, his sister told him that accused suspects her character and beats her.PW4 Kishor Bhagat has claimed to have brought back Vandana to her paternal house and has further deposed that thereafter, accused no.2 Sanjay Joshi came and threatened that if Vandana is not sent back, he would divorce her.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::that three or four months prior to the incident, Vandana told her that her husband Sanjay was beating and her mother-in-law Shantabai was harassing her by suspecting her character.As per version of PW3 Bebitai Bhagat, at the hospital, Vandana told her that her mother-in-law had asked her not to fetch the water as the house belonged to accused Shantabai.His evidence shows that Vandana did not disclose anything to him but as she was found weak, he questioned accused no.2 Sanjay as to why Vandana was not taken to hospital.Upon that, accused no.2 Sanjay had told him that it was his choice.PW5 Ramnath Patil has further deposed that a plot of land was given to accused no.2 Sanjay for a consideration of Rs.4 lakh and accused no.2 Sanjay was asked to avk 14/18::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 ::: APPEAL-1301-2002.doc return the said amount as his mother accused no.1 had not approved the said transaction.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::21 This is all that has been deposed against the respondents/accused by the witnesses examined by the prosecution to establish cruelty and abetment to a married woman for indulging in self effacement.What was the type of ill- treatment or cruelty meted out to Vandana by the accused persons is not explained by the prosecution witnesses.They are merely stating in a vague manner that Vandana was subjected to ill- treatment by suspecting her character by the accused persons.Vague allegations of beating are also made by these prosecution witnesses.The evidence adduced by the prosecution further shows that there was some transaction in respect of an immovable property which was not approved by accused no.1 Shantabai.What was the nature of ill-treatment to Vandana for getting back the money involved in this transaction is also not explained by the prosecution witnesses.Even if these averments are accepted as it is, then also, they fall short of establishing legal cruelty to a avk 15/18::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 ::: APPEAL-1301-2002.doc married woman.The averments and allegations coming on record from mouth of prosecution witnesses are not of such a nature which could drive a married woman to commit suicide.The deceased is seen to have been obstructed by respondent/accused no.1 Shantabai - mother-in-law while the deceased was fetching water.Respondent /accused no.1 Shantabai during that incident claimed that the house belonged to her and everything in the house belonged to her.This triggered Vandana to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her person.This suicide is not common course of event and natural result of normal conduct of a human being.The respondents/accused persons may be the reason for deceased Vandana to commit suicide, but that does not depict abetment by accused persons to her to commit suicide.The evidence on record does not reflect any harsh or harmful conduct of required intensity and persistence by the accused persons in treating deceased avk 16/18::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 ::: APPEAL-1301-2002.doc Vandana.The conduct of accused persons, as reflected from evidence of prosecution, does not reflect any legal cruelty as envisaged by explanation to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::22 To crown this all, the spot panchnama at Exhibit 10 recorded by the Investigator shows that on the scene of occurrence, a chit written by deceased Vandana was found.That chit is filed by the prosecution along with the charge-sheet.The chit further contains an averment that mother and father of the deceased should not be held responsible for suicide.True it is, that this chit filed was with the charge-sheet and and it was seized from the spot of the incident by the Investigator is not proved, but avk 17/18::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 ::: APPEAL-1301-2002.doc it is well settled that unproved documents of the prosecution can be relied by the accused for the purpose of his defence.The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in Sheo Prasad vs. Emperor 1 which was subsequently relied by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bharat vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2 had held that documents of prosecution which remained unproved cannot be utilized by the prosecution but it would be wrong to deny the defence of its user.Such documents can be used by the defence, if it supports the defence in any manner.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::23 In the result, the prosecution has failed to establish the cruelty and resultant abetment to deceased Vandana by accused persons or any of them.Hence, no infirmity can be found in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents/accused.The appeal is, therefore, devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:10:05 :::

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

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

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.(Per; Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J.)Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri C.S. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.The present application has been moved on behalf of appellants under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to grant permission to file additional evidence (copy of statement of informant of this case recorded in other criminal case Gangster Case No. 201 of 2010 State vs. Ram Sajivan Yadav) in the instant criminal appeal.2. Facts necessary for disposal of this application are that Sri Laxmi Narain lodged an FIR on 05.02.2010 at 17.15 at ps kothi District Barabanki stating that when on the same day around 3.00 pm he was returning from Barabanki, and when he reached at Kotwa Mor , accused Guddu @ Saroj, who was driving a Maruti Car bearing registration No. UP 41 A -9494, other accused persons Ram Sajivan,Hanoman and shanker sitting inside, hit the motorcycle on which deceased Jai Narain was sitting.When his brother fell down accused Hanoman and Shanker caught hold the deceased, while accused Ram Sajivan fired at his mouth from point blank range, causing his death instantly.Appellants Ram Sajiwan Yadav, Hanoman, Shanker @ Shiv Shanker Verma and Guddu @ Saroj were tried by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act in Sessions Trial No. 544 of 2010 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Sajiwan Yadav & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 66 of 2010 Police Station Kothi District Barabanki.Sri Laxmi Narain informant of this case was testified as prosecution witness no.1 and also supported the prosecution version of the incident.The trial Court vide judgment and order dated 24.8.2013 convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a further stipulation to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- or to undergo one year imprisonment in default.They were further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with fine of Rs.5000/- with regard to offence under Section 307/ 34 I.P.C., six months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 504 and two years rigorous imprisonment to each of accused under Section 506 I.P.C. Appellants were further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence committed under Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. In addition Appellant Ram Sajiwan Yadav was also convicted under Section 3/25 of Indian Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.5000/- or to undergo simple imprisonment for five months in default.Thereafter Appellants moved instant application under Section 391 Cr.Thereafter he mentioned the name of some inimical persons of the village in the F.I.R.The Appellant on the basis of above statement of Sri Laxmi Narain, recorded in other criminal case, moved an application under section 391 of the Cr.P.C., to take a copy of this statement on record as additional evidence.9. Learned counsel for the appellants while pressing the application has overwhelmingly argued that the informant of instant case, Sri Laxmi Narain, was examined in the instant Session Trial as PW-1, wherein he supported the prosecution.His evidence was again recorded in connected Gangster Case No. 201 of 2010 (State vs. Ram Sajivan Yadav) wherein he has given evidence to the effect that he had implicated the accused-appellants on the behest of a Sub-Inspector of police, who told him to mention the names of some inimical persons in F.I.R. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence recorded in the connected Gangster Case No. 201 of 2010 is a material piece of evidence, which shows that the witness PW-1 Sri Laxmi Narain is not reliable and the whole prosecution story is concocted and fabricated and, therefore, this material piece of evidence be kept on record as additional evidence.According to him this power must be exercised with great care and caution so that it may not operate in any manner prejudicial to the prosecution.Sri Laxmi Narain, who is also the informant and eye witness of the incident has been testified as P.W.-1 before the Court below, who in his evidence has supported the version of the prosecution.List this appeal after two weeks for final hearing.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Sushil Saini with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No- 1002 of 2018, S.T. No.79/2019, under Sections-302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Majhola, District-Moradabad, during pendency of trial.From perusal of the bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:(ii) against FIR lodged on 09.10.2018, the applicant is in confinement since 25.10.2018;(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation.In any case, he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;(vi) learned AGAhas opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant has been named in the FIR and the death was caused on the matrimonial house of the deceased;State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions.I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

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

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

DATED : JUNE 25, 2019 The applicant herein has approached this Court for grant of bail.The allegation against the applicant is that he along with other accused persons assaulted police personnel, resulting in the death of one and injuries to the other, leading to registration of FIR dated 27/5/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has been behind the bars since 28/5/2018 and that eight of the ten accused persons have been enlarged on bail.It is submitted that perusal of initial statement given by the injured police personnel suggested that assault in the present case took place only by use of sticks and that there was no ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2019 23:35:50 ::: 2 ba363.19.odt mention of another weapon, while it is claimed that upon investigation it reveals that apart from sticks, axe and stones were used in the assault at the time of the incident.It is further pointed out that a perusal of injuries reported to have been suffered by the injured police personnel do not indicate any such injury by use of axe, thereby pointing towards improvements and omissions in the version of the prosecution.It is contended that there is nothing brought on record to show that the deceased and the injured police personnel were on duty at the time incident, thereby indicating that the very genesis of the case of the prosecution is doubtful.On this basis, it is contended that the present application deserves to be allowed, particularly in the light of fact that the chargesheet is filed on 20/8/2018 and there has been no progress in the trial proceedings.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2019 23:35:50 :::On the other hand, the learned APP has contended that the present case concerns serious offence of assault on police personnel and use of weapons like axe and stones.On this basis, the learned APP submitted that the application deserves to be rejected.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2019 23:35:50 :::Having heard the rival parties and perusal of material brought on record, it appears that the applicant and other accused are said to have been committed serious offences under Sections 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code.There is an injured witness and one of the victims succumbed to injuries suffered in the said incident.The contention raised on behalf of the applicant that the police personnel were not on official duty can certainly be decided at the at stage of trial, but for grant or refusal of bail, what is more significant is the role attributed to the applicant.A perusal of post-mortem report in the present case shows that there were serious injuries suffered by the deceased leading to his death.The list of injuries given in the post-mortem report includes chop wound and piercing wound, apart from peeling of skin over right side of upper-limb of the victim.Such injuries are certainly attributable to the use of axe, as claimed by the prosecution.The main role in the present case is attributed to the applicant and the material brought on record does indicate his involvement in the severe assault that was launched against the victim.The Sessions Court in its order has specifically referred to the fact that the brother of the::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2019 23:35:50 ::: 4 ba363.19.odt accused persons had threatened the witnesses in the present case, indicating that there is a clear possibility of witnesses being influenced if the applicant is enlarged on bail.The applicant cannot claim parity with the other accused persons who were enlarged on bail and, therefore, it is found that the present application cannot be allowed.Accordingly, the application is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2019 23:35:50 :::Since the learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the chargesheet in this case has been filed as far back as on 28 th August, 2018, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial Court proceedings and to make an endeavour to complete the trial within a period of one year from today.JUDGEMP Deshpande ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2019 23:35:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2019 23:35:50 :::

['Section 302 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 Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.2013 of 2016 on the file of the firsthttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21396 of 2016 respondent police for the offences under Sections 420, 294(b), 506 (i) of IPC , as against the petitioner.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 2013 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 420, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.M. Gururaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Bharathi Kanna, learned Government Advocate (crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police.9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/8 Crl.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2016, the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.2013 of 2016 and file a final report within a period of Eighthttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21396 of 2016 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.13.10.2020 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No ksa Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21396 of 20161.The Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai City.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21396 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, ksa Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21396 of 2016 13.10.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Manoj and another, S.T. No. 504 of 2010, State of U.P. Vs.Mithilesh [arising out of Case Crime No. 147 of 2009, under Section 498-A, 304-B, 302, 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Sardhana, district Meerut, convicting and sentencing Manoj for imprisonment for life under Section 304-B I.P.C., three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 498-A I.P.C. and two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with default stipulation.Convicting and sentencing Satveer and Mithilesh for three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 498-A I.P.C. and two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with default stipulation.It may be mentioned that Ramesh Singh (the informant) filed Criminal Appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. No. 127 of 2014, from aforementioned judgment passed in S.T. No. 662 of 2009, S.T. No. 504 of 2010 and S.T. No. 733 of 2010, State Vs.Mamta and another, acquitting Satveer and Mithilesh under Section 304-B I.P.C. and Km.Mamta and Km.Rekha, daughters of Satveer, from all the charges.On the written complaint (Ex-Ka-1) of Ramesh Singh (PW-1), FIR (Ex-Ka-9) of Case Crime No. 147 of 2009, under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was registered on 22.03.2009 at 13:05 hours, at police station Sardhana, district Meerut, by Head Constable Karan Pal Singh (PW-5) against Manoj, Satveer, Mithilesh, Km.Mamta and Km.It has been stated in the FIR that Renu @ Bindu, the daughter of the informant, was married to Manoj son of Satveer Singh, resident of village Kapsad, PS Sardhana, district Meerut, 9 months ago.After the marriage, Manoj and his family were continuously demanding additional dowry and assaulting and torturing her for dowry.Four days prior to 22.03.2009, Satveer Singh and Manoj brought her to their house, after vidai, from village Shamli, PS Pilkhuwa.They again demanded dowry from him.A day before 22.3.20019, the informant came to know that the accused attempted to commit murder of his daughter, by burning her, pouring kerosene oil and at present, Renu was admitted in Anand Hospital, Meerut.The informant anyhow reached the hospital in the night and found that Renu was badly burnt and in serious condition.On talking with Renu, she informed that she was forcibly burnt by her husband Manoj, father-in-law Satveer, mother-in-law Mithilesh and sister-in-laws Rekha and Mamta, by pouring kerosene oil upon her.Due to the burn injuries, Renu died on 22.03.2006 at 8:00 AM, in Anand Hospital Meerut.Prayer has been made for lodging FIR and taking legal action.After registration of FIR, Station House Officer Sardhana made a request to Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sardhana to conduct Inquest of the dead body of Renu @ Bindu, on which, Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed Naib Tahsildar to conduct inquest of the dead body.Naib Tahsildar Prabha Singh (PW-4) conducted Inquest (Ex-Ka-3) of the dead body of Renu @ Bindu on 22.03.2009 between 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM.She prepared Police Form-13, photo lash, challan lash and letters to the authorities (Ex-Ka-4 to Ka-7) for conducting postmortem of the dead body and handed over the dead body to constable Malwa Sharma, for taking it up to mortuary.Dr. M.S. Faujdar (PW-3) conducted autopsy of dead body of Renu @ Bindu on 23.03.2009 at 3:00 PM and prepared Postmortem Report (Ex-Ka-2) in which following ante-mortem injuries were noted:-"Superficial to deep burns over whole body except soles, singeing of scalp hairs present.In the internal examination, membranes and brain were congested.Spinal Cord not opened.Both left and right lungs were congested.Pus pockets present in both the lungs.100ml semi-digested food material present in the stomach.Gases and fecal matter present in both small and large intestines.Gall bladder congested, pus pockets present.Spleen and Kidneys were congested.In the opinion of the Doctor, cause of death was Septicimia, as a result of ante-mortem burn injuries sustained."Circle Officer of Police Yogendra Pal Ahlawat (PW-6), started investigation in the matter.He copied check FIR and G.D. entry in case diary and recorded statements of the informant Ramesh Singh and scribe of FIR HM Karan Pal Singh.He went to village Kapsad on 22.03.2009 and inspected the spot on the pointing out of the informant and prepared site-plan (Ex-Ka-11).He recorded statements of Sompal, Pramod Kumar, Satpal, and Rajaram.He took into his possession curtain of the door and prepared its recovery memo (Ex-Ka-12).He took into possession plain and burnt earth from the spot, where the deceased was burnt and prepared recovery memo (Ex-Ka-13).He recorded statements of the witnesses of the recovery memo.On 24.03.2009, he obtained list of dowry given at the time of marriage and invitation card of the marriage, from the informant and recorded statements of Smt. Munni Devi, Manoj, Surendra Singh and Mahavir.He copied the postmortem report in case diary.On 28.03.2009, Manoj and Satveer were arrested.He recorded statements of Manoj and Satveer.On 01.04.2009, he copied Inquest in case diary.On 26.04.2009, he submitted charge sheet (Ex-Ka-14) against Manoj and Satveer.On 15.06.2009, he submitted charge sheet (Ex-Ka-15) against Mithilesh.He arrested Km.Rekha and Km.He sent burnt earth and plain earth for chemical examination on 05.07.2009, whose reports dated 03.09.2009 and 15.11.2009, were obtained.These papers were filed in the Court.The Magistrate, after taking cognizance, committed the cases to Session's Court.The legislative primature of relieving the prosecution of the rigour of the proof of the often practically inaccessible recesses of life within the guarded confines of a matrimonial home and of replenishing the consequential void, by according a presumption against the person charged, cannot be overeased to gloss over and condone its failure to prove credibly, the basic facts enumerated in the sections involved, lest justice is the casualty.She received serious burn injuries on 21.03.2009 at about 4:00 PM at the house of the appellants.Satveer (the appellant) admitted Renu @ Bindu in Anand Hospital, Meerut on 21.03.2009 at 7:39 PM, where she died on 22.03.2009 at 8:45 AM.FIR of the incident was lodged by Ramesh Singh (PW-1), father of the deceased on 22.03.2009 at 13:05 hours.Thus unnatural death of Renu @ Bindu due to burn injuries, within seven years of the marriage was proved.In order to prove demand of dowry and torture of the deceased by the appellants, in relation to it, soon before her death, the prosecution has examined Ramesh (PW-1) and Manoj (PW-2), father and brother of the deceased.Ramesh (PW-1) stated that Renu @ Bindu was his daughter.She was married to the accused Manoj, 17-18 months ago.All the accused used to demand dowry of Rs. 5/- lakh after the marriage and due to non-fulfillment of their demand, they used to torture and assault his daughter, which she used to tell him as and when she used to come to his house.Renu came to his house, 5 to 7 days prior to Holi.Thereafter, Manoj and Satveer took her to their house after vidai, four-five days prior to her death.When they took Renu, they assured that they would neither misbehave with Renu nor demand the dowry.On 21.03.2009 at about 4:00 PM, they pored kerosene oil upon Renu and set fire.He was informed on telephone from the village Kapsad that the accused had burnt his daughter after poring kerosene oil.Then they proceeded for village Kapsad.In the way, they received another telephone call that Renu was taken to Anand Hospital, Meerut then they went to Anand Hospital Meerut.When they reached there, his daughter was lying on the bed in burnt condition and crying.She informed to them that she was sweeping in the house.At that time, the accused called her; Mamta and Rekha caught her hands and Mithilesh pored kerosene oil; Satveer exhorted to burn and he would see its result, on which Manoj set fire through match stick.Thereafter, he got the written complaint scribed through Surendra and lodged the FIR.In cross-examination, he stated that the written complaint was scribed at Sardhana, sitting on jugar at about 11:30 AM.They took about 45 minutes in writing the complaint.He signed the writing from a different pen.After giving written complaint to the police station, they went to Anand Hospital.At the time of the marriage of Renu, he and his sons Manoj and Rajesh were earning members in the family.He owned 8-9 bigha (kachcha) land and he was doing agriculture.There were seven members in his family, including the deceased.Rajesh used to give Rs. 70000/- to 80000/- per year to him.He did not have a mobile phone but his sons had mobile phones.He has given a mobile phone to his daughter before the marriage.But she did not talk with him on the mobile nor wrote any letter to him, after the marriage.Narendra resident of village Kapsad was the mediator of the marriage of Renu.10-12 girls of his village were married at village Kapsad but he could not tell the names of their husband.His sister Murti was also married to Rajendra of village Kapsad, whose house situated at a distance of 200 yard from the house of the accused.Narendra informed him that Satveer owned 14-15 bighas land and Manoj was doing agriculture.Before engagement, Narendra informed that the accused had demand of Rs. 61000/- cash and one motorcycle, which was given by him at the time of marriage.The motorcycle was purchased for Rs. 52000/- from Pilkhuwa but he could not state the name of the motorcycle or the shop from where it was purchased.He has also given one gold chain, one gold ring, one wrist watch and the suit to the bride-groom and one gold tika, one gold pajim, one gold nose ring, gold tops and jhumka, four gold rings and silver pajeb and wrist watch to his daughter; one fridge, television, sofa set, 101 utensils and 51 sets of clothes and one pajeb and one ring for mother-in-law.Total Rs. 4.5 lakh to 5 lakh were expended by him in the marriage.The accused were demanding Rs. 5/- lakh as additional dowry.At the time of the marriage, he voluntarily gave Rs. 1.5/- lakh cash and one motorcycle.He had given one gas stove and one cylinder but they used to cook food on wooden chulha.Manoj (PW-2) stated that he had one brother Rajesh and one sister Renu @ Bindu.Renu was married to Manoj son of Satveer, resident of Kapsad.They assured that in future this would not be repeated.He went to the house of the accused and gave Rs. 90000/- to Satveer.But he was not satisfied and began to say that he wanted Rs. 5/- lakh.While giving Rs. 90000/-, he had told that he could not give more than this amount.Thereafter, they killed Renu on 21.03.2009 by burning.He received information from the village Kapsad on that day about 4:00 PM that the accused had burnt his sister after poring kerosene oil and they had taken her to Anand Hospital.Then they along with about 100 to 125 persons came to Anand Hospital.He remembered the names of Surendra masterji, Dharmesh Tomar, Udaypal.When they reached Anand Hospital then they found that bandage was done to his sister on all over the body.Although she was in serious condition and she was talking at that time.She told that when she was sweeping in the house, her in-laws called her; Mamta and Rekha caught her hands and Mithilesh pored kerosene oil; Satveer exhorted to burn and he would see all the consequences, on which Manoj set fire through match stick.Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.[Delivered by Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.]1. Heard Sri Pawan Singh Pundir, for the accused-appellants and Sri Dharmendra Singhal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ankit Agrawal, for the informant and Sri Preetam Lal Patel, Brief Holder, for State of U.P.Manoj and Satveer & Mithilesh have filed Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2014, respectively, from their conviction and sentence passed by Additional Session's Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut dated 19.12.2013/ 20.12.2013, in S.T. No. 662 of 2009, State of U.P. Vs.This appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 03.02.2016 of this Court, at the admission stage.On committal, the cases were registered as S.T. No. 662 of 2009 (State Vs.Manoj and another), S.T. No. 504 of 2010 (State Vs.Mithlesh) and S.T. No. 733 of 2010 (State Vs.Mamta and another), which were consolidated and tried together.The accused pleaded "not guilty" and claimed for trial.In order to prove the charges, apart from documentary evidence, the prosecution examined Ramesh Singh (PW-1), the informant and father of the deceased, Manoj (PW-2), the brother of the deceased, Dr. M.S. Faujdar (PW-3), to prove postmortem report (Ex-Ka-2), N.T. Prabha Singh (PW-4), to prove Inquest (Ex-Ka-3), Constable Karan Pal Singh (PW-5), to prove check FIR and Superintendent of Police (retd.) Yogendra Pal Ahlawat (PW-6), Investigating Officer.After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, all the incriminatory facts and materials were put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC.They denied the facts and materials and claimed for false implication.Manoj stated that while making tea on stove, kerosene oil overflowed and fell on the clothes of the deceased and while setting fire in stove through match stick, her clothes caught fire, due to which she was burnt.He tried to put off the fire in which his hands were also burnt.He admitted the deceased in Anand Hospital and informed the in-laws.Satveer stated that he was not present at the house at the time of incident.After coming to the house, he informed the family members of the deceased.Mithilesh stated that in order to save the deceased she put blanket on her.Unnatural death of Renu @ Bindu occurred, due to burn injuries received at the house of the appellants, within seven years of marriage.Demand of dowry by Manoj (husband), Satveer (father-in-law) and Mithilesh (mother-in-law) and torture of the deceased by the appellants in relation to it, was proved.On these findings, he convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above and acquitted Km.Rekha and Km.Hence, these appeals have been filed.In the marriage, they expended about Rs. 4.5/- lakh.They gave all the articles for the use of his sister.In the family of Manoj, Manoj (husband) Satveer (father-in-law), Mithilesh (mother-in-law) Rekha and Mamta (sister-in-laws) were there.They were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and were demanding Rs. 5/- lakh.They used to torture and assault his sister Renu, which she used to tell his family members as and when she used to come his house.He asked his father to see the matter.On which, his father went to the house of the accused and pacified them.Thereafter, his father got the written complaint scribed sitting on jugar out side the police station Sardhana and lodged the FIR.His sister came to his house 5-7 days prior to the incident and informed that the accused were demanding Rs. 5/- lakh and assaulting her.After the festival of Holi, Satveer and Manoj took her to their house after vidai.When they had come for vidai then they had talked with them in this respect.They told that now this would not be repeated.When they reached Anand Hospital, then for little time Satveer remained there and thereafter, he disappeared.In cross-examination, he stated that Satveer had stayed in hospital for half an hour.Satveer met them out side of the hospital.He did not have any talk with Satveer nor Satveer told any thing.They straight way went inside the hospital.Satveer also went behind them.After staying about half an hour, he went away and did not return till the death of Renu.Before going to the police station, he remained in the hospital.Subhash and Rakesh brothers of Satveer also met him there.He cannot say for what time, they stayed there.The expenses of the hospital might have been given by the persons, who had admitted Renu.Renu was admitted by her in-laws.He could not say that when the expenses of hospital was given.His father's sister Murti was married to Rajendra resident of village Kapsad.Apart from her, 12-13 girls of his village were married at village Kapsad but he cannot say that any other girl of his village was married in the house Satveer or not.Narendra was the mediator of the marriage of Renu.He informed that the marriage would be settled for Rs. 61000/- and one motorcycle.At that time, the accused did not make any demand.They came to know about the demand of the accused for the first time, when his sister came to their house.When his sister informed about the demand of the accused, then he had not informed about this either to Narendra or his phuphaji.His father had made a complaint to Narendra.Who later on informed after two-four days that he had talked and this would not be repeated.His sister was also having a mobile phone but he did not remember its number.From the statements of Ramesh and Manoj (PWs-1 and 2), it is proved that at the time of marriage, the accused did not demand any dowry, directly.Narendra, the mediator had asked them that the marriage would be settled for Rs. 61000/- and one motorcycle, which was given by them along with other articles voluntarily.After the marriage, when Renu @ Bindu went to the house of the informant for the first time, she informed that the accused were demanding Rs. 5/- lakh as an additional dowry.Manoj (PW-2), in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that this money was being demanded in relation of service for the accused Manoj.Statement of Manoj (PW-2) that he had given Rs. 90000/- to Satveer is not corroborated by Ramesh (PW-1).This was a big amount for Manoj, who was working as a driver and was earning Rs. 4000/- per month.As such statements of Manoj (PW-2) in this respect is not liable to be believed.Murti Devi, father's sister of the deceased was married in neighbourhood of the accused.Ramesh and Manoj (PWs-1 and 2) have never made any complaint to Smt. Murti Devi or her family members in respect of the demand of dowry and torture of the deceased in relation to it.Although Manoj (PW-2) has stated that he had sent his father for talking with the accused and Narendra (the mediator) in respect of the demand of dowry and torture of the deceased in relation to it then he had come to the village of the accused and had talked through Narendra but this statement was not corroborated by Ramesh (PW-1).In such circumstances, demand of dowry by Satveer and Mithilesh was not proved.Demand was made by Manoj alone through the deceased.Now it has to be examined as to whether all the appellants have participated in burning the deceased.There is no direct evidence in this respect.Statements of Ramesh and Manoj (PWs-1 and 2) are allegedly based upon the information received from the deceased, when they reached Anand Hospital.Dr. V.S. Singh (DW-2) stated that Smt. Renu @ Bindu was admitted in Anand Hospital on 21.03.2009 at 7:39 PM, in 70%, second and third degree burnt condition.Her larynx was also burnt and she was not in a position to speak, due to which, her dying declaration could not be recorded.Dr. M.S. Faujdar (PW-3) has also confirmed this fact that throat of the deceased was also burnt and the deceased was having 90% burn injuries.According to Ramesh and Manoj (PWs-1 and 2) they had reached Anand Hospital at 9:00 PM on 21.03.2009, while Renu died on 22.03.2009 at 8:45 AM.During this period, the informant or his family member did not give any information to the police or other authority that Renu was burnt by the accused, although according to Manoj (PW-2) more than 100 persons of his village had to gone to Anand Hospital at that time.As such their statements the deceased had informed them that the accused had burnt her was not liable to be believed.It is admitted that after incident of her burning, Satveer took the deceased and got her admitted in Anand Hospital Meerut.In case, Satveer and Mithilesh were involved in burning the deceased, then he might not have made any effort to provide medical help to the deceased.This circumstance also shows bonafide of Satveer.So far as the accused Manoj is concerned, he took plea that while preparing tea from stove, kerosene oil came out and fell on the clothes of the deceased and while setting fire through match stick, her clothes caught fire.He tried to put off the fire, due to which, he had also received burn injuries.In his Injury Report (Ex-Kha-1), one burn injury on his left palm of 7 cm x 3 cm was shown.Dr. Alok Kumar Naik (DW-1) has stated that this injury was a simple injury.There is nothing to prove that he had made any effort to take the deceased to the hospital.In these circumstances, Trial Court has not accepted his defence.Finding of the Trial Court in this respect does not suffer from any illegality.As a young girl of 22 years was done to death, causing grievous burn injuries, as such Manoj was rightly awarded imprisonment for life by the Trial Court under Section 304-B IPC.In view of aforesaid discussions, Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2014 has no merit and is dismissed.Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2014 succeeds and is allowed.Conviction and sentence of Satveer and Mithilesh, passed by Additional Session's Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut dated 19.12.2013/ 20.12.2013, in S.T. No. 662 of 2009 (State of U.P. Vs.Manoj and another), S.T. No. 504 of 2010 (State of U.P. Vs.Order date: 19.8.2019 Jaideep/-[Umesh Kumar,J.] [ Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.]

['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the judgment and order, dated 16.11.2004, passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 46 of 2002, whereby the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the IPC” for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.At 9:15 p.m., on the fateful night, the deceased was attacked by a group, comprising of the accused persons, while he was proceeding towards the house of his neighbour (PW-3) to attend a phone call from his wife’s house.The deceased’s sister (PW-1) followed him at a distance and thus was an eye-witness to the incident in its entirety.PW-1 and PW-2 rushed the deceased to the hospital, however, the deceased succumbed to his injuries.The First Information Report (“the FIR” for short) was registered for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, specifically implicating only the appellant.On completion of the investigation, the appellant and six other accused persons were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.During the pendency of the trial, one accused person had died and, thus, only the appellant and five other accused persons were tried for the above mentioned offence.The Trial Court has, after marshalling the evidence on record including evidence of the eye-witnesses, i.e., PW-1 and PW-2, acquitted the other five accused persons by extending the benefit of doubt on the finding that the identity of the said five accused persons could not be established by acceptable evidence and, ergo, their presence as members of the unlawful assembly is not conclusively proved.However, the appellant was convicted on findings, first, that it is only the appellant who is specifically implicated in the FIR by PW-1, second, that the evidence of PW-2 corroborates PW-1’s identification of the appellant and third, that the deadly blow caused by the appellant using MO1 corroborated with the injuries in the Post Mortem Report.The appellant, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment had approached the High Court.The High Court has re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and analyzed the submissions of the parties, inter- alia, that the ante-mortem injuries of the deceased tally with the injuries inflicted by the appellant and that the evidence of eye- witnesses is credit-worthy.Accordingly, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.The appellant, aggrieved by the confirmation of his conviction and sentence by the High Court, has approached this Court in this appeal.We have heard Shri V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Shri Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondent- State.We have carefully perused the judgment and order passed by the Courts below and have re-appreciated the evidence on record including the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the report of the medical officer.It is upon such perusal that we do not find any merit in the aforesaid submissions advanced before us by learned counsel for the appellant.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is further alleged that complainant Sukhmat Bai ran away from the place of the incident and hid in the house of Levan Singh.Per : G.S. Solanki, J.They have filed the aforesaid appeal against the aforesaid conviction and sentence.Since the reference and the appeal have arisen out of a common judgment, therefore, they are being disposed of by the common judgment.It is alleged that complainant along with the deceased and her son had gone to the house of accused Mukesh and Suratia Bai where so many other villagers were also present and they were performing Bhajan-Kirtan on Harmonium and Dholak.It is further alleged that during the aforesaid process, some godly powers were transmitted to accused Gend Singh, Dumari, Parvati Bai, Pusiya Bai, Suratia Bai, they started dancing, who were having Trishul, Farsa and Bana in their hands.It is further alleged that suddenly Suratia Bai came to Brijlal, dragged him and then accused Parvati Bai and Suratia Bai told that Brijlal (3) knows and performs witchcraft, therefore, kill him.On such exhortation accused Parvati, Pusia, Bhagwati Bai, Mukesh, Dumari and Gend Singh assaulted Brijlal.They felled him down and accused Parvati inflicted a Trishul blow on his neck.At the same time Gend Singh was dancing on the body of Brijlal.Complainant Sukhmat Bai and her cousin Holkar made hue and cry to save Brijlal but none of the villagers came to save him.Holkar went out of the house of Mukesh to seek some assistance from Levan Singh and other villagers, thereafter he came back along with Dayaram and Levan Singh and tried to save Brijlal but the accused persons did not spare him and accused Mukesh, Dumari and Gend Singh poured kerosene oil upon Brijlal and accused Gend Singh set ablaze Brijlal by a match-stick and accused Parvati Bai, Pusia Bai, Bhagwati Bai and Suratia Bai threw wooden pieces on the burning body of Brijlal and thereby all the accused committed the murder of Brijlal by assaulting and burning him.(3)4) Levan Singh informed about the incident telephonically at P.S. Niwas, thereafter the Police came to village Taurdara in the night and found that Brijlal has died.On 26.8.2014, Varsha Patel (PW-7) prepared inquest report (Ex.P-3) and recorded dehati nalishi (Ex.P-25), marg intimation (Ex.P-17) at (4) the behest of complainant Sukhmat Bai.Burnt dead body of Brijlal was sent for the post mortem examination.Manoj Kumar Chouhan (PW-4), Assistant Surgeon, conducted the post mortem and opined that the death was homicidal in nature.(4)5) During investigation, accused Parvati Bai was arrested and Trishul was seized at her instance along with blood stained clothes vide seizure memo (Ex.P-13).A can of Kerosene oil was seized at the instance of accused Mukesh along with blood stained clothes vide seizure memo (Ex.P-14).One jerrycan of Kerosene oil and match-sticks were seized at the instance of Gend Singh vide seizure memo (Ex.P-16) and another jerrycan of Kerosne oil and Farsa were seized at the instance of Dumari Bai vide seizure memo (Ex.P-15).6) After due investigation, the accused persons were charge sheeted before JMFC, Niwas, District Mandla, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Mandla.Learned Sessions Judge, Mandla made over the case to Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla (Link Court Niwas).Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused persons.8) On completion of trial and upon appreciation of evidence on record, the trial Court held the accused persons guilty for committing the murder of Brijlal and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned hereinabove, hence this reference by Second Additional Sessions Judge and the appeal by the accused persons.Fragments remained of head, trunk, abdomen, both forearms and arms, fragments remains of both thigh, both hands.Both hands and foots are absent from the body.Both forearms and both legs are flexed due to heat stiffening.Sharp cut injury present below knee joint and wrist joint, upper portion skull is not present.Both eye balls are burnt.Deep wound present over right side of neck.Burn injury present over whole body.Deep burn present over whole body and is completely charred.Body gives a strong smell of burning and smell of kerosene oil is present on body.On the basis of aforesaid injuries, the Doctor has opined that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.Sukhmat Bai (PW-1) and Holkar Maravi (7) (PW-2) are related and interested witnesses, therefore, the trial Court has committed illegality in placing the reliance on the aforesaid witnesses.Counsel has further submitted that Sukhmat Bai (PW-1) herself admitted in her cross-examination that she along with her cousins Holkar, Amar Singh, husband Brijlal and son Sachin went to the house of Mohan.He has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Raju @ Balachandran and others Vs.State of Tamilnadu - AIR 2013 SC 983 and Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh and others Vs.(7)14) On the contrary, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be thrown out only on the basis of the fact that they are related and interested witnesses.15) It is true that Sukhmat Bai (PW-1) is the wife of the deceased and Holkar Maravi (PW-2) is cousin of Sukhmat Bai, however, as per prosecution's case, Sukhmat Bai (PW-1) and Holkar Maravi (PW-2) both went to the house of appellant Mukesh, who happened to be the son of Mohan.In these circumstances, if Sukhmat Bai admitted in her cross examination Para-17 that she went to the house of Mohan along with her husband Brijlal, son Sachin, cousins Holkar Maravi and Amar Singh, who has not been examined, it does (8) not make any difference because the house of appellant Mukesh and his father Mohan is the same place.16) As far as appreciation of testimony of related and interested witnesses is concerned, in our opinion, if the wife of the deceased was present on the spot at the time of the incident, she cannot be said to be an interested witness due to her relationship with the deceased.A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished.A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'.In the instant case, both the eye witnesses namely Sukhmat Bai (PW-1) the wife of the deceased and Holkar Maravi (PW-2), her cousin, had gone to the house of appellant Mukesh for the purpose of treatment of the son of Sukhmat Bai and Brijlal through exorcism and there is nothing on record to show that there was any previous enmity or litigation between the appellants and Sukhmat Bai, in these (9) circumstances, both the witnesses Sukhmat Bai (PW-1) and Holkar Maravi (PW-2) cannot be said to be interested witnesses.(9)17) So far as non-production of other witnesses like child witness Sachin (the son of deceased Brijlal and Sukhmat Bai) and Amar Singh, another cousin of Sukhmat Bai, is concerned, it is true that they could have been examined before the trial Court and they would have further unfolded the story.It appears to be a fault on the part of the prosecution as well as the trial Court to leave two material witnesses without assigning any reason.However, it is well established principle of law that the evidence must be weighted not to be counted.18) Now we have to scrutinize the testimony of Sukhmat Bai (PW-1) and Holkar Maravi (PW-2) keeping in mind that both of them are the related witnesses.19) Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the very fact that at the time of the incident, an unlawful assembly was made by the appellants and there was a common object of the said unlawful assembly.20) In Shivjee Singh (supra), at the time of the incident main accused Ambika Singh opened the fire on the urge of his father Satya Naraian Singh and shot dead Meghnad Singh but the other co-accused persons were pelting stones from the roof of the house on complainant party.In such circumstances, the Apex Court has held that the co-accused persons were not having common object to commit the murder of Meghnad Singh.In the instant case Sukhmat Bai (PW-1) and Holkar Maravi (PW-2) have specifically stated that they both had gone to the house of appellant Mukesh along with deceased, minor Sachin and another witness Amar Singh.Despite extensive cross-examination of these two witnesses, the defence could not succeed to bring any material discrepancy in their cross-examination regarding presence of two witnesses at the beginning, except some discrepancies in regard to time and the fact that they went one by one at the house of appellant Mukesh.We are conscious that these two witnesses are rustic villagers/tribes, they do not have watches in their hands, in such circumstances, the defence of time does not have any material impact on the facts of the case.21) Sukhmat Bai (PW-1) has categorically stated in her statement before the trial Court that when she reached to the house of Mukesh, all the accused persons were present there.Some other persons were also present there, who had come (11) for treatment of their kids through exorcism.This fact has been duly corroborated by Holkar Maravi (PW-2).Sukhmat Bai (PW-1) further stated that initially the accused persons were reciting Kirtan and during Kirtan, some godly powers were transmitted to them, thereafter appellant Suratia Bai exhorted to other co-accused persons/appellants to catch Brijlal, thereafter appellant Parvati Bai inflicted a Trishul blow on the neck of Brijlal, as a result of which, Brijlal became unconscious, thereafter the accused persons felled him down and committed his murder.Upto the aforesaid extent, Holkar Maravi (PW-2) has corroborated the testimony of Sukhmat Bai (PW-1).Sukhmat Bai (PW-1) has further stated that she herself and her brother Holkar asked the villagers to save Brijlal but non one had come to save him and said that they are not able to save Brijlal.She has further stated that at that time appellant Gendlal was dancing on the chest of Brijlal and was playing Tamura.She further stated that thereafter all the accused persons brought a jerrycan of Kerosne oil and poured on the body of the deceased, thereafter Gend Singh and Mukesh set him ablaze and threw wooden pieces on the burning body of Brijlal.She further stated that when the body of Brijlal was burning, due to fear she ran away from the spot and hid in the house of Levan Singh.(11)(12)22) Holkar Maravi (PW-2) has also stated that during Kirtan some godly powers were transmitted to appellant Suratia Bai and she said that Brijlal performs witchcraft , therefore, kill him, thereafter all the accused persons caught hold of Brijlal and started beating him by fists.He further stated that he asked the accused persons to leave Brijlal then they told that they will punish him by death and thereafter started beating Brijlal, thereafter he went to the house of Levan Singh but at that time Levan Singh was not present at his house, thereafter he went to the field of Levan Singh and told him that the accused persons were brutally beating Brijlal.He has further stated that when he and Levan Singh were returning from the field of Levan Singh, on the way, Dayaram met them and all of them reached in the courtyard of the house of appellant Mukesh and saw that Brijlal was set to ablaze and all the accused persons were dancing, thereafter they made a telephonic call to the Police from the house of Levan Singh.23) Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that none of the witnesses has stated that any sharp edged weapon was used by any of the appellants.Though as per the version of Sukhmat Bai (PW-1), Parvati Bai inflicted a Trishul blow on the neck of the deceased but no such corresponding injury was found in the post mortem examination, therefore, there is a major discrepancy in the (13) medical and ocular evidence.In such circumstances, the trial Court has committed illegality in seeking the medical corroboration from the statement of Dr. Manoj Kumar Chouhan (PW-4) and the post mortem report.In Abdul Sayeed Vs.In the instant case also more than 5 accused persons made assault on the deceased.It is true that Holkar Maravi (PW-2) was present only till the appellants caught hold the deceased and started beating him brutally, thereafter he went out to seek some assistance from Levan Singh and other villagers, therefore, he was also not in a position to state which of the appellant had made assault on the deceased and in which manner.So far as the injury caused by Trishul is concerned, which is alleged to have been caused by Parvati Bai, Dr. Manoj Kumar Chouhan (PW-4) has specifically stated that there was a deep incised wound on the right side of the neck of the deceased and same was charred.This fact is very well supported by the evidence of Dr. Manoj Kumar Chouhan (PW-4) vide post mortem report (Ex.(14)21), thus it cannot be said that there was no injury of Trishul on the neck of the deceased.On the contrary, the statement of complainant Sukhmat Bai is corroborated by the medical evidence.25) So far as identity of the accused/appellants is concerned, as mentioned hereinabove, Sukhmat Bai (PW-1) is the sister of Holkar Maravi (PW-2), who was the resident of same village where the appellants were residing and he must be well known to all the appellants.Sukhmat Bai initially came to the house of Holkar Maravi along with her husband and son thereafter they went to the house of the appellants along with Holkar Maravi and they were present at the time of the incident at the house of appellant Mukesh.(15)26) On a careful scrutiny of the statement of Sukhmat Bai (PW-1) and Holkar (PW-2), it reveals that there was sufficient light on the place of the incident because it has come on record that at the time of the incident an electric bulb as well as a Diya (lamp) were lighted.It is true that there is no specific statement of Sukhmat Bai and Holkar that who had cut the hands and legs of the deceased, however, it has come on record that one broken Farsa was found on the spot and as per FSL report, human blood was found on the same, which shows that said broken Farsa was used during the incident.As discussed hereinabove, at the time of the incident, Sukhmat Bai, being the wife of Brijlal was not in a position to see that who had used the Farsa, however, she has stated that all the appellants unanimously committed the murder of her husband and the blow of Trishul given by Parvati Bai has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.In such circumstances, when human blood was found on Farsa, certainly it must have been used by one of the appellants for cutting the limbs of the deceased.Though no hard- and-fast rule can be laid down under the circumstances from which the common object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms it carried and behaviour at or before or after the scene of incident.The word "knew" used in the second branch of the section implies something more than a possibility and it cannot be made to bear the sense of "might have been known".In the instant case, all the appellants were present at the time of the incident and they were dancing together and appellant Suratia Bai exhorted the other appellants to catch Brijlal as he seems performing witchcraft.It has been further explained by Sukhmat Bai (PW-1) in her cross-examination Para-22 that the appellants besieged Brijlal and brutally beat him, she asked the other villagers to save her husband but no one had come forward to save him.Holkar had gone to seek some assistance from Levan Singh and other villagers.Upto that extent, Holkar has also duly corroborated the statement of Sukhmat Bai.It appears that when the appellants started beating Brijlal, Holkar went outside the place of incident to seek some assistance and when he returned back, Brijlal was already set to ablaze by the appellants.It has also come on record that after setting ablaze Brijlal, the appellants were dancing together.As already discussed hereinabove, at the time of the incident all the appellants became violent and they suddenly started beating Brijlal brutally, thereafter, Sukhmat Bai and Holkar asked the other villagers to save Brijlal but no one came forward to help them, theafter, Holkar went away from the spot to seek some assistance from Levan Singh and other villagers, this conduct of Holkar cannot be said to be unnatural.So far as conduct of Sukhmat Bai is concerned, being a lady, it cannot be expected from her to fight alone against the accused persons, who had become violent, because it has come on record that at the time of the incident no one had come forward to help her as well as Holkar also went to seek help.Further she was having a minor son with her, if she would have tried to save her husband from violent accused persons, they might have killed both of them also, in these circumstances, if she had not tried to save her husband, her conduct cannot be said to be unnatural because at that time it was more important for her to save the life of herself as well as her minor son.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 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 allegation against the petitioner is that he was a partner inM/s.Jeyas Ayush Hospital and had submitted loan application with fabricatedpurchase bills.All these had happened in abreakneck speed.Based on source information, the Central Bureau of Investigationregistered a case in Crime No.The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.686 of 2013 under Section239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging him from theprosecution, which has been dismissed by the Trial Court, on 13.05.2016,aggrieved by which, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal RevisionCase.The specificallegation against the petitioner is that M/s.Jeyas Ayush Hospital is apartnership firm with three partners, viz., Dr.K.Ramalakshmi, [A-11]P.Rajasamuel [A-10] and A.Udhaya Raj [A-12] and the partnership was entered into on 19.12.2008; that on 20.12.2008, a loan application was submitted tothe Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Palayamkottai Branch for availing loan ofRupees One Crore for the purchase of medical equipments and a loan ofRs.10,00,000/- towards working capital; that the accused opened currentaccount No.458, on 22.12.2008; that the accused submitted fake purchase billsobtained from Shamugavel [A-13]; that G.Balasubramanian [A-1] had sanctioned loan of Rs.89.85 lakhs on 31.12.2008 to M/s.Per contra, Mr.N.Nagendan, learned Special Public Prosecutor,refuted the above submissions.This Court gave its anxious consideration to the above submissionsmade by the learned counsel on either side.True it is that at thetime of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot actas a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may siftevidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made aregroundless so as to pass an order of discharge.It is trite that at thestage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has toproceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by theprosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with aview to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their facevalue disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the allegedoffence.Thelaw does not permit a mini trial at this stage.?2.The Second Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai.3..The Special Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') for the grant leave to appeal against judgment dated 30/10/2017 passed by Additional 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar, District Dhar in S.T. No. 302/2012, whereby the respondent-Manoj has been acquitted from the charge under Sections 420, 467, 469 and 471 of the IPC.Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant-Lalchand filed a private complaint against the respondent on the ground that on 25/05/2010, he purchased a motorcycle from one Bhaiyyu S/o Sadat Ali bearing registration No. MP-09-MS-4721 and an agreement was executed to this effect.After using the motorcycle for a period of one month the complainant cancelled the agreement and return back the motorcycle to the Bhaiyyu.When the complainant demanded the aforesaid cheque then Bhaiyyu did not return the him the cheque.On 11/07/2011, complainant-Lalchand received a notice from the Advocate of respondent-Manoj, in which, it was stated that the cheque No. 3526720 was issued by him to the respondent towards financial assistance of Rs.1,50,000/-.Then complainant filed a written complaint against the respondent at Police-Station-Badnawar regarding cheating and forgery, however, police has not taken any action in the aforesaid report.Thereafter, complainant filed a private complaint against the respondent before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnawar.After receiving the report, the statement of the complainant-Lalchand and his witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. and after considering the material available on record, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnawar registered the complaint against the respondent for commission of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the IPC.The offence registered against the respondent was triable by Sessions Court, therefore, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the Court of 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar District-Dhar.The trial Court after due appreciation of the entire record by the impugned judgment held that the prosecution has failed to proved that the cheque issued by the complainant-Lalchand was forged by the respondent-Manoj.4. learned counsel for the applicant/State submitted that the trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the statement of the complainant-Lalchand as well the documentary evidence available on record and acquigtted the respondent.Hence, he prayed for grant of leave to appeal.We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.On the perusal of the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that the trial Court on the basis of statement of the complainant and the material available on record, does not found prove that the complainant has issued cheque in pursuance to the agreement for sale of motorcycle in favour of the Bhaiyyu and he handed over the same cheque to the respondent, who misused the same and presented with the bankers for encashment.Resultantly, no grounds are available to grant leave to appeal against impugned judgment of acquittal, hence, the petition is hereby dismissed.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24615/2017x Indore dated :19/02/2018 Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.From the perusal of the documents available on record, it appears that neither the copy of FIR has been filed nor the case-diary is available, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of the FIR.Meanwhile learned Govt. Advocate is directed to make available the case-diary be next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Appeal No.418/2014x (State of M.P. & ors.vs. Dushyant Pagare) Indore dated :22/03/2018 Shri Mukesh Porwal, Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.None for the respondent.ORDER Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 04/03/2014 in writ petition No. 12598/2013, whereby transfer of the writ petitioner vide order dated 04/10/2013 was set aside.The respondent has filed an application IA No. 4989/2017 pointing out that the writ petitioner has been now transferred from Barwani to Shahdol on 10/07/2017 and the writ appeal has become infructuous.In view of the fact that transfer of the writ petitioner to Barwani, which was set aside by the learned Single Bench was stayed and subsequently, the writ petitioner has been transferred to Shahdol, we do not find that any cause in the present writ appeal survives.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1030/2014 Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri S.K. Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1057/2014x (Azad Shah Vs.State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1832/2018- repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant-Azad Shah.The appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Sections 379 & 379/34 of the IPC and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I. and 2 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offence.Thereafter, appellant regularly appear before this Court for his appearance.Thus this Court, vide order dated 16/05/2017 directed to issued non-bailable warrant against the applicant.Thereafter, on 07/11/2017, it was informed that the appellant is detained in Central Jail, Bherugarh in some other case, therefore, production warrant was issued against him and in pursuance of aforesaid production warrant the appellant was produced before this Court on 13/12/2017 and since then he is in custody.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was detained in jail since 12/03/2017 in some other case, therefore, he could not mark his presence before this Court on 16/03/2017 and he ensure that in future appellant shall regularly appear before the registry of this Court on all dates as may be given in this behalf.Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail sentence of the appellant.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2097/2018x (Kamlesh & Ors.State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Record of the court below be called for.Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1873/2018- an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellants-Kamlesh & Kailash.Each of the appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section 325/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with usual default stipulation.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked.It is also submitted that the appellants were on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by them.There are fair chances of success of this appeal .The appellants cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by them may render infructuous.The appellants are ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court.Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail sentence of the appellants.Accordingly, I.A. No. 1873/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by each of the appellants-Kamlesh and Kailash in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.List in due course.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2085/2018x (Sangram Vs.State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 Shri M.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Record of the court below be called for.Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1748/2018- an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant-Sangram.The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Sections 451, 354(A) of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 1 years R.I., 6 months R.I. and 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.5,000/- with usual default stipulation.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked.It is also submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him.There are fair chances of success of this appeal .The appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render infructuous.The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court.Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.Accordingly, I.A. No. 1748/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Sangram in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.List in due course.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10711/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10229/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri M.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9899/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Amit Raval, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10184/2018x (Kaju Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri M.R. Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10220/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.List in next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10891/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Vikas Jaiswal, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.Learned counsel for the complainant prays for and is granted time to file written objection on the bail application.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10892/2018 Indore dated :21/03/2018 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.List after a week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10896/2018 Indore dated :21/03/2018 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.List after a week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10908/2018 Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Surendra Tuteja, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.List in next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10975/2018 (Arjun Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Pramod Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11009/2018 Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.List in next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.29139/2017 Indore dated :21/03/2018 None for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4774/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5235/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Vaibhav Dube, learned counsel for the applicants.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9875/2018x (Raju @ Rajesh Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri K.C. Waghela, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.926/2016x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two weeks' time to argue the matter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.617/2018x Indore dated :21/03/2018 Shri K.C. Kabra, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1860/2018, an application for amendment in the array of IA No. 460/2018, an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants.On due consideration IA No. 1860/2018 is allowed.Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the IA No. 460/2018 during the course of the day.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1797/2018x Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 None for the appellants.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2197/2018x Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .Heard on the question of admission.List immediately after receipt of the record.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.611/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.Learned counsel for the applicant is also directced to file the copy of the entire charge-sheet.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1584/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3173/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Vaibhav Dube, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue on the maintainability of the revision.List after a week .(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3286/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Sachin Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of the entire charge-sheet.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3344/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue the matter.List after a week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3762/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Ms. Shraddha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4206/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri M. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4935/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri M.L. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the partis prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5090/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.None for the respondent.At the request of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.List after four weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5567/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri M.K. Khokar, learned counsel for the applicant.On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice be issued to respondents by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode.Notice be made returnable within four weeks.List thereafter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 6692/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 None for the applicant.Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.Let record of the Court below be called for.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 6689/2017x Indore dated :20/03/2018 None for the applicant.Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.Let record of the Court below be called for.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10332/2018x (Gulab Kapoor Vs.Shilpa) Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court, which are alleged in the present petition.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10818/2018x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10856/2018x (Sitarasingh Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.26580/2017x (Rajendra @ Bacha Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6108/2018x (Sheru Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7586/2018x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for time to file FSL report with regard to liquor seized from the possession of the applicant.By way of indulgence prayer is allowed.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8027/2018x (Champalal Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Zishan Ali, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8418/2018x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Gajendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9752/2018x (Shekhar Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1213/2018x Indore dated :20/03/2018 None for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let record of the Courts' below be called for.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9933/2018x Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10754/2018x (Nandlkishore Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :20/03/2018 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1313/2017x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1872/2018, an application for grant of temporary bail to the appellant-Ramswaroop Dangi.Accordingly, IA No. 1872/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.List the matter after three weeks for consideration of IA No. 6821/2017, an application 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Ramswaroop.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.185/2011x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the appellants.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is adjourned.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1353/2016x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the parties.In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.803/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the applicants.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Applicants are directed to cure the defects pointed out by the office within 1 weeks from today, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.897/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Applicant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the office within 1 weeks from today, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1022/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the parties.In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1161/2018 x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the applicants.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List after two weeks.R. No.1169/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the applicant.Applicant is directed to cure the defect pointed out by the office within 1 weeks from today, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1938/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the appellant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List after two weeks.C. No.9365/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.List thereafter .R. No. 691/2015x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to comply with order dated 26/04/2017 passed by this Court by the next date of hearing postively.List on 04/04/2018 .(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 639/2015x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Ranjeet Kalra, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to comply with order dated 26/04/2017 passed by this Court by the next date of hearing postively.List on 04/04/2018 .(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 11331/2015x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the applicants.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.At the request of learned counsel for the respondent No.2, list on 04/04/2018 (S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 163/2016x Indore dated :19/03/2018 None for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.At the request of learned counsel for the respondent No.2, list on 04/04/2018 (S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.363/2018x (Joy Bamiya Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Jil Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this revision petition.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.However, if the applicant is moved fresh application by showing change of circumstances before the Juvenile Justice Board, then same shall be considered in accordance with law.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9710/2017x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri A. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9779/2017x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.At the request of learned counsel for the applicants, list in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1199/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Respondent No.1- Vaishali Raipuriya is present in person before this Court.Shri Hemant, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2 /State.This Criminal Revision is preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 08/03/2018 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani District- Barwani in Criminal Appeal No.101/2017 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29/05/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barwani, District Barwani in Criminal Case No. 01/2016, whereby the applicant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and he has been sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment with compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-.Heard on I.A. No.1811/2018, an application under Section 397 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the applicant-Rajkumar.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has already paid the entire compensation amount to the respondent No.1/complainant-Vaishali Raipuriya on 12/03/2018 and she has sworned the affidavit in this regard.It is further submitted that the applicant was on bail during the trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him.There is no possibility of the revision coming up for final hearing in near future and hence, the applicant may be benefited by suspension of sentence.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for rejection of the application.Respondent No.1/complainant submits that she has no objection if the application for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant is allowed.In view of the above, awaiting admission, this Court is of the opinion that the application I.A.No.1811/2018 deserves to be and is allowed and it is directed that the execution of the remaining sentence awarded to the applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision petition and he shall be released on bail subject to depositing compensation amount and on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court on 18.5.2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.List the revision on the question of admission after four weeks.Certified copy, as per rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.756/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary on next date of hearing alongwith report of Probation Officer, failing which the concerned Official shall remain present before this Court to explain the reasons which prevented him to produce case-diary and report.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3142/2017x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1820/2018, an application under Section 389(2) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to applicant-Wasim.Accordingly, IA No. 1820/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1802/2017x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that reply of IA No. 9085/2017 is ready and he filed the same during the course of the day.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 115/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Jitendra Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after four weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 5468/2017x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file the reply of IA No. 1819/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to appellant-Shyamlal @ Shyam.List thereafter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3764/2017x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Puyush Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 24732/2017, an application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to applicant-Prashant Soni.Accordingly, IA No. 24732/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1197/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Shashank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List after a week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 2042/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10790/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time on the ground that arguing counsel is not available today due to some personal difficulties.Prayer is allowed.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6710/2018x (Firoz & Ors.State of M.P.) Indore dated :19/03/2018 Mrs. Swati Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6765/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary of Crime Nos. 239/2017 and 240/2017 registered at Police- Station-Jharda, District-Ujjain by next date of hearing positively, failing which concerned SHO shall remain present before this Court to explain the reasons which prevented him to produce case-diary.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7051/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7330/2018x (Ballabh Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7396/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7584/2018x (Mahendra Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this fourth bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, this fourth bail application is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7669/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.However, from the perusal of the order-sheets of the trial Court, it appears that accused persons are not being produced before the Court from the jail on the dates of hearing.Let report be called from the Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar District-Dhar that what efforts have been made to secure the presence of the accused persons from the jail and ensure the presence of prosecution witnesses.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7685/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Apurv Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7769/2018x Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7804/2018x (Fatehsingh @ Raju Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :19/03/2018 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.Learned counsel for the applicant does not wish to press this first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as not pressed.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.795/2016x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 811/2016 Indore dated :16/03/2018 None for the appellant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is adjourned.List after three weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1343/2016 Indore dated :16/03/2018 None for the appellant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is adjourned.List after three weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 583/2017 Indore dated :16/03/2018 None for the appellants.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is adjourned.List after three weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1758/2017 (Heeralal @ Heeru Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 8904/2017, an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant-Heeralal @ Heeru for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.Accordingly, IA No.8904/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn .List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7649/2018x (Pappu @ Akash Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.Mrs. Anita Jain, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this third bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Accordingly, this third bail application is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8094/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let health report of the applicant be called from the Superintendent of Central Jail, Bhopal.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8883/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8980/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9054/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Gajendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9157/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9305/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9328/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5394/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.On due consideration IA No. 1620/2018 is allowed.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to make out necessary corrections in the cause title within 3 working days.Office is directed to register this M.Cr.C. into Criminal Appeal.Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No. 5394/2018 stands disposed of.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10301/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri V.K. Markan, learned counsel for the applicants.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's time to produce complainant before this Court and for filed his affidavit.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8732/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri I. Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10233/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10239/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9176/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to correct the Crime No. in memo of petition.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10281/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time file necessary documents.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10289/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue the matter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10302/2018x (Rahul Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10346/2018x (Praveen Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the material prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10383/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue the matter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10393/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 None for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10424/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10437/2018 Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri S.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10457/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 None for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9996/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Hemant Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9380/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri Ankit Khare, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue the matter.Let record of the Court below be called for.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 2053/2018x Indore dated :16/03/2018 Shri M.R. Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let record of the Court below be called for.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 689/2018x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Arpit Kumar Oswal, learned counsel for the applicants.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let record of the Courts' below be called for.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10043/2018x (Shekhar Vs.Smt. Amita & Ors) Indore dated : 13/03/2018 Shri Vinod Ameriya, learned counsel for the applicant.The applicant has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against order dated 27/02/2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C. No. 423/2015, whereby his right to produce evidence has been closed.2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent has filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore for enhancement of maintenance amount.The case is pending for enquiry of the said application, wherein respondents alleged that the applicant is involved in the business of laundry and by this he is getting sufficient amount.Whereas the applicant contended that he is in private job and he is earning only Rs.4,500/-per month and he is not having any laundry business.To substantiate the fact that at present he is not conducting any business of laundry, he wanted to produce the evidence of Officer In-charge of License Branch, Municipal Corporation Indore.However, he did not turn up even after the service of notice, therefore, a bailable warrant was issued against him for securing his presence.But despite of issuance of bailable warrant he did not appear in the Court.The aforesaid witness is working in Semi Govt. Body, therefore, the applicant is unable to bring him and produce before the Court.3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 27/02/2018 the case was fixed for recording the evidence of aforesaid witness, but due to oversight, he could not pay the process-fee, therefore, on the aforesaid date, the witness was not present and due to his single default, the trial Court has closed his right to produce the evidence and fixed the matter for final arguments.Due to this he has been deprived to produce his evidence.The impugned order is contrary to the principle of natural justice.Hence, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and directing the trial Court to give him one opportunity to produce his evidence.After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is hereby set-aside and this petition is disposed of with the direction that the trial Court shall provide the applicant an opportunity to produce the aforesaid witness.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6640/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.List after three weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6577/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.List after three weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6348/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.List after three weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 5537/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 None for the parties.In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.List after four weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6339/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.List after three weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6627/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8465/2018x (Vinod Bargunda Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Manish Manana, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the injured-Jyoti before the trial Court.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.839/2013x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri R.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.577/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 6980/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant- Mayur, for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5821/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 None for the appellant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.386/2018x Indore dated :14/03/2018 None for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let record of the court below be requisitioned.List after four weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.905/2018x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let record of the courts below be requisitioned.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5970/2018x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.29139/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28430/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri S. Tenguriya, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Learned counsel for the applicant further prays for two weeks' time to file the certified copy of the prosecutrix statement recorded before the trial Court.By way of last indulgence the prayer is allowed.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25705/2017x Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri P.K. Shukla alongwith Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Let current status report of the trial be called from the concerned trial Court.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9956/2018x (Narsingh & Ors.State of M.P.) Indore dated :14/03/2018 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10707/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 None for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1460/2018x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri P.K. Shukla alongwith Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call for the criminal antecedents of the applicant from the concerning S.P. of Shivpuri and Guna.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5300/2018x (Anil Kushwaha Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4278/2016x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9047/2016x Indore dated :13/03/2018 None for the applicants, even in the second round.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Earlier also on 16/08/2017 and 24/07/2017, no one appeared on behalf of the applicants, which shows that the applicants are no longer interested in prosecuting this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Hence, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1287/2018x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1560/2018x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 483/2011x Indore dated : 13/03/2018 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Appellant- Asharam is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel.His presence is marked.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 963/2018, an application for condonation of non-appearance of appellant on 13/09/2017 before the registry of this Court.For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the non- appearance of appellant-Asharam on 13/09/2017 before this Court.Appellant- Asharam is directed to appear before the Office of this Court on 19/04/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.706/2018x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Amit Raval, learned counsel for the applicant.On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode.Notice be made returnable within three weeks.List thereafter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3393/2018x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1154/2018, an application for amendment in the array of applicant's name.On due consideration IA No. 1154/2018 is allowed.Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the memo of petition within three working days.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3610/2018x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1372/2018, an application for impleading complainant as respondent No.2 in the matter.On due consideration IA No. 1372/2018 is allowed.Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the memo of petition within three working days.Thereafter, on payment of process-fee within 7 working days, let notice be issued to respondent No.2 by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode.Notice be made returnable within four weeks.List thereafter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.806/2015x (Charan Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 19170/2017, an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant-Charan for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.Accordingly, IA No.19170/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.757/2015x (Bhura Gurjar Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 25555/2017, an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant-Bhura Gurjar for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.Accordingly, IA No.25555/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.322/2016x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List after four weeks alongwith Cr.A. No. 194/2016 for analogous hearing.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.194/2016x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 2206/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant- Sanju @ Sanjay, for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.List after four weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.339/2016x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Shailendra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 732/2018, an application under Section 303 of the Cr.P.C. for change of counsel.On due consideration, IA No. 732/2018 is allowed.Shri Shailendra Mishra and his associates are permitted to represent appellant-Barka.Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Shailendra Mishra & his associates in the cause-list on behalf of appellant-Barka.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1053/2016x Indore dated :13/03/2018 None for the appellant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.List after four weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.488/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 1468/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Sunil Borasi, for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.808/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri H.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 4224/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Bhimji, for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.955/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 4147/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Mangal Rathore, for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. 1705/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.List the appeal alongwith Cr.A. No. 5669/2017 for analogous hearing.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. 5669/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 162/2018, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in jail, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed time period.On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.Accordingly, IA No. 162/2018 is allowed and delay of 13 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.List the appeal after two weeks alongwith Cr.A. No. 1705/2017 for analogous hearing.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.4388/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 23924/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Ramsingh @ Rama, for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5313/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let record of the court below be requisitioned.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5678/2017x Indore dated :13/03/2018 None for the appellant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.List after four weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.324/2018x (RajaramVs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :13/03/2018 Shri Vikas Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 237/2018, an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant-Rajaram for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.Accordingly, IA No. 237/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8224/2018x (Om Shanti Gas Agency Vs.Neeraj Sethiya) Indore dated : 12/03/2018 Shri Sameer Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for quashment of order dated 30/01/2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khilchipur in Criminal Case R.T. No. 216/2017, by which the application filed by the applicant under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for production of documents has been dismissed.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. For seeking bank statement of the complainant for last five years from the date of filing of this complaint, bank pass book, income tax return details from 2013 to 2017 and agreement (if made between the parties) for lending the amount of Rs.1,88,000/- to the applicant.But the aforesaid application was rejected by the Courts below on the ground that the respondent has stated that he has already filed all the documents relation to the transaction and now he has not having any document as desired by the applicant.After hearing learned counsel for the applicant perused the record.In the light of the aforesaid decisions, this Court has not find any substance in this petition.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine at the motion stage.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7029/2018 Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the applicant.Notice be made returnable within four weeks.List thereafter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7340/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks' time to argue the matter.List after four weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8150/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.List after two weeks weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8756/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicants.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.List after four weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8759/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Let record of the court below be requisitioned.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8760/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Let record of the court below be requisitioned.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8908/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to file the entire copy of charge-sheet.List thereafter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8935/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Ms. Indu Rajguru, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Let record of the court below be requisitioned.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9017/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Let record of the court below be requisitioned.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9025/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Let record of the court below be requisitioned.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9128/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Let record of the court below be requisitioned.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9164/2018x (Swapnadeep Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew after filing of the charge-sheet.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1065/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicant.In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.List after three weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9857/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.List after three weeks. .(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1412/2016x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.5/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.List after two weeks. .(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1464/2016x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondent, though duly served.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.List after after a week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12845/2016x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.List after after a week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.419/2017x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already been acquitted by the trial Court, therefore, this revision petition has become rendered infructuous.In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3560/2017x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicants.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10266/2017x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.816/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary by next date of hearing positively.Meanwhile learned counsel for the applicant is at liberty to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 4817/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicant.In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.List after four weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 5192/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicants.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.List after four weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 5323/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.List after four weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 476/2016 Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicants.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.5/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.Certified copy as per rules.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 826/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicants.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is adjourned.List after two weeks.C. No.569/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri Prasanna R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.However, the trial Court is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant before passing any final order.Certified copy today.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 7319/2018 (Rahul Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 12/03/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length, on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial Court.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn.However, the applicant is directed to surrender himself before the competent Court and if he is filed any application for regular bail before the competent Court, then it shall be considered as early as possible in accordance with law.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6615/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks time to argue the matter.List after one week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9433/2018x Indore dated :12/03/2018 None for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.List in next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.4479/2017x Indore dated :07/03/2018 Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, list after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1790/2017x Indore dated :07/03/2018 Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, list after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1088/2015x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri R.K. Batham, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Shyamlal Patidar, learned counsel for the respondent.At the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, list in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. 1648/2018x Indore dated :21/02/2018 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1438/2018, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 422 days in filing this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in jail, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed time period.On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.Accordingly, IA No. 1438/2018 is allowed and delay of 422 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.List the appeal alongwith Cr.A. No. 1414/2016 for analogous hearing.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1197/2015x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondent.As per mediation report, parties are not interested for compromise.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.775/2017x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to examine the matter and list before appropriate Bench.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2035/2017x (Vishal Vs.Anjali & Ors.) Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Sanjay Kumar Saini, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Vikas Meena, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 andShri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.3/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn .(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9188/2017x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already cured the defects pointed out by the Office.Office is directed to examine and proceed further.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3063/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri N. L. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List after three weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.949/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 None for the applicant.Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.List after three weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.974/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let record of the courts' below be requisitioned.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.466/2018x (Anil Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 677/2018, an application filed under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of applicant-Anil for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, IA No. 677/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn .Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.828/2018x (Raja Vs.State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:09/03/2018 Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.650/2018- an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant-Raja Mankar.The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Sections 450, 376(1) and 506(II) of the IPC and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I.; 7 years R.I. And 1 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.It is also submitted that the prosecutrix is a major lady and as per MLC report no internal or external injuries were found on her body.From the statement of the prosecutrix and her husband, it reveals that the prosecutrix is a consenting party.There are fair chances of success of this appeal .The appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render infructuous.The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court.Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellants prays for rejection of the application.Considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail sentence of the appellant.Accordingly, I.A. No. 650/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Raja Mankar in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.List in due course.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1438/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7357/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 None for the applicant.Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7695/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Let record of the court below be requisitioned.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8279/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice be issued to respondent No.2 on admission and IA No. 1416/2018, an application for staying the proceedings of the trial Court by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode.Notice be made returnable within four weeks.List thereafter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.847/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List after two weeks.R. No.966/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Santosh Panoriya, learned counsel for the appellant.On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode.Notice be made returnable within four weeks.List thereafter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1755/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.List immediately after receipt of the record.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8139/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 None for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is adjourned.List after three weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9215/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Vinod Ameriya, learned counsel for the applicants.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a weeks time to move an appropriate application for impleading complainant as respondent No.2 in the matter.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9313/2018x (Mahesh @ Antim Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri M.L. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9250/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri D.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9243/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9211/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9328/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24944/2017x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one weeks time to argue the matter.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3256/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one weeks time to argue the matter.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6116/2018x Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file the copy of order-sheets of the trial Court.List after two weeks.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7013/2018x (Rakesh Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :09/03/2018 Shri S.K. Mehra, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1024/2017 Indore, dated :07/03/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.This is Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is filed against the order dated 24/09/2016 passed by Special Judge under NDPS Act, Neemuch District-Neemuch in Special S.T. No. 25/2012, whereby charges for offence under Sections 8/18(B) read with Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 has been framed against applicant-Kanhaiyalal.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 8460/2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 230 days in preferring this revision petition.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an illiterate person and there is no male member in his family, who can contact the lawyer at Indore.Therefore, his cousin brother approached the lawyer at Indore and after taking certified copy of the proceedings and charges, filed this criminal revision against the impugned order.Affidavit has also been filed in support of this application.Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.From the perusal of revision petition, it appears that the applicant Kanhaiyalal, himself is a male member of aged about 36 years, therefore, it cannot be said that due to non-availability of male family members in his family, he could not contact his lawyer at Indore.Neither the applicant has disclosed name of his cousin brother in the application nor any affidavit of him has been filed in support of the contents made in the application.Under these circumstances, the applicant has failed to make out sufficient ground for condoning the huge delay of 230 days in preferring this revision petition.Hence, IA No. 8460/2017 is dismissed.Consequently, this revision petition is also hereby dismissed as time barred.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.27487/2017x Indore dated :07/03/2018 Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.Be listed after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.876/2018x Indore dated :07/03/2018 Ms. Sangita Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Let record of the Courts' below be called for.On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be issued to respondent.Notice be made returnable within three weeks.Be listed thereafter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2247/2018x Indore dated :07/03/2018 Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's time to file the copy of all relevant order-sheets of the trial Court.List after two weeks.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25888/2017x Indore dated :07/03/2018 None for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Applicant is directed to cure the defect pointed out by the office within 10 days from today, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.1693/2018x Indore dated :07/03/2018 Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 733/2017x Indore dated : 05/03/2018 Shri Vishal Lashkari, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard learned counsel for the appellant on IA No. 7263/2017, an application for substituting the new address and request to summon the non-applicant.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant preferred M.Cr.C. No. 3380/2017 for leave to appeal, which was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 10/04/2017 and office is directed to register the matter as regular criminal appeal.But there was no mentioned in the order with regard to issuance of summon or warrant against the non-applicant for securing his presence before this Court.On due consideration I.No.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 683/2006x Indore dated : 05/03/2018 Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Appellant- Mahesh @ Docotor is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1123/2018, an application for condonation of non-appearance of appellant on 26/09/2017 before the registry of this Court.For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the non- appearance of appellant-Mahesh @ Doctor on 20/02/2018 before this Court.Accordingly, IA No.1123/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of appellant- Mahesh @ Doctor before this Court on 26/09/2017 is hereby condoned.Appellant- Mahesh @ Doctor is directed to appear before the Office of this Court on 27/06/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office.On due consideration, IA No. 1124/2018 is allowed and bailable warrant issued against appellant, vide order dated 07/12/2017 is hereby recalled.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1779/2018x (Gopal & Ors.State of M.P.) Indore, Dated:05/03/2018 Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Record of the Court below be called for.Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1456/20188- an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellants-Gopal and Pavan Rathore.Each of the appellants has been found guilty for offenence under Section 354 of the IPC read with Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I.; 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- for each offence with usual default stipulation.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked.It is also submitted that the appellants were on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by them.Though the prayer for suspension of custodial sentence is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor, however, this Court, after carefully going through the record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered opinion that the application for suspension of custodial sentence deserves to be allowed.Accordingly, I.A. No. 1456/2018 is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellants-Gopal and Pavan Rathore in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only)each with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their presence before the Registry of this Court on 14/05/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.List in due course.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7211/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri A.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7208/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri A.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List in the next week.C. No.1688/2018x (Chiku @ Pratik Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition petition.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4037/2018x (Lokendra Panwar Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition petition.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1703/2018x (Santosh Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition petition.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1750/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4269/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4374/2018x (Jasvant Singh Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition petition.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4562/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri D.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants further prays for time to argue the matter.By way of indulgence, prayer is allowed.Be listed in the next week.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5168/2018x (Rahul Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri M.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the complainant/objecor.After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition petition.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8323/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time to call CFSL report of Hyderabad.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8400/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays and is granted time to file the certified copies of order-sheets dated 12/02/2018 passed by the trial Court.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8403/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary of present Crime alongwith the case-diary of Crime No. 42/2018 by next date of hearing positively.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8410/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8419/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- diary by next date of hearing positively.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8463/2018x (Husain Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Lokesh R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8467/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Vishal Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to file some relevant documents.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8472/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge-sheet has already been filed and he prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.List in the next week.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8475/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8483/2018x Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri D.Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8499/2018 Indore dated :05/03/2018 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.The learned trial Court has sought further three months time for completion of trial.It has been pointed out that 14 witnesses have been examined whereas, examination-in-chief of PW-15 has been completed.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 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 is first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants are apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342 and 506-II of IPC, in connection with Crime No.35/2015 registered at Police Station Changotola District Balaghat (M.P.).After hearing the rival submissions and going through the case diary statements and in the facts and circumstances of present case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of applicants arrest in connection with Crime No.35/2015 registered at Police Station Changotola District Balaghat (M.P.).they be released on bail on their furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) each with separate sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned.The applicants would abide the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. This order shall remain in force only for a period of three months from today or till filing of challan whichever is earlier.C. stands disposed of.C.C on payment of usual charges.(S.K. SETH) JUDGE

['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Mr. Subodh Tamrakar, learned counsel for the applicants.Mr. Ajay Tamrakar, learned P.L. for the State.This application has been filed U/s.438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicants Ajuddi and Guddu in connection with Crime No.526/17 of P.S. Gadarwara, Distt.Narsinghpur for offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 324, 294, 506 and 326 of I.P.C.According to the case of the prosecution, the applicants herein along with other co-accused persons are stated to have waylaid the complainant when he was going somewhere and caused injuries to him.Learned counsel for the State has read out from the MLC of the complainant which reflects that he has suffered 8 injuries.As regards the applicants herein, the only allegation is that they assaulted the complainant with fists and kick blows.The applicants shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. They shall however join the investigation as and when directed to do so by the Police.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE a

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.

(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE kkcHeard on admission.Record of the trial Court be called for.Also heard on IA No.19530/2015, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- along with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, the appellant Shaheedan Bi, be released on bail with a further direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on 14.12.2015 and on such other dates as are fixed by the office in this regard till disposal of this appeal.C. C. as per rules.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.The petitioner was former Member of Parliament and an active Trade Union aleader for about 28 years.He contested in the last General Elections from the North Madras Parliamentary Constituency for a seat in Lok Sabha.in the Tamil Daily "Nam Nadu". of which the respondent was the Editor.Printer and Publisher, certain allegations were made affecting the conduct and character of the petitioner, the extracts of which were filed along with the complaint.Before the complaint was filed, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent through his counsel drawing his attention to the defamatory statements made in the said issue and claiming damages of Rs. 10,000/- for having defamed him and also asking him to withdraw the articles published in the said issue and tender unconditional apology to him, failing which criminal and civil proceedings would be taken against him for vindicating the rights of the petitioner.The respondent sent a reply notice in which he admitted the publication made in his paper, but definitely stated that there was nothing defamatory and that they were made in good faith and in the interests of the public, claiming the benefit of exception to Section 499, I. P. C.Subsequently, the complaint was filed by the petitioner.

['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Mr. Ayan Basu......for the State.This is an application for bail under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The appellant has filed this application for bail on the ground that learned trial Court has erroneously convicted the appellant and there is every possibility of success in the appeal.Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the appellant was charged for the offences under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code alternatively under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and learned trial Court did not find any evidence to convict the appellant for the aforesaid sections.However, learned trial Court 2 erroneously convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act being lesser offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced the appellant for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State however raised objections to the prayer for bail on the ground that there should be statutory presumption against the appellant and learned trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Mr. Bose further contended that the appellant should not be released on bail at this stage instead the appeal may be heard out and decided on merit.The case of the prosecution, as it transpires from the materials on record that on 22nd November, 2015 at about 12.30 p.m. the appellant allured the victim with Biscuit and took her beside the football ground of their village and raped her gagging her mouth.The certified copies of such statement of the victim has been handed over to this Court.

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

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

This is the first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.107/2015, registered at Police Station-Jaura, district Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 506B/34 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of the SC ST Act of 1989..It is alleged that on 15.3.2015, complainant Radha who is member of scheduled caste, lodged a report to the effect that today in the morning when she was sweeping in front of her house, applicants abused her by calling her caste and started beating her.When her daughter Suman tried to save her, she was also beaten by them.Applicants also threatened to kill complainant and her daughter.Learned panel lawyer for the State opposed the application for anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicants and other co- accused persons have inflicted injuries by lathis.They also called the complainant by her caste name with intend to insult her.Perused the record.2 yet to be proved by the evidence.However, at this juncture without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the law laid down in the case of Ummed Singh and Others Vs.However, the applicants have to furnish a fresh bail bond and surety before the trial court after filing of challan.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Tejas Hilage, Advocate for the Applicant.P.H.Gaikwad-Patil, APP for the Respondent/State.original accused is challenging the order dated 01/04/2016 passedby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur on anapplication for discharge moved by the revision petitioner underSection 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." forthe sake of brevity).By the impugned order dated 01/04/2016,the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application fordischarge filed by the revision petitioner/original accused byholding that the application is devoid of merit as the charge hasalready been framed.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2017 01:04:40 :::Sessions Judge, had hurriedly framed the charge and rejected theapplication for discharge filed by the revision petitioner/accused.The learned Advocate vehemently argued that the learned trialCourt has given a complete go-bye to the provisions of Sections226 and 227 of the Cr.P.C.. No hearing on the point of framing ofcharge was conducted and straightway the charge came to beframed.P.C. prior to framing of the charge in order to ascertainwhether there is enough material to frame the charge.4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed therevision petition by supporting the impugned order rejecting theapplication for discharge.5 The revision petitioner/original accused is invoking therevisional jurisdiction of this Court in challenging the impugnedorder dated 01/04/2016, whereby his application of the same dateGaikwad RD 2/9 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2017 01:04:40 ::: (18)REVNNo.3542016for discharging him came to be rejected by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Kolhapur.The revision petitioner/accused cameto be charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for the sake of brevity) with anaccusation that the revision petitioner/original accused hadcommitted murder of Sharif Iqbal Patayit on 01/06/2015 at theresidential house of the deceased at Vathar, Taluka Hatkanangale,District Kolhapur.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2017 01:04:40 :::7 I have carefully considered the rival submissions andalso perused the record made available including the applicationunder Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionpetitioner/accused on 01/04/2016 with a prayer to discharge himfrom the charge of Section 302 of the IPC.The application wasmoved by raising various grounds such as intention of causingGaikwad RD 3/9 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2017 01:04:40 ::: (18)REVNNo.3542016bodily injuries with knowledge is totally absent, the act was notpremeditated act, the case does not fall under four corners ofSection 302 of the IPC, spot panchanama itself is sufficient todiscard the prosecution case etc. On the very same day i.e. on01/04/2016 itself with the following order which is impugned inthe instant petition, the application for discharge moved by therevision petitioner/accused came to be rejected :::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2017 01:04:40 :::Samiulla Patil.However, he submitted that he does not want to argue on this application.That time no such prayer was made.Thereafter case was fixed for hearing on 4.3.2016 present Advocate Shri.Bandar also filed application for adjourning the matter.That time also four witnesses were present.On 4.3.2016 as per request of Advocate Bandar order was passed below Exh.13 and matter was adjourned by imposing cost.Thereafter today also three witnesses are present.Now also Adv.Bandar is absent.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2017 01:04:40 :::which is required to be adopted in trial of Sessions Cases.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2017 01:04:40 :::However, the application for dischargeof the accused came to be filed on 01/04/2016 i.e. after framingof the charge against the accused.The Sessions Judge then can either acquit or convict the accused.Considering this fact situation, the impugned order came to bepassed by the learned Sessions Judge.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

They are doing separate business and residing separately.Nagraj is having jewelry shop named and style as Najraj::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:01 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 7 Jewelers at 501, Ganesh Peth, Kasturi Chowk, Pune.He is dealing in sell and purchase of gold and silver.So also he is doing money-lending business against gold, but he is not keeping record of money-lending business transaction.Time of shop of Nagraj Jewelers is 9.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. and from 3.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. Accused no.1 Bharat Kaluram Ghelot, resident of village Padiv, Rajasthan was serving in the shop of Nagraj.Bharat Kaluram (Accused No.1) used to go to the house of Nagraj at 8.45 a.m. for household work and thereafter used to go to shop at 9.45 a.m. One Mahendra Parmar was also employed by Nagraj in his shop since last seven years preceding of the incident.However, one and half months prior to the incident, Mahendra Parmar proceeded on leave.As per the prosecution case, Mahendra Rajput was employed on the recommendation of Bharat::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:01 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 8 Kaluram.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:01 :::B) On 6th October, 2010 as usual Nagraj left house for shop at 9.00 a.m. Bharat Kaluram (Accused No.1) arrived in shop at about at 09.30 a.m. At about 10.30 a.m. Nagraj contacted his wife on phone, and in reply she informed him that one person came at house and was making inquiry about Mahendra.The informant Nagraj told her not to open the door of the house to an unknown person.At about 11.00 a.m. on the date of the incident Nagraj sent Bharat Kaluram (Accused No.1) to spectacles shop for repairing his spectacles.Bharat Kaluram returned within half an hour after repairing spectacles.As the wife of Nagraj has to go to hospital, therefore,he tried to contact her so as to ascertain whether she has gone to hospital, at 12.00 noon, 12.30 noon and 1.30 p.m., but she did not give response, so presuming that she might have gone to hospital, Nagraj after::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:01 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 9 closing shop went to the hospital of Dr. Sachin Oswal at about 1.30 p.m. Doctor told him that his wife has not come to the hospital, so Nagraj returned to his house.He noticed that door of the house was closed from the inside.He opened the door with key which was with him.He entered in the house and saw that his wife was lying in the pool of blood in bed-room.He sent two boys to Police Station.Police came there within five minutes.Police called Ambulance and sent wife of Nagraj to the hospital, where she was declared dead.Nagraj noticed that ornaments of money- lending business of the customers worth Rs.32,00,000/-(Thirty two lakhs only), kept in 100-125 small pouches along with name of the customers, weight and amount of the ornaments written on the chit, kept in the cupboard, are stolen.Nagraj contacted Bharat Kaluram (Accused No.1) on mobile and asked him to come to his house.Bharat Kaluram (Accused No.1) assured him::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 10 that he will come to house, but did not come, so after 20 minutes Nagraj again contacted him on phone.At that time it was realized by the informant that Bharat Kaluram (Accused No.1) had switched off his phone.So Nagraj along with police went to the place where Bharat Kaluram was residing.They came to know that Bharat Kaluram (Accused No.1) left the room with his bag and all his belongings.C) Sunil Gaikwad, API attached to Samartha Police Station, after receiving information from Nagraj, went to the house of Nagraj along with police staff.Shri Gaikwad prepared spot panchanama and took blood samples lying on the spot.He seized articles found on the spot.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 11 Investigation was handed over to Sunil Gaikwad.On 6th October, 2010, he along with police staff went to Rajasthan in search of accused.The custody of accused Bharat Kaluram was taken at the house of his sister at village Noon, Dist- Siroli.Then accused Bharat Polaji was taken in custody from Siroli bus stand, and thereafter, the Investigating Officer gave information about arrest of the accused No.2 to Kalindri Police Station.Thereafter, he brought both the accused to Pune.PW-1 Ashok Baban Deshmukh is a panch witness to the seizure panchnama of clothes of deceased Jayanti.He deposed that on 7 th October, 2010, lady police constable produced clothes of deceased Jayanti which were consisting of pink coloured sari in four pieces, pink coloured petticoat stained with blood and pink coloured blouse stained with blood.Police seized those clothes and wrapped in a paper and obtained their signatures on seal.He proved seizure panchanama (Exhibit-45).PW-2 Ritesh Sohanlal Parmar is a panch::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 22 witness to the spot panchanama.He deposed that on 6th October, 2010 he was called by Police for panchanama at Shubham Apartments, Rasta Peth, Pune.They went in the flat of Nagraj Chhajed situated on 4th floor.To the side of passage there is kitchen and thereafter there is toilet.In the kitchen at some places blood was spilled on the floor.The napkin was there to which the hand of blood stains were cleaned.On the basin also there were blood stains.After the kitchen there was bedroom.They went in the bedroom.Chhajed told them that his wife was lying::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 23 in injured condition and thereafter she was referred to hospital before they went on the spot.In the bedroom there were stains of blood.Still cupboard was having door opened.Key was on the door of the cupboard itself.The observation of bedroom was indicating that the blood spilled on the floor was tried to wipe off.The bed and bed cover of the bed in the bedroom were stained with blood.That bed-sheet and napkin were seized by Police.Photographer came there and he took photographs.He further deposed that with the help of cotton swab, the blood lying on the floor was collected from 10 to 12 places.Those cotton swabs were sealed.Finger print expert was also called.Seized articles were sealed and they signed on that seals.Police prepared detailed panchanama (Exhibit - 47).::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::PW-3 Rakesh Chandrakant Gaikwad is the panch to memorandum panchanama (Exhibit-60) of::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.He deposed that on 15 th October, 2010 Police called him for panchanama.Inspector Gaikwad and other staff members were present in the Police Station.Accused No.1 was also present in the Police Station.PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that accused No.1 gave statement that he will show the stolen articles concealed by him at his village.Accused No.1 gave statement which was reduced in writing by the police.The statement of Accused No.1 was read over to him.He further deposed that he also read the statement, it bears his signature, signature of another panch and P.I. Gaikwad.Thus he proved Memorandum Panchanama (Exhibit - 60).PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that thereafter, he along with another panch, two accused and Police staff started by private vehicle to Rajasthan, at village Padiv, Dist.Siroi and on next day in the evening they reached::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 25 village Padiv.After they reached at village Padiv, accused told to stop their vehicle.On inquiry, Accused No.1 told that the said house was of his brother-in-law namely Chhaganji Ghanchi.There was a window to southern side of that room.After going 4-5 feet, accused started digging the ground and digged upto one and half feet by hand.Accused No.1 removed a plastic bag from that place.There was big plastic bag in which there were about 113 small plastic bags containing gold ornaments having chits of weight and name of the owner of ornaments.Police wrapped those ornaments in brown paper.Their signatures were obtained on that brown paper.PW-3 - Rakesh further deposed that Accused No.1 again entered in that room.There was a drum.By the side of the drum, Accused No.1 produced one Military colour bag having sticker "One Polo".That bag was also::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 26 seized by the Police and shooting and photos of seizure of the ornaments were taken.He proved the seizure panchanama (Exhibit - 61).19. PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that there were variety of articles and he does not remember description of all the ornaments, but some of the ornaments were pieces of gold belt of wrist watch, Kanthimal, necklace, chains etc. When gold articles being Article Nos. 16 to 27 were shown to him, he identified the same.PW-3 - Rakesh further deposed that on 19th October, 2010, Accused No.2 made statement in Kalinde Police Station at Kalindi, Tq.Siroha in presence of the panchas and P.I. Gaikwad.Accused No.2 stated that he melted the stolen ornaments and prepared a gold bar and some of the ornaments sold to goldsmith and received a cash of Rs.1,85,000/-.Accused No.2 further told that he forgot Rs.1,50,000/- in a taxi and concealed a bar of gold in his village::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 27 and he was ready to show that taxi and the place where gold bar was concealed.He proved the Memorandum statement (Exhibit-62).::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::20. PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that thereafter Accused No.2 took them to his village Padiv, Tq.Sirohi and from the bed of a river, he dug sand and took a plastic bag.In that bag, there was a golden biscuit on which, "100 g" was written and on another side 074784 was written in English having weight 100 gms.That gold bar was seized by the Police and wrapped in brown paper and label was also affixed and seizure panchanama was prepared.He proved seizure panchanama (Exhibit -63).PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that on the very day, they went to Mount Abu.Accused No.2 shown the said Taxi.The Taxi driver told them that the bag found in the Taxi was handed over to Mount Abu Police Station.Then they went to Mount Abu Police Station and saw the bag.There were::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 28 currency notes of Rs.1,50,000/- in the said bag.That amount was seized by the Police and seizure panchanama (Exhibit-64) was prepared.When Muddemal Article No.28 - bag produced by Accused No.1 from the house nearby drum and Article No.29::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::- bag seized from Taxi were shown to him, he identified the same.21. PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that on 17 th October, 2010, again Police called him for panchanama at village Sirohi near Mayur hotel.He deposed that Accused No.2 halted in Mayur hotel by name Vinod and when Accused No.2 was residing in that hotel, he gave his clothes for washing to Laundry and thereafter Accused No.2 left hotel without taking his clothes.He further deposed that Police collected the said clothes of Accused No.2 from the owner of said hotel and prepared seizure panchanama (Exhibit-65).Said clothes consist two shirts and one pant.He further::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 29 deposed that the said clothes were shown to Accused No.2, who identified the same.When Article 30 - Pant and Article 31 and 32 - shirts were shown to him, he identified the same.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that on 21 st October, 2010, Police again called him for panchanama in Police Station.Police called him and another panch for the purpose to show 113 gold ornaments which were seized from Accused No.1 and also for the purpose to take weight of the said ornaments from goldsmith.He deposed that the ornaments were shown to the informant who identified the same.He further deposed that thereafter they all went to Sonya Maruti chowk, Budhwar Peth, Pune in the Government recognized Goldsmith shop of Vasudeo Narayan Parkhi.In the said shop, they took weight of every ornament on weighing machine.He further deposed that police prepared panchanama (Exhibit-66).When 10::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 30 ornaments shown to him in the Court, he deposed that the same were out of 113 ornaments which were seized.He further deposed that the weight of gold bar (Biscuit) was also taken in the same shop and panchanama (Exhibit-67) was prepared.23. PW-3 Rakesh further deposed that on 27 th October, 2010, Police called him at Police Station.At that time Accused No.1 made memorandum that he is ready to show the shop from where he had purchased the bag having "One Polo" mark on the said bag and which he produced at village Padiv before the Police.He showed the said shop namely "Siddheshwar Bags", situated at Doke Talim and one Kamble was the owner of the said shop.Police showed the seized bag to the shop owner, who identified the said bag as also the accused.The shop owner told that Accused No.1 had purchased the said bag from his shop.He further deposed that seizure panchanama (Exhibit-68) was::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 31 prepared in his presence.The defence has extensively cross- examined PW-3 Rakesh, but nothing contrary was brought on record and his evidence remained in tact and un-shattered.The prosecution has examined PW-4 Sadashiv Baba Dhanawade.His evidence shows that on 23rd October, 2010, he was called by Samarth Police for panchanama at Samarth Police Station.His evidence further shows that he along-with other panchas and accused, went by police jeep to the house at Shubham Apartment near::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 32 MSEB office.His evidence further shows that accused No.2 shown them where he had initially concealed himself in gallery and then shown how the accused came from gallery to the hall.Accused No.2 shown the cupboard in which the ornaments were kept.The police conducted panchnama and obtained his signature.26. PW-5 Sachin Nagraj Chhajed is the son of the informant.His evidence shows that he knows accused No.1 - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi who was working in their shop.His evidence further shows that accused No.1 used to come at their house at 8.30 a.m. and was doing the household work till 9.30 a.m., and thereafter accused No.1 used to go to the shop.His evidence further shows that::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 33 after the incident he went to the spot and thereafter his father contacted their servant Bharat Kaluram i.e. accused No.1 in his presence.Accused No.1 answered that he would come within 15 minutes, but did not come, and thereafter the phone of accused No.1 was switched off.During the course of cross examination, PW-5 Sachin has stated that, when he came to the house, his father told him that he made telephone call to accused No.1 and narrated him about the incident and called him in the house.PW-5 has further stated that his father has not contacted with Bharat in his presence.The prosecution has examined Ritesh Sohanlal Parmar as PW-6, who was already examined::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Accused No.2 showed the way via power house, 7 Levels Chowk, Swargate, took "U" turn at Mahalaxmi Mandir, near Sarasbaug and accused No.2 took them down from iron stair case.There was compound wall of iron wire.Accused No.2 dig at said place by hand and took out one polythene bag from that place.Thereafter, he took out sword- stick (Gupti) from the said bag.There was piece of cloth stained with blood.At that time he was residing at Shubham Apartment, Rasta Peth, Pune, along with his wife.He had two sons but they are residing separate.His shop namely, "Nagraj Jewelers" is situate in 521, Ganesh Peth, Kasturi Chowk, Pune.He is also doing business of money lending and possessing valid license for doing business of money lending.Working hours of his shop were from 9.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m., and from 3.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. The distance between his::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 37 house and shop is 1.5 to 2.00 k.ms.His evidence further shows that in the month of October, 2010, there were two workers in his shop viz. Mahendra Rajput and Bharat Kaluram Ghelot (accused No.1).Both the said workers were native of Rajasthan State.His evidence further shows that Accused No.1 was residing in his room.Accused No.1 used to come to his house for doing household work.Accused No.1 used to come to his house at 8.00 a.m., and used to leave the house at 9.00 to 9.15 a.m., and thereafter used to attend at the shop.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::The evidence of the informant further shows that on the day of incident at about 9.00 a.m., he left the house for shop.On that day Accused No.1 had come to his house for routine work before he went to the shop.His evidence further shows that he left the house when accused No.1 came to his house.The evidence of informant further shows that when he left the house, his::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 38 wife Jayantiben and accused No.1 were only in the house.At about 9.30 a.m. accused No.1 also came in the shop from the house.At about 10.30 a.m. the informant received phone of his wife informing that one person was making enquiry of Mahenra Parmar from outside of the house as the door was closed, and informant told her not to open the door.Thereafter informant made phone call to his wife at about 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon for 2-3 times, but there was no response from his house.His evidence further shows that he sent accused No.1 to repair his spectacles and after 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon accused No.1 had come to the shop after repairing spectacles.The evidence of the informant further shows that as his wife was not giving response to the phone calls, he felt that she might have went to the hospital.At 1.30 p.m., he closed the shop and went to hospital, but doctor told him that his wife had not come to the hospital.Thereafter the informant went to the::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 39 house.The door of the house was bolted from the inside, and though he knocked the door, no one opened the door.The informant was having spare key of the house and so he opened the door by the said key.When the informant entered in the hall, he saw blood stains in the hall.Then informant went in the inner room from the hall and saw that his wife was lying in unconscious condition in the pool of blood on the floor.Steel cupboard in the said room was open.The evidence of informant (PW-8) further shows that, he saw steel cupboard and noticed that two cotton bags containing ornaments of money lending transactions were missing.In the said cotton bags, ornaments were kept in 100 to 125::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 40 small plastic pouches having name, amount of money lending and weight of ornaments.The evidence of the informant further shows that he called accused No.1 on his mobile phone and asked to come at house.Accused No.1 assured to come but did not come.Thereafter, the informant made phone call to accused No.1 in presence of police, but accused No.1 did not give any response, and thereafter the mobile phone of accused No.1 was switched off.Thereafter informant and police went to the place where accused No.1 took food and they came to know that, accused No.1 left that place with his bag and all belongings.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::The evidence of the informant further shows that, thereafter police arrested accused::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Police had shown seized ornaments to him, he identified the said ornaments.On 26th October, 2010, the informant told the police in respect of theft of gold ornaments on the person of his wife, with description.Total ornaments of Rs.84 Lakhs were stolen.Ornaments of money lending transactions were seized by the police.His evidence further shows that, he had received those ornaments from the Court on Supratnama.Some of the ornaments which were demanded by the customers were given to them and some of the ornaments were with the informant.When the ornaments, i.e. Article Nos.16 to 27 were shown to him in the Court, he identified the same as the ornaments which were stolen from his house.He received those articles from the Court on bond.Those articles are pertaining to money lending transactions.The ornaments were having names of the concerned owners, weight and amount.His evidence further shows that the ornaments, article::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 42 Nos.16 to 17 were brought by him in the Court, on the day of recording his evidence.The evidence of the informant shows the details of the said ornaments, like name of the owner, description, weight and price of said golden ornaments.The evidence of the informant further shows that Article Nos.16 to 27 were received by him.The prosecution examined PW-9 Afsar Mohamad Mulani.His evidence shows that since 7 to 8 years he was serving with Samruddhi Tours and Travels and his duty was to book seats of the bus.His evidence further shows that, on 6th October, 2010, he was on his duty.At about 2.30 p.m., two::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.36. PW-10 Kumar Shantaram Kamble deposed that he runs a shop of sell and service of bags by name, "Sateshwar Bags" at 303, Nana Peth, Pune.His evidence shows that working hours of his shop are from 9.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. On 27th October, 2010, police of Samarth police station came to his shop, and he went to police station to identify the sack.There was one bag having monogram, "one polo", having military colour.His evidence shows that, the said bag was purchased by accused No.2, from his shop for Rs.180/- but he has not issued bill of said bag.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 45PW-11 Kirtiraj Popat Kamble was the person who was doing business of video-shooting and photography.He deposed that on 23 rd October, 2010 he was called by police and at the instance of accused No.1 one sword was seized, which was concealed by accused No.1 on the stair case of Shankar Parvati Apartment, Ganesh Peth, Pune.The evidence of PW-11 further shows that on the same day i.e. 23 rd October, 2010, police took him to Shubham Apartment along with accused persons where the incident of theft and murder took place.His evidence further shows that the accused showed demonstration how they committed murder and video recording of demonstration was made by him.Thus, the prosecution has proved that accused No.1 while sharing common intention with 10 (2008) 16 SCC 166::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 60 Accused No.2 had committed theft in the house of the informant and took away golden ornaments which were belonging to the informant.JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:Criminal Appeal No.817 of 2014 filed by accused No.2 Bharat Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot, is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 2 nd September, 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune thereby convicting accused No.2 Bharat Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.The Trial Court also convicted accused No.2 Bharat Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:01 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 4 for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:01 :::Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2014 filed by accused No.1 Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 2 nd September, 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.The Trial Court also convicted accused No.1 Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot for the offence punishable under Section 380 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/, and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:01 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 5 for three months.All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:01 :::The Applicant has further prayed to return him the 10 ornaments as mentioned in Annexure C to the Application.Both these Criminal Appeals are arising out of one and the same Judgment and Order passed by the trial Court, hence the same are being decided by this common Judgment.Before the Trial Court there were in all three accused i.e. Accused No.1 - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot, Accused No.2 - Bharat Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot and Accused No.3 - - Machharam Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot.The Trial Court convicted::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:01 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 6 and sentenced Accused Nos.1 and 2 as afore-stated.However, the Trial Court acquitted Accused No.3 from all the offences with which he was charged.Therefore, these two appeals are preferred by Accused No.1 - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi and Accused No.2 - Bharat Polaji Ghanchi, challenging their conviction and sentence.(for the sake of brevity, hereinafter we would refer Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot as "accused No.1" and Bharat Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot as "accused No.2").::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:01 :::The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:A] Nagraj Chandmal Chajed, a Goldsmith resides in Shubham Apartment, Block No.13, Rasta Peth, Pune, along with his wife Jayanti.He has two sons viz : Sachin and Ankush.Nagraj lodged complaint in Samarth Police Station.On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.154 of 2010 came to be registered under Section 302, 381 read with Section 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::On 13th October, 2010, he formerly arrested both the accused.Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 and 2 during an interrogation disclosed some relevant facts in relation to the incident.Pursuant to their disclosure statements, the Investigating Officer seized stolen gold ornaments from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 under seizure panchanama.He has also seized weapon used::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 12 by accused No.2 while committing the offence.The seized muddemal was sent for analysis.He recorded statements of various witnesses.He has also arrested accused No.3 - Machharam Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot.D) As the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1 committed the matter to the Sessions Court vide order dated 8th February, 2011 for trial.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::E) A charge under Section 302 and 381 read with Section 34 of the IPC, under Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 13 Act against accused persons was framed vide Exhibit-31 and the same was read over and explained to the accused in vernacular.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::After recording the evidence and conducting full-fledged trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants - Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences.Hence Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 2014 is preferred by appellant Bharat Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot and Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2014 is preferred by appellant - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot challenging the conviction and sentence.Criminal Application No.953 of 2018 is preferred by the informant for intervention in the Criminal Appeal No.817 of 2014 and for return of the 10 ornaments as mentioned in Annexure C to the Application.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 14Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.817 of 2014 submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence.There is no direct evidence against the accused.She further submitted that chain of circumstances on which reliance was placed by the prosecution has not been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has not proved the possession of ornaments with the informant on the day of incident.The prosecution has not proved that the informant is money-lender having valid license at the time of incident.The prosecution has not examined any customer of the informant to whom money was lend on depositing the ornaments with him.The informant has not mentioned the::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 15 description of ornaments in the FIR.The prosecution has not produced any Register or receipt book showing money lending transactions in respect of the alleged stolen ornaments.There was no test identification parade of the Accused during the course of investigation.The recovery is not duly proved by the prosecution.The presence of the Appellants - Accused in the house of the informant is not duly proved by the prosecution.There was not test identification parade in respect of the recovered ornaments.During the course of trial, all the ornaments were not produced by the informant, and therefore all the ornaments were not shown to any witness and thus the prosecution failed to prove all the ornaments allegedly seized in the evidence.The photographs and video shooting of seizure of ornaments were recorded but the same were not produced on record.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 16Learned counsel further submits that, the informant stated that the ornaments on person of deceased Jayanti were also stolen, but the record shows that in fact the ornaments on person of the deceased were handed over to one Parmar at the time of inquest panchanama.The name of one Mahindra Rajput was mentioned in the FIR, but neither he was interrogated nor any inquiry was made about him during the course of an investigation.The prosecution has not examined any witness from the shop of the informant to prove the knowledge of Accused No.1 regarding family members of the informant, money lending transaction and also fact of keeping said ornaments in the house of the informant.Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has not brought on record any evidence to show that Accused No.2 has knowledge about the house of deceased or about the family members of deceased.No evidence is brought on record showing that::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 17 there was any communication between Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 prior to the incident or after the incident.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::Learned counsel further submits that there are several contradictions, omissions, discrepancies and improvements in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in respect of various circumstances and therefore reliance could not be placed on the oral testimony of said witnesses.Learned counsel further submits that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record and came to the wrong conclusion.In support of her aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the Appellant placed reliance upon the observations made/ratio laid down in the case of (i) Madhu @ Madhav Nivruti Pawar V/s the State of Maharashtra 1, (ii) Arjun Puna Soni V/s the State of Maharashtra 2, 1 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 655 2 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 157::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 18::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::Learned counsel therefore submits that the Appeal may be allowed.In addition to that, 3 2018 ALL SCR (Cri) 472 4 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 7 5 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 62 6 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 820 7 2018 ALL SCR (Cri) 1108 8 1984 RLW (Raj) 225 9 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 3130::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.The present case is based upon the circumstantial evidence and the evidence adduced by the prosecution is absolutely not sufficient to bring home the charge of conviction against the Appellant.The prosecution has failed to prove the alleged motive against the Appellant.Learned counsel therefore submits that the appeal deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::She further submits that, since prior to the incident, Accused No.1 was serving in the house as well as in the shop of the informant and::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 20 was having knowledge regarding the ornaments kept in the house of the informant and the prosecution has proved that in furtherance of their common intention, Accused Nos.1 and 2 have killed wife of the informant and stolen the ornaments kept in the house.Learned A.P.P. further submits that after considering the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court has convicted both the accused and findings recorded by the Trial Court are in consonance with the evidence brought on record.Learned A.P.P., therefore submits that both the Appeals may be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective Appellants and learned APP appearing for the Respondent - State, at length.With their able assistance, we have carefully perused the entire notes of evidence so as to find out whether the findings recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with the evidence brought on record or::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 21 otherwise.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::Now we would discuss the evidence brought on record by the prosecution.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses.Police were present there.He knows Darshan Parekh, who was present on the spot and resides in the same Apartment on 5 th floor.His evidence shows that the flat of Chhajed was facing towards west side.The door of flat was wooden.Name plat of Shri Nagraj Chhajed was on the door.After entering in the flat, firstly there is a hall.Blood was stained on the floor of the hall.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::Accused took them to a partly constructed house.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::Article 28 - bag when shown to him, he identified the same.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::Accused No.2 - Bharat Polaji Ghanchi was in the police station, who told that he is ready to show the place of offence and how he has committed the offence.Police reduced the statement of accused No.2 into writing.He proved the statement (Exhibit-70).He proved the said panchnama.He identified accused No.2 Bharat Polaji Ghanchi, who was sitting in the Court Hall.But, according to us no much importance can be given to his evidence.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::His evidence further shows that then he went to the room of accused No.1 and noticed that accused No.1 has left the room with his bag and all belongings.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::His evidence shows that he was called in the police station to act as Panch.His evidence further shows that accused No.2 told that the weapon used by him was concealed by him and he was ready to show that place.Police reduced the statement of accused No.2 into writing.His evidence further shows that thereafter he along with another panch, police, photographer and accused No.2, went by police Jeep.Police seized that weapon and earth from the said place in polythene::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 35 bag.Police prepared the panchnama of the spot.PW-6 proved the panchnama of the said spot (Exhibit-78).During the course of his evidence, when the sword stick was shown to him, he identified the said sword stick.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::PW-7 Anil Mahadeo Sabale is another panch witness.His evidence shows that on 23 rd October, 2010, he was called by Samarth police in the police station for panchnama.His evidence shows that accused No.1 took them to Kasturi Chowk, near Nagraj Jewelers shop and further took them from the staircase on third floor and produced one empty cement bag in which, in newspaper sword was wrapped.Police seized the sword and seizure panchnama (Exhibit-83) was prepared.Police also took video shooting of the entire episode.However, according to us no imporance can::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Since during the course of cross-examination, PW-7 admitted that the sword was in the corner of the stair case.PW-7 further admitted that said sword was visible to persons passing by stair-case.PW-7 further admitted that police did not make enquiry who was residing in the said building.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::PW-8 - Nagraj Chandmal Chhajed is the informant.His wife had injuries on her neck.The informant made phone call to police station, police came on the spot and shifted his wife to hospital.Doctor of Sasoon Hospital declared his wife as dead.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::Thereafter informant lodged the complaint (Exhibit-85).The informant identified the accused persons who were present in the Court.The informant also identified the clothes which were on the person of his wife at the time of incident, shown to him in the Court, those were Article Nos.1 to 3 - saree, petticoat and blouse.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 43 boys came to the office and asked him, whether there was any bus for Ahmedabad, and he told them that departure of bus would be at 5.00 p.m. The said boys told him that as their father expired, they required urgent bus.The evidence of PW-9 further shows that he provided one taxi on rent of Rs.9,000/- for dropping the said boys at Ahmedabad.One of the boy was having sack with him.His evidence further shows that they paid Rs.5,000/- as advance.His evidence further shows that those boys were in hurry to leave for Ahmedabad.The evidence of PW-9 further shows that on 24th October, 2010, he was called by Samarth Police station.Police arrested some accused and showed him those accused.His evidence further shows that those accused were the same persons who came to his office on 6th October, 2010, for booking car.His evidence further shows that, he identified the accused persons when they were shown to him in the Court.During the course of::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 44 recording his evidence, when PW-9 was shown the sack, he identified the said sack, which was with the accused when they visited his office for booking car.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::During the course of recording his evidence, PW-10 identified accused No.2 as the person who had purchased the said bag from his shop.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::His evidence further shows that as per the instructions he made video shooting of the seizure of sword which was::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 46 seized at the instance of accused No.2, concealed under fly over constructed in Sarasbaug, Pune.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::PW-12 Dr. Ajay Aniruddha Taware is the medical officer who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Jayanti Nagraj Chhajed on 7th October, 2010, between 9.30 a.m. to 10.45 a.m., along with another medical officer, namely Dr. Nitin Patil.The evidence of Dr. Ajay Taware (PW-12) shows that on external examination, he noticed following injuries on the person of deceased Jayanti:-1) Linear abrasion over lower tip, outer aspect, oblique 0.8 X 0.5 cm.,2) Abrasion over chin in the midline horizontal 1 X 0.3 cm.,3) Incised wound 4 cm.Below left angle of::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 47 mandible, 2 X 0.3 muscle deep,::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::4) Incised wound starting from 5 cm.below chin, in midline, running horizontally on left side, 8 X 1 cm.trachea deep.5) Incised wound over right supraclavicular region, extending upto suprasternal region, vertically oblique 9 X 2 cm.cavity deep.6) Stab injury, 5 cm., below right clavicle, 3 cm., away from midline, vertically oblique 3 X 1 cm., cavity deep.7) Linear abrasion 8 cm., below left nipple, 11 cm., away from midline, horizontal 5 X 0.3 cm.,8) Stab injury 16 cm., below left clavicle, 2 cm., away from midline, 3 X 1.2 cm., cavity deep, ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 48::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::9) Stab injury over epigastirium, 22 cm., below suprasternal notch, 13 cm., above umbilicus, in midline, vertical, 3 X 2 cm., cavity deep.10) Incised wound over dorsum of right thumb, proximal phalynx, 3 X 1 cm., bone deep,11) Incised wound over base of right thumb lateral aspect, 1.5 X 1 cm., muscle deep.The evidence of PW-12 shows that all the above injuries were fresh.Margins and angles of above mentioned injuries were acute and clean.Both cavities contain 250 cc., blood.Stab injury underneath injury Nos. 6 and 7 over upper lobe.Stab injury underneath injury No.8 over upper lobe.His evidence further shows that on internal::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 ::: Cri.Cavity contains 1200 cc., blood.Stab injury underneath injury No.9, vertical, left lobe.His evidence further shows that as per his opinion, cause of death was "due to traumatic and haemorrhagic shock due to stab injuries".He proved postmortem notes (Exhibit-::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:02 :::95).His evidence further shows that stab injuries mentioned in Column No.17 of postmortem notes, corresponding to internal injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course, and said injuries were possible due to sword.PW-13 Sunil Pandurang Gaikwad, the then A.P.I. attached to Samarth Police Station, Pune, was the investigating officer, who deposed about the manner in which he has carried out the investigation of the crime.PW-14 Dr. Sunil Pralhad Jogdand is the::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.All the injuries were abrasions and incision and were of simple nature.The age of injuries was within one week, caused by sharp edged tip, rough and irregular objects.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::We have discussed the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution.The evidence of the medical officer (PW-12) shows that deceased Jayanti received multiple internal and external injuries, including stab injuries and thus her death was homicidal.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 51Admittedly, in the present case there is no eye witness to the incident and the entire prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence.For connecting the said offences with accused No.2, the prosecution has brought on record overwhelming circumstantial evidence.The prosecution has brought on record medical evidence showing that, accused No.2 had as many as 11 injuries on his person and most of the injuries were to his palm.The medical officer who has examined accused No.2, has opined that the age of injuries was within one week.Learned A.P.P. argued that while accused No.2 assaulted deceased Jayanti, she might have resisted and during the said course accused No.2 has received those injuries.The evidence on record further shows that, at the instance of accused No.2 sword stick was seized which was concealed by him beneath the ground, and by digging the ground accused No.2 had took out the polythene bag in which sword stick::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 52 was kept.The evidence on record shows that along with the sword stick, there was piece of cloth stained with blood.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::The prosecution has brought on record the evidence showing that after the incident accused No.2 stayed in the hotel at Sirohi (Rajasthan State), by falsely stating his name as Vinod, and gave his clothes for washing to laundry.Accused No.2 left the said hotel without collecting those clothes, which were seized by the police, which were having blood stains.The C.A. report shows that DNA profile matched all the obligate alleles present in the DNA profile obtained from the pant::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants argued that said clothes of accused No.2 were given for washing and it was not possible to detect blood stains on the clothes when the clothes were washed.We are not in agreement with the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel, for the simple reason that the expert has given opinion that there were blood stains on the clothes and the DNA profile was matched.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::Though the prosecution has relied upon the circumstance that one bag having monogram "One Polo" was purchased by accused No.2, but the prosecution has not brought on record any evidence showing that the said bag was having any special marks.The said Polo bag is easily available in the market.Further, it is pertinent to note that it has come in the evidence of another prosecution witness (PW-3) that said Polo bag was seized at::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::The prosecution has also relied upon another circumstance that at the instance of accused No.2, cash amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was recovered from Mount Abu police.It is the case of the prosecution that accused forgot a bag of Rs.1,50,000/- in the taxi at Mount Abu and the said taxi driver had deposited the said amount with Mount Abu Police Station and the said amount was recovered by the Investigating Officer in the present case, from Mount Abu police station.In this respect, it is significant to note that neither the said taxi driver nor the police personnel from Mount Abu police station was examined by the prosecution to prove the said circumstance.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 55The evidence on record shows that an accused No.2 had melted some of the stolen ornaments and prepared a gold bar.The evidence on record shows that at the instance of accused No.2, from his village Padiv, Tq-Sirohi, the said golden bar was recovered.The said golden bar was seized from the bed of a river which was concealed by accused No.2, 1½ to 2 feet beneath the sand.Further, accused No.2 had not given any plausible explanation how such golden bar came into his possession though he was obliged under Section 114 of the Evidence Act to offer plausible explanation.In his statement recorded u/s. 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, except simple denial or he does not know, is the reply given by him when all the adverse circumstances were put to him.Thus, the prosecution has brought on::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 56 record overwhelming circumstantial evidence against accused No.2, and proved that he has committed theft of the golden ornaments from the house of the informant belonging to the informant, and during the process of said theft when wife of informant resisted, accused No.2 committed her murder.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::The evidence on record shows that accused No.1 was serving in the shop of the informant.Accused No.1 used to work in the house of the informant from 8.45 a.m. till 9.45 a.m., and thereafter he used to go in the shop of the informant for work.Thus, the prosecution has proved that, accused No.1 was well conversant to the situation of the house of the informant and also about the family members residing in the house.The evidence on record::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 57 shows that, on the day of incident, at 9.00 a.m., when the informant left for his shop, at that time only accused No.1 and deceased Jayanti were present in the house.So, also the evidence on record shows that after the incident the conduct of accused No.1 was not natural.The evidence of the informant shows that, soon after the incident he made phone call to accused No.1 and asked him to come to the house.Accused No.1 assured to come, but did not come to house of the informant and thereafter accused No.1 switched off his mobile phone.The evidence on record further shows that soon after the incident, the accused has left his rented residential place and went to his native place.The evidence on record shows that, accused No.1 did not wait for bus which according to PW-9 was supposed to depart at Ahmedabad at 5.00 p.m., and hired taxi for an exorbitant amount of Rs.9000/- and left Pune.In fact, accused No.1 alongwith another co-accused went at Samruddhi::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 58 Tours and Travels at about 2.30 p.m. and at 5.00 p.m. there was bus to go to Ahmedabad.But they did not wait even for 2½ hours more.Thus, the prosecution has proved that soon after the incident, accused No.1 hurriedly left Pune.Thus, the prosecution has brought on record sufficient evidence showing that soon after the incident, the conduct and behaviour of accused No.1 was suspicious.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::The evidence of PW-3 Rakesh Gaikwad, supported with the evidence of investigating officer (PW-13) shows that, at the instance of accused No.1 ornaments were seized at village Noon, Tq-Sirohi, Rajasthan State.The said ornaments were concealed by accused No.1 in the house of his sister, beneath the floor of the house.The prosecution has brought on record the evidence showing that at the house of his sister, accused No.1 digged upto 1 and ½ feet on the floor::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 59 and thereafter took out plastic bag in which there were about 113 plastic bags containing golden ornaments.Accused No.1 has not given any explanation how such huge golden ornaments came into his possession.Further, the said ornaments when seized, were identified by the informant as belonging to him.In the case of Praveen vs. State of M.P.10, the Supreme Court has held that in absence of any explanation from the accused as to the possession of the articles belongs to the victim, the recovery of articles is reliable.It is significant to note that, the accused No.1 in his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure did not offer plausible explanation, how he came in to possession of such huge quantity of gold.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::Thus, the prosecution has proved that accused No.1 had committed an offence under Section 380 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::Thus, the prosecution has brought on record overwhelming circumstantial evidence showing the involvement of both the accused in the crime of theft of an ornaments.Thus, the prosecution has proved that accused No.1 and accused No.2 in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of golden ornaments from the house of the informant, and in the said process Accused No.2 has committed murder of Jayanti Nagraj Mehta.After considering the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, we are of the view that circumstances brought on record by::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 61 the prosecution are not sufficient to connect accused No.1 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.The evidence of the informant shows that, though on the day of incident accused No.1 visited the house of the informant, but as usual at routine time at 9.30 a.m. accused No.1 attended the shop of the informant.The evidence of informant further shows that at 10.30 a.m. he received phone call of his wife.Thus, it is clear that when accused No.1 left the house of the informant and thereafter also till 10.30 a.m. wife of the informant was alive.Though the evidence of the informant further shows that, thereafter he sent accused No.1 to repair his spectacles, but he stated that at about 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon accused No.1 had came back to the shop after repairing spectacles.The prosecution has also not brought on record cogent evidence showing that during said period, accused No.1 visited the house of the informant and::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 62 committed murder of wife of the informant.Though the evidence on record shows that, every day in the morning hours accused No.1 used to attend the house of the informant for doing household work and was having knowledge of the house, the prosecution has not brought on record an evidence showing that, accused No.1 was having spare key with him of the house of the informant.On the contrary, evidence of the informant shows that when he went to the house after returning from the Doctor, the door of the house was not opened even after door was knocked by him.Therefore, the informant opened the house by the spare key which was with him.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::So far as the alleged recovery of the sword at the instance of accused No.1 is::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 63 concerned, the evidence on record shows that the said sword was recovered from the stair case, and the said place was visible and accessible to the persons using said stair case.The prosecution has not brought on record any clinching evidence to connect accused No.1 with the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::In the case of Sanwat Khan vs. State of 11 1996 [3] All M.R. 439::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::"7....... In our Judgment no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be drawn from a certain circumstance.Where, however, the only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murder.Suspicion cannot take the place of proof."In the present case also, the prosecution has proved that accused No.1 and accused No.2 had committed theft of the golden ornaments which were owned and possessed by the informant.But the circumstances on record does not at all indicate 12 AIR 1956 S.C. 54::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 65 that at the time of commission of offence of murder, accused No.1 could have been present at the spot of incident.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::In Limbaji and others vs. State of Maharashtra13, the Supreme Court in Para 28 and 29 of the Judgment, while discussing the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, held as under:Whether the presumption could be further stretched to find the appellants guilty of the gravest offence of murder is what remains to be considered.It is in this arena, we find divergent views of this Court, as already noticed.In Sanwat Khan case14, the three-Judge Bench of this Court did not consider it proper to extend the presumption beyond theft (of which the accused were charged) in the absence of any other incriminating circumstances excepting possession of the articles belonging to the deceased soon after the crime.However, we need not dilate further on this aspect as 13 (2001) 10 SCC 340 14 AIR 1956 SC 54::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 66 we are of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of murder, assuming that murder and robbery had taken place as a part of the same transaction.The reason is this.Going by the prosecution case, the deceased Baburao was hit by a heavy stone lying on the spot.There is every possibility that one of the accused picked up the stone at that moment and decided to hit the deceased in order to silence or immobilise the victim.If the idea was to murder him and take away the ornaments from his person, there was really no need of forcibly snatching the earrings before putting an end to the victim.It seems to us that there was no premeditated plan to kill the deceased.True, common intention could spring up any moment and all the three accused might have decided to kill him instantaneously, for whatever reason it be.While that possibility cannot be ruled out, the possibility of one of the accused suddenly getting the idea of killing the::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 67 deceased and in furtherance thereof picking up the stone lying at the spot and hitting the deceased cannot also be ruled out.Thus two possibilities confront us.While drawing the presumption under Section 114 on the basis of recent possession of belongings of the victim with the accused, the court must adopt a cautious approach and have an assurance from all angles that the accused not merely committed theft or robbery but also killed the victim.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::(29) In the result, we set aside the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC.We find the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC and accordingly convict the accused under Section 394 and sentence them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500 each and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months.The appeals are thus partly allowed."::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 68Applying the said ratio to the present case in hand, in the facts of the present case though it is proved that accused No.1 had committed theft of the ornaments of the informant, the prosecution has not brought on record any evidence even remotely showing the involvement of accused No.1 in the commission of offence of murder.The record of Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2014 shows that by order dated 28 th June, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : B.R. GAVAI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.), the Appellant - Accused No.1 has already been released on bail.It is also observed in the said order that Appellant - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot was in custody for more than seven years.Thus, it::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 69 is clear that Appellant has already suffered sentence for the offence under Section 380 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::For the reasons afore stated, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved that, accused No.2 had committed theft of the golden ornaments of the informant and during the process of said theft, he has committed murder of Jayanti, wife of the informant.Thus, the prosecution has proved that accused No.2 had committed an offence under Section 380 and 302 of the IPC.So far as accused No.1 is concerned, the prosecution has proved that accused No.1 has along with accused No.2 committed an offence under Section 380 of the IPC.But the prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.1 had committed an offence under Section 302 of IPC.So far as Criminal Application No.953 of::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 70 2018 filed by the informant - Nagraj Chandmal Chajed, praying therein to return the ornaments to him as mentioned in Annexure-C of the Application is concerned, the same deserves to be allowed, by giving certain directions.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::In the result, we pass the following order:O R D E R (I) Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 2014 filed by Appellant - Original Accused No.2 - Bharat Polaji Ghanchi @ Ghelot is hereby dismissed.The impugned Judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.146 of 2011 convicting the Appellant - accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 380 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 71 sentencing him under said Section is confirmed.So far conviction and sentence as ordered by the Trial Court of accused No.2 under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, same stands modified and instead of conviction and sentence under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, accused No.2 is/stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code simplicitor.As ordered by the Trial Court, both the sentences shall run concurrently.The Appellant - accused No.2 be given set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::(II) Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2014 filed by Appellant - Original Accused No.1 - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot is::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 72 partly allowed as follows :::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::(a) The impugned Judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.146 of 2011 convicting and sentencing the Appellant - Accused No.1 - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and the Appellant - Accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Fine amount, if any paid by the Appellant be refunded to him.(b) The impugned Judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.146 of 2011 convicting::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 73 and sentencing the Appellant - Accused No.1 - Bharat Kaluram Ghanchi @ Ghelot for the offence punishable under Section 380 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand) in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months stands confirmed.The accused No.1 has already undergone the sentence imposed upon him for the offence punishable under Section 380 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The bail bonds of Appellant - accused No.1 shall stand cancelled.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::(III) Criminal Application No.953 of 2018 is allowed.On executing indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the trial::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 ::: Cri.Apeal 817.14 Judt.doc 74 Court i.e., the Court of Sessions, Pune by the Applicant - Nagraj Chandmal Chajed, Muddemal property (i.e. the ornaments as mentioned in Annexure C to the Application) be returned to the Applicant, after the period of filing the Special Leave Petition, as provided under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 is over.The Record and Proceedings along with Muddemal property be sent to the trial Court.The trial Court, after verifying indemnity bond and completing all other formalities, shall return Muddemal property to the Applicant - Nagraj Chandmal Chajed.::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::[A.S. GADKARI, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 01:37:03 :::

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution case in nutshell is that Subhadra Bai, the deceased was married to appellant Ramdeeen four-five years ago.Her parents lived in village Semjhira, whereas her in-laws resided in viallge Savanga, Tehsil Multai.It is alleged that Ramdeen and his parents harassed her for not meeting the demand of money from her parents.On 7.5.2000, at about 7 A.M., Subhadra reached at the house of her cousin sister Sunder Bai.As soon as Rameshwar, husband of Sunder Bai opened the door, Subhadra fell down.On being inquired, she informed that her in-laws and husband (appellants) assaulted her.Her husband trampled over her chest and abdomen due to which she felt acute pain.One of her relatives brought and left her at the door.Subhadra Bai was not in a position to even see properly.According to her, she was not provided meals for 4-5 days.Dr. Patil suggested Subhadra Bai to be taken to District Hospital, Betul for proper treatment, but before it could be arranged, she expired.Dr. Patil sent intimation Ex. P/13 to Station Officer of Police Multai.He started merg enquiry and referred the body of Subhadra Bai for postmortem examination.Dr. M.Patil (PW13) deposed that Subhadra Bai was brought to hospital in injured condition.It was informed to him that she was beaten by her husband and mother-in-law.He examined the injuries of Subhadra.She was unconscious and was gasping.Crepts were present all over her chest.Abdomen was distended.No bowel sound could be heard.There was redness over whole of her abdomen.Rameshwar (PW5) is the first person to whom deceased contacted before her death.According to him, deceased was her uncle's daughter.At about 6 O' clock in the morning, when he heard knocking of the doors, he found deceased standing and weeping at the door.He took her inside the house; she told to him that her in-laws viz. husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law assaulted her and trampled over her chest due to which she felt pain.She asked him to send message to her parents.At that time, his wife Sunder Bai was also present.According to him, he did not see any injury on the body of Subhadra Bai.However, he received information in the noon that Subhadra Bai died in the hospital.He stated that he did not know as to (7) Cr.A.No.1233/2002 who brought Subhadra to his house.According to him, since some time back Subhadra Bai was residing in her parents house, he did not know as to why she did not like to go to her in-laws house.He, however, stated that Subhadra Bai told to her that she was beaten by appellants.Sunder Bai (PW8), like Rameshwar Singh stated that in the early morning, Subhadra Bai reached to her house weeping.When they asked the reason, she disclosed that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and husband assaulted her and did not give her food for four days.She told that she received injuries in her ribs by beating.She immediately called a compounder and carried Subhadra Bai to hospital with the help of Ramcharan.At about 1.30 P.M., Subhadra Bai died.This witness expressed her ignorance about the time since when Subhadra Bai was not going to her in-laws house, she did not tell her that she did not want to live with her husband.On a careful examination of the evidence of Sunder Bai, it is seen that though she stated that father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of Subhadra Bai assaulted her, but except this witness no other witness including Rameshwar (PW5) and Ramcharan (PW6) stated that sister-in-law of Subhadra Bai also assaulted her.For the Appellants : Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate.For the Respondent/State : Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer.Date of hearing : 16/02/2012 Date of judgment: 16/02/2012 (J U D G M E N T ) Per: Rakesh Saksena; J, Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 22.7.2002 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Multai in Sessions Trial No. 23/2001, convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 200/-.In default of payment of fine, (2) Cr.1233/2002 further rigorous imprisonment for six months.(3) Cr.Dr. Patil performed the postmortem examination and vide his report Ex. P/14 opined that the death of deceased was caused due to syncope because of excessive internal bleeding from spleen.He, however, found no external injury over the body.After completing enquiry, Investigating Officer registered Crime No. 163/2000 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants/accused persons.After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial.On charges being framed, appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication.According to them, since a long time deceased resided at her parents house , therefore, there was no reason for them to have assaulted her.It was also stated that deceased wanted to live separate from her husband Ramdeen.In their defence, appellants examined Jhummak (DW1) and Rameshwar (DW2).To substantiate its case in the trial Court, prosecution examined 14 witnesses.Learned trial Judge mainly relying on the evidence of Rameshwar (PW5), Sunder Bai (PW8) and Kachran (PW3) and finding their evidence corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses including the medical evidence of Dr. Patil (PW13) held the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, appellants have preferred this appeal.1233/2002 evidence in the case.Case mainly rested on the evidence of oral dying declaration made by deceased to Rameshwar (PW5), Sunder Bai (PW8) and Ramcharan (PW6).Their evidence is discrepant and contradictory.Learned trial Judge committed error in holding the appellants guilty on the basis of evidence of aforesaid witnesses.Since deceased had left the house of her husband, there was no reason and opportunity for appellants to have assaulted her.No external injuries were found on the body of deceased by Dr. Patil (PW13).In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since appellants are not said to have used any weapon for causing injury to deceased, it could not have been held that they intended to commit murder of deceased.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of Rameshwar (PW5), Sunder Bai (PW8) and Ramcharan (PW6) is reliable.There was no reason for them to have implicated the appellants falsely.Deceased died due to injuries caused to her by the appellants, therefore, trial Court rightly convicted appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully.It has not been disputed by the appellants' counsel that Subhadra Bai (deceased) was the wife of appellant Ramdeen and that she has died.Gorelal (PW1), the father of deceased deposed that Subhadra Bai was brought in the hospital where she died.He participated in the inquest (5) Cr.He also obtained the dead body in his custody.Krishna (PW2), Rameshwar (PW5), Ramcharan (PW6) and Sunder Bai (PW8) stated that Subhadra Bai had come to the house of Sunder Bai from where she was taken to Multai Hosptal.Since, she was in bad shape, Dr. Patil asked her to be taken to Betul hospital, but she died.According to aforesaid witnesses, Subhadra Bai told to them that appellants assaulted and crushed her by standing on her abdomen, therefore, she felt pain.He had referred to Surgical Specialist for further treatment.Her medical examination report Ex. P/12 was written and signed by him.Dr. Patil further deposed that deceased could not be taken to Betul as she expired.He sent the intimation Ex. P/13 about her death to Police Multai.After inquest, he conducted the postmortem examination of the body.On external examination, he found no marks of external injuries.However, on internal examination, he found laceration over left upper part of peritonium.Her spleen was enlarged and there was (6) Cr.1233/2002 laceration of anterior surface of spleen.About one litre of blood was present in the peritonial cavity.In his opinion, the cause of death was syncope due to excessive internal bleeding from spleen.He admitted that there were no marks of blood on the body, but there was redness all over her abdomen.From the aforesaid evidence, it is established that deceased died due to injuries found on her body.Her postmortem examination report Ex. P/14 was written and signed by him.There is no direct evidence in the case; the case rests on the circumstantial evidence.Sister-in-law of Subhadra Bai was not made accused in the case.It is also important to note that though in omnibus manner this witness named mother-in-law and father- in-law of deceased as assailants, but she specifically stated that deceased (8) Cr.A.No.1233/2002 told that her husband i.e. appellant Ramdeen mounted over her and broke her rib.This, in our opinion, gives an indication that the injuries found over the abdomen and corresponding injuries of spleen of Subhadra Bai were the result of the act of appellant Ramdeen only.Dr. Patil (PW13) on medical examination of the deceased, found only redness over the abdomen of deceased.On postmortem examination, he found no external injury on the body except the redness over the abdomen, laceration of peritonium and the spleen of deceased enlarged.A cousin of deceased namely Rameshwar (PW6) deposed that at about 7 A.M. when he heard Subhadra Bai weeping, he asked the reason, she then disclosed to him that her in-laws assaulted and trampled over her.He and one Krishna took Subhadra to hospital.This witness admitted that at the time of making such a statement Subhadra was in semiconscious state and was talking little.On perusal of the report Ex. P/11 sent by Dr. Patil to Station Officer of Police Station, Multai, it is revealed that he mentioned in this report that it was informed to him that Subhadra was assaulted by her husband and mother-in-law.Though, it was not mentioned in the said report as to who gave this information to him, but it disclosed that her brother Ramcharan brought her to hospital.At that time, Subhadra Bai was in semiconscious state.Dr. Patil stated that brother and family members of Subhadra Bai had informed him that she was assaulted.Apart from it, at the time of (9) Cr.A.No.1233/2002 inquest proceedings, father of deceased viz. Gorelal (PW1) was present.In inquest memorandum Ex. P/2, only the name of appellant Ramdeen was mentioned as assailant.Even in the first information report Ex. P/17, appellant Kanahiya was not named as accused.This gives some indication that Rameshwar (PW5) and Sunder Bai (PW8) might have exaggerated in saying that deceased told to her that appellants Chhotibai and Kanahiya assaulted to her and trampled her by their feet.On a critical appraisal of the evidence of aforesaid witnesses in the light of medical evidence of Dr. Patil, it appears improbable that three persons would have mounted over the abdomen of deceased.In such an eventuality, more serious injuries must have caused to deceased.The evidence of Rameshwar (PW5) and Sunder Bai (PW8) appears consistent in respect to appellant Ramdeen, the husband of deceased.Sunder Bai (PW8) specifically stated that deceased told that her husband mounted over her and broke her ribs.Since in respect to appellants Chhoti Bai and Kanahiya, the evidence is not specific, oral dying declaration brought before Court through the evidence of Sunder Bai (PW8) and Rameshwar (PW5) in respect to them cannot be accepted as free from suspicion.In our opinion, learned trial Judge mis-appreciated the evidence on record in holding appellants Chhoti Bai and Kanahiya Lal guilty of causing injuries to deceased.Prosecution evidence falls short of establishing the guilt against them, as such their conviction deserves to be set aside.(10) Cr.Learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of appellant Ramdeen under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was not justified.Had he intended to cause death of deceased, he would have used some weapon or caused more serious injuries on any vital part of her body.It seems that either by fist or kick deceased suffered laceration of peritonium and rupture of spleen which was enlarged.We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants.From the evidence of Dr. Patil (PW13), it is apparent that except redness over abdomen, no external injury was found on the body of deceased.The cause of her death was laceration of peritonium and spleen.He also disclosed that spleen of deceased was enlarged and about one litre of blood was present in the peritonium cavity.Since, except the evidence of oral dying declaration made by deceased to Rameshwar and Sunder Bai, there is no other evidence in the case, it cannot be held with certanity that appellant Ramdeen intended to commit murder of deceased.It, however, stood proved that he kicked or trampled on the abdomen of deceased, therefore, it can be held established undoubtely that he acted with the intention of causing such bodily injury to her as was likely to cause death, making him liable to be punished under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code.For the reasons aforesaid:-(a) Conviction and sentence of appellant no.2 Chhoti Bai and appellant (11) Cr.1233/2002 no.3 Kanahiya under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside; they are acquitted.Appeal partly allowed.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

2.The petitioner is a convict and at present undergoing imprisonment in the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.In paragraph 1 of its communication, dated 12.10.2007, it was stated as follows:But he failed to return prison on the due date and was re-captured by the Q-Branch CID in Cr.Heard both sides.The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to treat him as having become eligible for premature release by G.O.Ms.No.873, Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 14.09.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.1326 Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 12.09.2007 and release him forthwith.3.When the writ petition came up on 22.06.2008, the learned Assistant Government Pleader took notice.Thereafter, from time to time, it was adjourned.Subsequently, a counter affidavit, dated 4.8.2009 was filed by the Additional Secretary to the Government, Home Department on behalf of the respondents.4.It is seen from the records that the petitioner was convicted in Crime No.172/87 registered with Vridhachalam Railway Police Station.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, who convicted the petitioner, directed that all the sentences of imprisonment will merge with the death sentence and that they are to run concurrently.5.The petitioner was lodged in the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli on 4.4.1988 and had already undergone more than 14 years of imprisonment.In other respects, all other convictions were upheld.7.While the petitioner was undergoing imprisonment, the Government issued G.O.Ms.This was announced on the occasion of 98th Birthday of Thiru C.N.Annadurai, the late Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.Certain conditions were imposed under the said order, which included that the general behaviour must be satisfactory and on release, the life convicts will be safe and they will be accepted by the members of their family and other social organizations.That their cases do not come under Section 435 Cr.P.C. and they will also execute bonds on the basis of usual terms and conditions.8.By virtue of the said order, the first respondent State released 472 life convicts including 16 women life convict prisoners.It was also stated that the Government had issued G..Ms.This was done at the time of 99th Birthday of Thiru C.N.Annadurai, the late Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.The same conditions were once again imposed.One such condition that was found in both the orders was that the prisoners who were convicted for offences specified in G.O.Ms.No.1762, Home Department, dated 20.7.1987 were not eligible to avail this concession.Under the second order, 190 life convicts including 5 women life convict prisoners were released.9.Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, it was also brought to the notice of this Court that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.1155, Home Department, dated 11.09.2008 ordering premature release of convicted prisoners on 15.09.2008, which was the Birth Centenary of Thiru C.N.Annadurai, the then Chief Minister.In that order, it was decided to release those who completed 7 years of actual imprisonment as on 15.09.2008 and those who are aged 60 years and above and have completed 5 years of actual imprisonment as on 15.09.2008 subject to other conditions imposed in the earlier orders as well as one additional condition.This reason was taken note of when the petitioner's release was demanded in respect of order issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.Six conditions were laid down in those G.Os.for ordering premature release, which are as follows:

['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B 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 brief facts of the case are as follow:One Bharathi, Village Administrative Officer had lodged a complaintwith the Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam East Police Station on 16.07.2004stating that on 16.07.2004 at about 11.00 a.m. Srikrishna aided primary schooland Parvathi Girls High School Caught fire on the 1st floor of theseinstitutions.In the said fire accident about 100 children perished.The saidcomplaint registered by the Inspector of Police in Crime No.261 of 2004, analleged offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. The said case was investigatedand charge sheet filed against 24 accused persons.Subsequently the Government appointed a judicial commission headed byHis Lordship Justice, K.Sampath His Lordship was pleased to conduct an enquiryand submitted his report.The Charge Sheet was filed after the investigation before the learnedPrincipal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.At this stage the 2nd and 3rd respondentshave filed Cr.M.P.No.2257 of 2009 in S.C.No.275 of 2006 to discharge from theframing charges.The learned Judge has passed the order as follows:(a) The averments in the petition filed by the petitioner / complainantare as follows:- The respondents 1 and 2 herein are accused No.6 and 24respectively.Originally the complainant had obtained the sanction for theprosecution against them.(i) The Government has accepted the report of the Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICEK.Sampath and passed G.O.Ms.The report of the commission is also incorporated in the GovernmentOrder.In the report, it is stated that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein arenot in any way responsible for this fire tragedy.The court has a special duty in thisregard as it is the ultimate repository of legislative confidence in granting orwithholding its consent to withdrawal from the prosecution."The learned Public Prosecutor has filed counter statement and narratedthe facts as follow:-(a) The 2nd and 3rd respondents were charged for offences under Sections120(B) r/w 304, 338, 285, 167, 197, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C and Rule15(1) (2) r/w. 16 of Tamil Nadu Public Building (Licensing) Act, 1965 andSection 5 r/w.Assuch, there is no impediment in the said order.Thoughhe had visited Kumbakonam in July 2004 there is nothing to show that it hadanything to do with the granting of recognition to the necessary school.khtl;l mstpyhd fy;tp mjpfhhpfSf;Bf tHA;fg;gLkhdhy;mth;fs; rk;ge;jg;gl;l fsmYtyh;fSld; (field officers of various departments like,Revenue, Rural Development, Municipalities Health etc.,) chpa gs;spia Behpy;fz;fhzpj;J jFjp[a[ila gs;spfSf;F kl;Lk; chpkk; tHA;f Vjthf nUf;Fk; vd;Wk; njpy;jtW Vjk; elg;gpd;, jtWf;fhd bghWg;ig chpa mYtyh; kPJ eph;zak; bra;a naYk; vd;WfUJtjhft[k; BkYk; mt;thW chpkk; tHA;fpa gpd;dh;, khepy mstpyhd naf;FeUf;FMz;LBjhWk; Fwpg;gpl;l ehspy; ne;bje;j gs;spfSf;F chpkk; tHA;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;wmwpf;ifia mDg;gyhk; vd;Wk; fUjg;gLfpwJ" vd tprhuiz mYtyh; bjhptpj;Js;shh;.""ePjpgjp FG jdJ mwpf;ifapy; bjhptpj;Js;sJBghy; nj; jP tpgj;jpw;F KGf;fKGf;f bghWg;Bgw;f Btz;oath;fs; gs;spj; jhshsh;fs; kw;Wk; gs;spfis eph;tfpj;Jte;j mtuJ cwtpdh;fs;, rj;Jzt[ mikg;ghsh;fspd; ftdkp;d;ik FiwghLfBs vd;W fUj;Jbjhptpj;Js;sdh;.njw;F naf;Feh; ve;j tpjj;jpYk; bghWg;ghf khl;lhh;.jP tpgj;Jele;j clBdBa bghJkf;fspd; ftdj;ijj; jpir jpUg;g, mth;fsJ bfhe;jspg;igFiwg;gjw;fhf Btz;o rhh;epiy mYtyh;fSld; Brh;;e;J naf;FeUk; jw;fhypf gzpePf;fk;bra;ag;gl;lhh;.nJ mj;jUzj;jpy; rhpahf nUg;gpDk; mtiu ePz;l ehl;fshf jw;fhypfgzp ePf;fj;jpy; itj;jpUe;jJ jtW vd;Bw fUJfpBwd;.The above Criminal Revision petition filed by the petitioner/ prosecutionwitness No.27 against the order of the withdrawal of the case against the 2ndrespondent/A-6 and respondent No.3/A-24, passed by the principal Sessions Judge,Thanjavur in Cr.M.P.No.2257 of 2009 in S.C.No.275 of 2006 dated 30.07.2010 beingaggrieved by the order, this petitioner preferred this Criminal revision to setaside the order.The respondents have filed separate petitions todischarge from framing the charges.(b) Now the Government has passed orders in G.O.(I.D.) No.3 SchoolEducation (A2) Department and G.O.No.(I.D.) No.4 School Education (A2)Department dated 02.01.2009 to withdraw the prosecution against the above saidaccused persons(c) In furtherance of the Government Orders, the District Collector,Thanjavur has sent a proceeding in R.C.No.97021/2004/C1 dated 07.01.2009directing the prosecution to withdraw the case against the said accused in theinterest of administration of criminal justice.Hence, the application for thewithdrawal of prosecution is filed before this court.The proceedings of theDistrict Collector, Thanjavur and the Government referred to above are filedherewith.(d) The accused should be discharged in respect of such offences.Theoffences that are levelled against the respondents 2 and 3 herein are to bewithdrawn and consent to withdraw the case against the respondents 2 and 3 maykindly be accorded and the respondents 2 and 3 herein/accused 6 and 24 may bedischarged from the offences.(d) Point for consideration in this petition is that Whether consent has to be given for withdrawal of this case against therespondents 2 and 3 herein?A-6 M.Palanisamy was the Chief EducationalOfficer, Thanjavur and A-24 A.Kannan was the Director of Elementary SchoolEducation, Tamil Nadu At Chennai at the time of alleged fire incident.(f) The fire spread from Noon Meal Kitchen to the Sri Krishna AidedPrimary School at Kumbakonam on 16.07.2004, which has resulted in the death of94 young innocent school children besides causing grievous burn injuries to 18other school children.(g) A criminal case in Cr.No.261 of 2004 was registered by Kumbakonam EastPolice Station and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filedagainst 24 accused including the respondents 2 and 3 herein.(h) The Government has constituted a commission headed by the Hon'bleMr.Accordingly, an inquiry wasconducted and a report was sent to the Government by the Commission.It is also stated in thereport that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein have to be discharged in theabsence of any other documentary evidence.(j) Based on the said inquiry report, the Government has passedG.O.(1D)No.3 School Education (A2) Department dated 02.01.2009 in respect of therespondent No.2 herein and G.O.(1D) No.4 School Education (A2) Department dated02.01.2009 in respect of the respondent No.3 herein for withdrawal of this caseagainst the respondents 2 and 3 herein respectively.The copy of the saidGovernment Orders are enclosed along with the petition.(k) In the above said Government Orders, the Collector of ThanjavurDistrict was requested to address the Public Prosecutor incharge of this case towithdraw the prosecution against the respondents 2 and 3 herein who are arrayedas A-6 and A-24 respectively in this case.(l) The Collector of Thanjavur has requested the Additional GovernmentPleader cum Additional Public Prosecutor, Thanjavur to take proper action towithdraw the prosecution against the respondents 2 and 3 herein.Accordingly,the Additional Public Prosecutor has filed this petition under Section 321 ofCr.(m) The Government in the order has stated that in the interest ofadministration of criminal justice, the case against the respondents 2 and 3herein has to be withdrawn.As has already been stated, the Government haspassed the above orders for withdrawal of this case against the respondents 2and 3 herein based on the report of the commission headed by the Hon'bleMr.Justice K.Sampath, Retired Judge of Madras High Court.The reasons stated inthe Government Orders and in the petition are convincing.Hence, consent is tobe given for withdrawal of this case against the respondents 2 and 3 herein andaccordingly this petition is allowed.As per Section 321(a) of Cr.P.C. if theorder of withdrawal is passed before framing of charge, the accused have to bedischarged.In this case, charge has not been framed so far.Hence, therespondent 2 and 3 herein are discharged from this case and the point isanswered accordingly.(n) In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed asprayed for.Aggrieved by this order the revision petitioner/persecution witnessNo.27 has filed the above Criminal Revision Petition.The learned counsel forthe revision petitioners vehemently argued that the respondents 2 and 3 are themain accused in the said criminal case.The said case is ready for trial, atthis juncture the respondents were discharged from the proceedings which is notsustainable under law.The learned counsel further pointed out that therespondents 2 and 3 are Chief Educational Officer and Director of ElementarySchool Education respectively, under whom the said aided school was functioning.If the respondents are allowedto be discharged before from the Criminal proceedings, a lacuna will arise inthe adjudication since innocent children had perished in a public educationalinstitution so in the interest and confidence of the public, the respondentsshould be held responsible.Hence, the learned counsel prays to dismiss thedischarge petition of the respondents and allow this Criminal Revision Petition.Appeals allowed."Dereliction to duty must attract immediatedisciplinary action against the concerned officials.(v) Necessary training be imparted to the staff and other officials of theschool to use the fire extinguishing equipments."47 of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Actand Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000and Municipalities Act r/w 108(1), 109 of I.P.C. The respondent No.2 has filedan application under Section 227 Cr.P.C to discharge him from the above casebefore the learned Principal District and Session Judge, Thanjavur.During thependency of the above application for discharge, the Government of Tamil NaduRevenue (SER 4/2) Department in G.O.No.(2D) 654 dated 29.12.2009 to withdraw theProsecution side.Directed the prosecution to withdraw the case against theAccused in the interest of Administration of Criminal Justice.Accordingly,application was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, who was in charge ofthe case at that time had filed an application under Section 321 of Cr.P.Cbefore the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.(b) On 30.07.2010 the learned District Judge had passed order by allowingthe application and discharged the Accused from the above case.The learnedDistrict and Sessions Judge in paras.7 and 10 in his order has considered abovethe involvement of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the Hon'ble JusticeThiru.K.Sampath's Report also.Based on the said enquiry report the Governmenthas passed the order of withdrawal of the case against the Respondent Nos.2 andThe learned District and Session Judge has convinced and accordingly allowedthe application filed by the Respondent No.2 and 3 in Cr.(e) The learned District Judge has correctly appreciated the contention ofthe party and has come to a correct conclusion in this case.The discharged order passed by the learned judge after application of mind.(a) The second respondent and third respondent was charged for offencesu/s.120(B), r/w 304, 338, 285, 167, 197, 465, 467, 468 & 471 IPC and rule15(1)(2) r/w 16 of Tamilnadu Public Building (Licensing) Act, 1965 and section 5r/w 47 of Tamilnadu Recognized Private (Regulation) Act and Section 23 ofJuvenile Justice (care and Protection of children) Act 2000 and MunicipalitiesAct r/w. 108(1), 109 IPC.Second and third respondents have filed applicationu/s.227 Cr.P.C. to discharge us from the above case before the Learned PrincipalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.During the pendency of the aboveapplication for discharge, the Government of Tamil Nadu has perused thecommission's report of Hon'ble Justice K.Sampath and relevant documents of thiscase and case incharge of the Public Prosecutor's Opinion and have passed theorders in G.O.No.(ID) No.3, School Education Department (A2) Department andG.O.No.(ID) No.4, School Education Department (A2) Department, dated 02.01.2009directing the prosecution of withdrawing the case against us in the interest ofAdministration of Criminal Justice.Accordingly, application was filed by theLearned Public Prosecutor, who was in charge of the case at that time has filedan application u/s.321 Cr.P.C, before the Learned Principal District andSessions Judge, Thanjavur.The above said application u/s.321 Cr.P.C. was takenin file in Crl.M.P.No.2257/2009 in S.C.No.275/2006 before the Learned PrincipalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.At the time of filing, the 1strespondent u/s.321 Cr.P.C. petition, I have with drawn in 227 Cr.P.C DischargePetition.He had an excellent record of Service.(c) The then D.E.O. Thanjavur Thiru.Pinagapani, who recommended thecontinuous recognition for the High School visited the School and based on thevisit he recommended for fourth renewal of the recognition of the school heinformed that there is sufficient place in that school.He never revealed thatthere are three schools in the same premise.(d)Public Prosecutor after verifying Justice K.Sampath's Commissioninquiry report and analyzing evidence, came to the conclusion that the saidThiru.M.Palanisamy, is absolutely blameless and he had an excellent record ofservice.Finally the charges were also dropped by the Govt. Since there is noculpability, no fresh evidence is going to be adduced before the trial courtthan the enquiry commission.So nothing is going to be proved afresh.Theabove said offences were not made out to me.On 30.07.2010 the Learned DistrictJudge has passed order by allowing the application and withdrawing the accusedfrom the above case.Only the Government has passed the relevant G.O.for withdrawal in thiscase.The District collector has only directed the Public Prosecutor towithdraw the case based on the G.O.Passed by the Government for withdrawal.Further contention of the petitioner is that the Public Prosecutor withoutverifying the materials, satisfied himself and filed petition that the chargeagainst the accused can be withdrawn automatically and mechanically is notcorrect.(i)I most humbly submit that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to considermy submissions stated supra and pass orders accordingly and dismiss thepetition.The 3rd respondent also filed a counter statement and disclosed thefacts of the case as follows:(a) 2nd and 3rd respondents were charged for offences under Sections120(B) r/w 304, 338, 285, 167, 197, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C and Rule15(1) (2) r/w. 16 of Tamil Nadu Public Building (Licensing) Act, 1965 andSection 5 r/w.47 of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Actand Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000and Municipalities Act r/w 108(1), 109 of I.P.C. The 2nd and 3rd respondentshave filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C to discharge him from theabove case before the learned Principal District and Session Judge, Thanjavur.During the pendency of the above application for discharge, the Government ofTamil Nadu has perused the commission's report of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sampath andrelevant documents of this case and case incharge of the Public ProsecutorOpinion and have passed the orders in G.O.No.(ID)No.3, School EducationDepartment (A2) Department and G.O.No.(ID)No.4, School Education Department (A2)Department, dated 02.01.2009 directing the prosecution withdraw the case againstus in the interest of Administration of Criminal Justice.Accordingly,application was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, who was in charge of thecase at that time, has filed an application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C, beforethe learned Principal District and Session Judge, Thanjavur.M.P.No.2257 of2009 in S.C.No.275 of 2006 before the learned Principal District and SessionsJudge, Thanjavur.At the time of filing, the 1st respondent under 321 ofCr.petition, I have with drawn in 227 Cr.Justice Sampathwho headed the commission, has submitted its report on 13.07.2003 to Government."Thiru R.Kannan" (CW-251) the director of Elementary Education (undersuspension) has simply acted on the recommendations found in the file.(c) As per the G.O.(2d) No.41 dated 03.09.2007 school education (A2)department the charges under Section 17(b) levelled against Thiru.R.Kannan wasdropped.The enquiry officer Mr.The departmental enquiry officer Thiru.Finally the charges were also dropped by the Government.Since thereis no culpability, no fresh evidence is going to be adduced before the TrialCourt than the enquiry commission.So nothing is going to be proved afresh.The fact that there was an earlier order of sanction for prosecution of theaccused (Public servant) by the state Government is not a ground to refuseconsent by the Court as per the case law reported in 1991 Crl.On 30.07.2010 the learned District Judge has passed order by allowing theapplication and discharged the accused from the above case.The learnedDistrict and Sessions Judge's observations in para 11 is as follow " TheGovernment has accepted the report of the Hon'ble Justice Thiru.Only the Government has passed the relevant G.O.for withdrawal in thiscase.The District Collector has only directed the Public Prosecutor towithdraw the case based on the G.O.passed by the Government for withdrawal.At the time of theincident the respondents were not present at the site.So also M.Palanichamy(P.W.6) the then CEO of Tanjore District isabsolutely blameless.He had an excellent record of service.He had no controlor jurisdiction over the elementary schools.Chief Educational Officers hadbeen so instructed several times.He had perused the file relating to highSchool with the notings of Pinagapani, the then DEO and on that basisrecommended continuous recognition from 2002 to 2005 subject to certainconditions.According to him, if only the Education Department officials whoinspected the schools had brought it to the notice of the higher official andtaken proper action, the accident could have been averted."The learned senior counsel further argued that as per the findings ofthe Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Sampath, the 2nd respondent is innocent.The learnedsenior counsel further argued that the first principle of law says that theaccused may escape from the punishment, but the innocent should not sufferpunishment.The learned senior counsel further elaborated that the respondentswere not present and they had no role or overt act at the site of the incident.Hence, he prays to dismiss the criminal revision petition.There isno order as to costs.2.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

List along with Cr.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE pb

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.375/2020, first application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for suspension of jail sentence moved on behalf of the appellant No.1-Vishal and appellant No.2-Dilip.The appellants have been convicted and sentenced by Additional Sessions Judge, Jobat, District-Alirajpur, vide judgment dated 04/12/2019 passed in Special S.T. No.24/2019 as under:Under Section 366 of the 10 Years RI Rs.2,000/- 6 months RI IPC each Under Section 3(A)/4 of 10 years RI Rs.2,000/- 6 months RI the Protection of Children each from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them.It is also submitted that there is no allegation against the appellants regarding commission of rape with the prosecutrix.It is further submitted that although the prosecutrix deposed in her court statement that appellant No.2-Dilip was accompanied with the main-accused (Juvenile-Veenu) and he dragged the prosecutrix and took her on the Jeep, which was driven by appellant No.1-Vishal, however, these facts are not mentioned in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. but the trial Court has not considered the aforesaid omissions.There are fair chances of success of this appeal and there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal in near future.If the remaining custodial sentence of the appellants is not suspended then appeal filed by the appellants may turn infructuous.The appellants are ready to deposit the fine amount.Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent opposed the prayer and prayed for rejection of the application.The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 10/08/2020 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.

['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

C. be kept always along-with such Criminal Appeal, till disposal of such appeal.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(i) The second respondent, who is a practicing Advocate and he was running his office in the first floor of the petitioner's premises.The said property was purchased by the second petitioner's husband.The petitioners decided to demolish the building and wanted to reconstruct the same.The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.176 of 2015, for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 294(b), 506(i) IPC on the file of the respondent police.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 CRL.OP(MD)No.3316 of 20162.The petitioners are accused persons in the above said crime number.On complaint given by one Amalan, a case in Crime No.176 of 2015 has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 294(b), 506(i) IPC.Against which, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the complaint.Therefore, they instructed the second respondent to vacate the premises.But, the second respondent refused to vacate the same.Due to which, there was some dispute between them.4.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the second respondent is an Advocate, who had created documents showing that prior to the purchase of the property, the tenancy agreement has been entered and he had been refusing to vacate the premises and demanding ransom.Therefore, the second petitioner's husband had lodged a complaint against the said Amalan and the same came to be registered in Crime No.175 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 427, 294(b), 323, 506 (i) IPC.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 CRL.OP(MD)No.3316 of 20165.Therefore, the said Amalan being an advocate threatened the petitioners that they would be implicated in other cases, if his demand of ransom is not paid.Despite the said Amalan had vacated the premises and had kept the room in lock and making false allegations that the bundles and articles kept inside the room were damaged, destroyed by the mischief of the petitioners.Therefore, the said Amalan had given a false complaint against the petitioners on 07.11.2015, for which a case in Crime No.176 of 2015 has been filed, for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 294(b), 506(i) IPC.Later, the case was closed as 'mistake of fact.Thus the petitioners have been falsely implicated in furtherance, the said Amalan had civil dispute with the petitioners.6.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that though the first petitioner had given a complaint against the said Amalan for the damage caused to the ceiling of the building and poured waste water, causing damage and obstructed to the Hotel business, which were carried out by the petitioners.Though CSR No.124 of 2015 was given, thereafter, the respondent police failed to take further action at the instance of the said Amalan.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 CRL.OP(MD)No.3316 of 20167.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have been foisted the above case to wreck vengeance for a civil dispute and it would amount to an abuse of process of law.8.The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent is an Advocate, practicing at Tirunelveli Subordinate Courts.As per the rental agreement, the second respondent is paying monthly rent without any default through the Bank and also paid a for a sum of Rs.25,000/- as advance.9.According to the Advocate, he is a tenant and he has been paying regularly the tenancy upto October 2015 and the petitioners, who were running a Hotel in the ground floor below in the tenancy portion of the said Advocate and purchased the property and that there was some civil dispute.Since the investigation, in this case stayed.10.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that there was a civil dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent.Admittedly, the said Murugan employed as part time job under the Amalan.Further, except for the empty threat, there has been no other action furtherance.12.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case in Crime No.176 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.3.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER Randhir Singh, J.These are two applications in revision against the order of the Sessions Judge of Lucknow dated 10th January 1953, refusing to interfere with an order dated 25th October 1952, passed by a Magistrate, first class, on an application made by Smt. Bitia.As the facts of this case are a trifle complicated it would be useful to make a brief reference to them before entering into a discussion of the points raised on behalf of the applicants.A complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was made by one Smt, Taravati on the allegations that certain ornaments and a box had been entrusted by her in the company of her adoptive mother Smt. Jamna Devi sometime in 1948, to, Sallg Ram and Smt. Bitia for safe custody and that they failed to return the property to her and therefore committed criminal breach of trust, The defence of Salig Ram and Smt, Bitia was that the entrustment of the articles had been made by Smt. Jamna Devi and not by Smt. Taravati.It was also contended on behalf of Salig Ram that Jamna Devi in fact pawned the ornaments and that they were not deposited in trust.The learned Magistrate who tried the case came to the conclusion that the ornaments had been entrusted to the care of Salig Ram by Smt. Jamna Devi, but the box, which was a separate item, had been entrusted by Smt. Taravati.Salig Ram was acquitted and Smt. Bitia was discharged.This order of acquittal was followed by an order made under Section 517, Criminal P. C. directing the return of the ornaments which had been taken possession of by the police to Salig Ram and the box to Smt. Taravati.Taravati then went in revision against the order of acquittal while Salig Ram and Smt. Bitia went in appeal against the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 517, Criminal P. C. Both these cases were transferred to Sri Gopal Chand Sinha, Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge.He dismissed the appeal but made a reference to the High Court for the setting aside of the acquittal.The reference made by the Sessions Judge came up for hearing before a learned Judge of this Court on 16th May 1952, and it was rejected.In this order the learned Magistrate referred to his earlier order for the disposal of the articles which were the subject-matter of the dispute under Section 406, Penal Code.and he refused to amend his order unless an order of the High Court was brought.The applicants Smt. Bitia and Salig Ram then went in revision to the Sessions Judge of Lucknow.The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application for revision and she has now come up in revision to this CourtIt appears that no revision was filed against the order of the Sessions Judge dated 22nd December 1951, dismissing the appeal filed against the order under Section 517, Criminal P. C. The order passed by the Magistrate therefore became final.Smt, Bitia then made an application to the Magistrate for revising the order.Once a Magistrate has passed an order under Section 517, Criminal P. C., and the parties have gone up in appeal, it is not open to him to revise his order or to set it aside on the motion of any of the parties to the dispute.The learned Magistrate before whom the application for revision of the order had been made by Smt. Bitia was therefore, perfectly justified in refusing to interfere with his earlier order passed under Section 517, Criminal P. C. which had become final.The learned Counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any provision of law under which a Magistrate was empowered or entitled to vary his order passed earlier under Section 817, Criminal P. C. at the request of either party unless it be on the basis of a-clerical mistake.Any observations of this kind would not amount to a finding on any question of fact such as to justify the Magistrate who had passed the order under Section 517, Criminal P. C., following the acquittal to reverse his order passed regarding the disposal of property.A revision has also been filed on behalf of Smt. Taravati.She made an application before the Sessions Judge in the application for revision filed by Smt. Bitia and Salig Ram.

['Section 406 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.17290/2019 (Goverdhan s/o Nandram Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 06.05.2019 Mr. Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.After arguing for some time on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the bail application.

['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 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 case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:(i) The deceased in this case, one Marisithamma is the grandmother of the accused.The deceased was receiving old age pension.Earlier, the deceased was living alone and 20 days prior to the occurrence, she went to his brother P.W.8's house and living with him.Apprehending that the deceased would give the old age pension to P.W.8, the accused quarrelled with the deceased.On the date of occurrence, P.W.6, wife of P.W.8 and the deceased were sitting and speaking together near a well.At that time, the accused came there and attacked the deceased with a sharpened stick and ran away.On hearing the noise, people nearby came to the scene of occurrence and took the deceased to Government Hospital, Thalavadi in an Ambulance.Thereafter, P.W.6 went to the respondent police and gave a statement before P.W.14, in-charge Inspector of Police.Since P.W.6's mother tongue is Kannada, she does not know Tamil and hence her statement was translated by P.W.9 and P.W.14, Special Sub Inspector of Police, recorded the statement in Tamil and based on the statement (Ex.P2), he registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2012 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, prepared FIR (Ex.P9) and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate Court and copies to the higher officials.(ii) P.W.16, the regular Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police, on receipt of the FIR commenced the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar Ex.P3, drew a Rough Sketch Ex.P11 and recovered M.O.1, blood stained soil, M.O.2 sample soil under Ex.P1, seizure mahazar, in the presence of witnesses.On 03.01.2013, he conducted inquest over the dead body, in the presence of panchayatars, between 7.00 a.m., and 9.00 a.m., and prepared an inquest report Ex.P12 and after completion of inquest, he sent the dead body to the Government Hospital, Thalavadi, for post- mortem autopsy, through P.W.13, Head Constable.He made a request to the Doctor for conducting Postmortem of the dead body.Requisition letter is Ex.Heart  Pale, c/s empty (300 gm) Liver  Pale (1300 gm), Spleen  Pale (100 gm).Kidneys  Pale (150 gm), Stomach  filled 150 ml of partially digested food particles.Intestines  Partially distended gab, Bladder empty.She is the brother's wife of the deceased.According to her, she, along with the deceased, was sitting and speaking near a well and at that time, the accused came there and quarrelled with the deceased, demanded old age pension and during the quarrel, he attacked the deceased with a sharpened stick on her head and ran away and she took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Thalavadi, where, the deceased was declared dead and thereafter she went to the respondent police and gave a complaint.After the occurrence, he came to the scene of occurrence.(Judgement of the Court was delivered by V.Bharathidasan, J.) The appellant in this appeal is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.128 of 2014, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, (Magalir Fast Track Court), Erode.He stood charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.The Trial Court, by judgement dated 15.06.2015, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this appeal.He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.At about 2.00 p.m., he arrested the accused and on such arrest, the accused voluntarily gave a confession and based on the disclosure statement (Ex.P14), he recovered M.O.1, blood stained sharpened stick, in the presence of witnesses.(iii) P.W.10, Assistant Civil Surgeon, working in the Thalavadi Government Hospital, conducted postmoretm autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries.External Injuries:(1) Laceration left parietal area ( 3 x 2 x 1 cm).(2) Laceration left occipital area ( 3 x 2 x 1 cm).(3) Laceration left occipital area (2 x 2 s 1 cm).(4) Laceration left side behind ear (1 x 1 x 05 cm).(5) Laceration midline of parietal area (2 x 2 x 1cm).(6) Laceration left parietal area (4 x 4cm).Internal Examination:Skull - left parietal bone, Brain congested(1200 gms).Hyoid  Intact 100 gms of sub scapal Haematoma about left parietal area DH about 100 gms over left parietal area.Ribs Intact, Lungs pale(right 450 gms left 400 gms).He opined that the deceased appear to have died of head injuries, lead to Shock and Haemorrhage.He gave Postmortem Certificate [Ex.P5].(iv) P.W.16, continued the investigation, examined the Doctor, who conducted post mortem and recorded his statement, sent the material objects for chemical examination and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed above and the accused denied the same as false.In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined, 17 documents exhibited and 6 material object were marked.Out of the said witnesses examined, P.W.1 is a neighbour of the deceased.According to him, on the date of occurrence, at about 3.30 p.m., on hearing the noise of the deceased and P.W.6, he, along with P.W.3 and others, rushed to the spot and found the deceased lying down with head injuries and they saw the accused running away, and thereafter he, along with others, took the deceased to the Government Hospital, in an ambulance.P.W.2 is a resident of Simittahalli village and he has turned hostile.P.W.3 is also a resident of Simittahalli village.According to him, on hearing the noise of the deceased and P.W.6, he and others rushed to the scene of occurrence and saw the deceased lying down with head injuries and they sent the deceased to the Government Hospital.P.W.4 is also a resident of Simittahalli village.According to him, on hearing the noise of the deceased and P.W.6, he and others rushed to the scene of occurrence and saw the deceased lying down, with head injuries and he called the ambulance and send the deceased to the Government Hospital, Thalavadi.P.W.5 is a witness to the arrest and confession of the accused and recovery of M.O.1, sharpened stick.P.W.6 is an eye witness to the occurrence.P.W.9 is the translator, who translated the statement of P.W.6 from Kannada language to Tamil.P.W.10, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Thalavadi, has stated that he conducted post moretm autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued Postmortem Certificate, Ex.P.W.11, Head Clerk, working in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathiyamangalam, has stated that he sent the material objects for chemical examination.P.W.12, Head Constable, attached to the respondent police, has stated that he handed over the First Information Report to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathiyamangalam.P.W.13, Head Constable, working in the respondent police, has deposed that he accompanied the dead body to the Government Hospital and identified the dead body for postmortem.P.W.14, Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police, has stated that after receipt of the complaint, he registered a case, sent the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate Court and copies of the same to the Higher Officials.P.W.15, Assistant Director, working in the Forensic Department, Coimbatore, has stated that he examined the material objects and gave a report Ex.P.W.16, Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police, has stated that he continued the investigation, examined the postmortem Doctor and recorded his statement, received the chemical analysis report and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.His defence was a total denial.The accused did not examine any witness and no document was marked on his side.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence as stated in first paragraph of this judgment.Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused is before this Court.We have heard Mr.B.Kumaraswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.According to her, on the date of occurrence, she and the deceased were speaking together near the well and at that time, the accused came there and quarrelled with the deceased by demanding old age pension and during the quarrel, the accused attacked the deceased with a sharpened stick on her head and he ran away and at that time, peoples nearby came there and took the deceased to the Hospital.In his evidence, P.W.1 has said that after the occurrence, he saw the accused running away with a sharpened stick.P.W.3 says that after the occurrence, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.Subsequently, the accused has been arrested and on such arrest, he has given a voluntary confession and based on the disclosure statement, M.O.1 sharpened stick has been recovered.P.W.10, Doctor, who conducted postmortem autopsy, in his evidence says, that he found injuries on the head of the deceased and he is of the opinion that the deceased appear to have died of head injuries led to Shock and Haemorrhage.Even though, P.W.6 is related to the deceased, her evidence cannot brush aside.The presence of P.W.6 in the scene of occurrence is natural.It shows from the evidence at the time of occurrence, the deceased and P.W.6 were speaking together near the well and at the time, the accused had attacked the deceased with a sharpened stick and it is she only took the deceased to the Hospital and subsequently she has given a complaint before the respondent police.Therefore, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has clearly established that it is this accused who had attacked the deceased with a sharpened stick on the head of the deceased and caused her death.Now, the question is what was the offence that was committed by the accused by the said act.Even, according to P.W.6, at the time of occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased, when the accused demanded old age pension from the deceased and at the end of the quarrel, the accused attacked the deceased with a sharpened stick.From the evidence of P.W.6, an eye witness, it is clear that the accused, at the end of the quarrel, he lost his mental balance and out of the sudden provocation, had attacked the deceased with a sharpened stick which was available there.The accused would not have had any intention to cause the death of the deceased.But, certainly, he had the intention to cause bodily injury on the head of the deceased, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased.The accused is a poor man and he has no bad antecedence.The occurrence has taken place out of sudden wordy quarrel and provocation and having lost his mental faculty, the accused had attacked the deceased, which resulted in the sudden death of the deceased.Taking into consideration the mitigating as well as the aggravating circumstances, we are of the considered view that sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks would meet the ends of justice.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.128 of 2014, dated 15.06.2015, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, (Magalir Fast Track Court), Erode, for offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside and instead, he is convicted for an offence under Section 304 part-I IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks.It is directed that the period of detention already undergone by the appellant/accused shall be given set off as required under Section 428 Cr.P.C. If the appellant is on bail, nail bond executed by him shall stand cancelled, the trial Court shall take steps to secure him presence and commit to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

['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.

Bail Allowed md.CRM No. 5041 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18.7.2018 in connection with Kumarganj Police Station case No. 169/2017 under Sections 498A/417/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 corresponding to G.R. No. 1064 of 2017 ;And In Re:-Mr. Rejaul Rahaman Mondal ... Petitioner Mr. Rajdeep Mazumdar Mr. Pritam Ray, Advocate Ms. Kriti Mehrotra, Advocate ..for the Petitioner Mrs. Purnima Ghosh, Advocate .. for the State Liberty is given to Advocate for the petitioner to insert the name of the appropriate police station in the cause title.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions 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 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The accused Siva is their son.All the four were living in the same house.P.W.1 Chinnamani is residing nearby.P.W.2 and the accused Siva were working as Sweepers in different places.The deceased Muthusamy was a spendthrift as well as a drunkard.Invariably the deceased would extract money from his wife as well as from his son, drink, come back home and beat P.W.2 his wife.This was continued for a long time.Due to the harassment of the deceased husband, P.W.2 Sundarammal had chest pain.For that, she took treatment in the hospital.(b) The fateful occurrence took place on 1/2.6.1998 mid night.Prior to that, on 1.6.1998, the deceased went to the hospital where P.W.2 Sundarammal was working as Sweeper and obtained the salary from her forcefully.Even in the hospital, she was beaten and thereafter she was continuously beaten till they reached home.As soon as they came back, the deceased asked P.W.2 to serve food to him.Since the food was not available, P.W.2 asked her daughter Indirani to go out side and get idlies.In the meantime, at about 9 p.m., the deceased again began to beat his wife, with the result, P.W.2 developed chest pain.Therefore, both P.W.2 and Indirani went to Udumalpettai Venkateswara Nursing Home at about 11.30 p.m. She was given treatment by the Doctor.After taking injection administered by P.W.9 Nurse, P.W.2 along with Indirani, came to the house of her father Krishnan.(c) P.W.8 Kanagaraj is her brother.P.W.2 Sundarammal had no intention of going back home and she wanted to take bed in her father's house itself.On knowing that she was continuously beaten by the deceased, as a result of which, she got chest pain, the accused got angry and told P.W.8, the brother of P.W.2, that he would see the end on that day itself.(d) On the midnight of 1.6.1998, the accused came back home.On the way to his house, the accused removed the cart peg (mulaikutchi) from a bullock cart.When he came to the house, the deceased alone was available.The accused beat his father on the head with the said cart peg.The deceased sustained injuries on the head, fell down and died on the spot.Then, the accused came out of the house and closed the door.(e) At that time, P.W.1 Chinnamani, who was the neighbour, came out of her house to attend the calls of nature.On noticing the accused in the midnight that came out of his house, P.W.1 asked the accused as to why he was there at the odd hours.The accused replied that he had been to Cinema and came back.Thereafter, P.W.1 went inside her house and slept.(f) On the early morning of 2.6.1998, Indirani left the house of her grandfather Krishnan and came to her house to take vessel for getting milk to prepare coffee for her mother.At that time, she found her father dead, lying in a pool of blood.She made a hue and cry.The neighbors gathered there.P1 complaint to P.W.15 Sub-Inspector of Police, Ex.P15 is the F.I.R.(g) P.W.16 Inspector of Police, on receipt of message took up investigation.He rushed to the scene of occurrence.He prepared Ex.P4 observation mahazar and Ex.P16 rough sketch.He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 11.15 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and prepared Ex.P17 inquest report.P3 is the post-mortem certificate.Relating to the motive aspect, we have got the evidence of P.W.2, the wife of the deceased and P.W.8, the brother of P.W.2 and as such, in this case, it has to be held that the motive aspect has been clearly established.At about 2.00 a.m., P.W. 1 came out of her house for answering the calls of nature and at that point of time, she happened to see the accused coming out of his house.When he was asked about his presence at the odd hours, he stated that he had been to Cinema.Thereafter, P.W.1 went inside her house and slept.Only in the morning, she saw the dead body of the deceased, lying in a pool of blood.From that day onwards, the accused was absconding.P.W.1 informed the fact that she saw the accused in the early morning at 2.00 a.m. to P.W.8 immediately.Since nobody gave a complaint to the Police Station, she went to the police station and gave the complaint, which was registered by P.W.15 Sub-Inspector of Police.So, only on the information of P.W.1 through Ex.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.For the accusation that on 2.6.1998 at 2.00 a.m. Sivaraj alias Siva, the accused beat his father, the deceased Muthusamy with a cart peg and caused his instantaneous death, the accused was tried for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C and convicted thereunder.Hence this appeal.The facts leading to the conviction are as follows:-(a) P.W.2 Sundarammal is the wife of the deceased Muthusamy.P.W.1, thinking that the murder must have been committed only by the son, went to the Police Station and gave Ex.He examined P.W.1 Chinnamani, P.W.2 Sundarammal and Indirani.Then, the dead body was sent for post mortem.(h) P.W.7 Doctor, on receipt of Ex.P2 requisition, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased at 3.30 p.m. He noticed that the deceased had sustained crush injuries on various parts of his head.He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury on the vital organ, the brain.(i) P.W16 continued the investigation.He tried to arrest the accused.On 15.6.1998, he arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.14 Village Administrative Officer and recorded his confession.In pursuance of his confession, he recovered MO1 blood stained shirt, MO2 blood stained Lungi and MO3 blood stained stick.Then, he made arrangement for sending the material objects for chemical examination through Court.Ultimately, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 302 I.P.C.j. During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution Pws 1 to 16 were examined, Exs.P1 to P17 were filed and MOs1 to 15 were marked.k. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating materials available on record, he stated that a false case has been foisted against him and even on the date of occurrence, he, P.W.2 his mother and his sister Indirani were taken to the Police station and detained there and only after two days, his mother and sister were released.However, no evidence was adduced on the side of defense.(l) The trial Court on considering the materials available on record, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.Assailing the same, this appeal has been filed.The motive for the occurrence, as projected by the prosecution, is that on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 1/6/1998, the deceased went to the hospital, where P.W.2, his wife was working and beat P.W.2 and snatched the salary from her and took her to the house and till they reached home, P.W.2 was being continuously beaten by the deceased.According to P.W.2, the wife, the deceased used to torture her for money for drinking purpose and after drinking, he would also harass her for conjugal relationship with her.Due to heavy beating on 1.6.1998, P.W.2 had a chest pain and therefore, she was taken to the hospital by her daughter, where treatment was given by P.W.9 Nurse on the instruction of Doctor.Thereafter, P.W.2, having not inclined to come to the house of the deceased thinking that she would be beaten again by the deceased, went straight to her father's house and stayed there.On receiving the news, the accused came and saw P.W.2, who was lying in bed, suffering from chest pain.This was the motive for the accused to come to the house with M.O.3 cart peg (mulaikutchi) and beat the deceased.P1, P.W.16 came to the spot and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and during the course of inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 2 and one Indirani.Both have stated that after the occurrence, the accused came and told them that he committed murder of his father and at that time, both of them saw the clothes of the accused stained with blood.On his confession, MO1 shirt, MO2 lungi and MO3 cart peg were recovered and all these objects contained blood and the same were sent for chemical analysis.It is noticed from the Serologist's report that MO1 contained human blood "B" group which tallied with the blood group of the deceased and MO2 Lungi and MO3 cart peg (mulai kutchi) also contained the human blood.When all the above said circumstances are put together, there is no difficulty in holding that the accused only committed the act of murdering his father and then fled away from the scene and he was absconding till 15.6.1998, on which date, he was arrested.Further, nothing has been elicited from the evidence of P.W.2 by the prosecution that on 2.6.1998, while P.W.2 was taken to the police station, the accused was also taken.Under those circumstances, the circumstances placed before us by the prosecution would clinchingly prove that the accused alone had committed the act of murdering his father.The next question that remains to be considered is as to whether the offence committed by the accused would fall under Section 302 IPC.The evidence adduced by P.W.2 would clearly indicate that on the date on which the salary was obtained by P.W.2, the deceased himself came to the hospital, where P.W.2 was working and forcibly snatched the salary from her.Not only that, she was beaten in the hospital and from there, she was taken to home.Till they reached home, she was continuously beaten.She developed chest pain due to beating.Therefore, she was taken to the hospital by her daughter, where she was given immediate treatment.On hearing this news, the accused, after finishing his work, went to the house of P.W.8 and met his mother.When he heard about the happenings from the mouth of his mother, he got infuriated and told P.W.8 that he would see the end on that day itself.Thereafter, on the way, he happened to see the bullock cart near the house of the deceased and removed one of the cart pegs and came to house and beat on the head of the deceased.It is true that Ex.P3 post-mortem certificate would show that there is a crush injury on the head.There is no dispute that the deceased died on the spot.But, the fact remains that the accused out of sustained provocation, got infuriated on hearing that his mother was beaten mercilessly and due to that, she had chest pain and came home to teach a lesson to his father.It is also noticed from the evidence that the accused was also working in another hospital as Sweeper and he also used to hand over the salary to the deceased.He is an unmarried man aged about 19 years at the time of occurrence.Under those circumstances, the act of the appellant/accused, in our opinion, would fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C and he is not liable to be punished under Section 302 I.P.C. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/ accused under Section 302 I.P.C by the trial Court are set aside and instead, he is found guilty under Section 304 (Part I), I.P.C and convicted thereunder.With regard to the question of sentence, it is stated that the accused is still an unmarried man and he is now aged about 24 years.When he was questioned about the sentence by the trial Court, he represented that he has to take care of the family.Under those circumstances, it would be appropriate to sentence the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years.With the above modification, the appeal is dismissed.

['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.

Heard on I.A. No.1530/2017, which is the first application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant No.2 Sudheer alias Dadu alias Sunil Singh Bhadoriya for suspension of his jail sentence and grant of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.Vide the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Special Judge (dacoity) Bhind in Special Case No.9/10, appellant No.2 Sudheer along with co- appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-Appellant No.2 Sudheer and the said co-appellant are similarly placed in the case.Appellant Sudheer has no criminal past.Upon these submissions, he prays to allow the I.A.Learned Public Prosecutor has prayed for rejection of the I.A.Hence, the I.A. is allowed.The execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant No.2 Sudheer is hereby suspended and the trial Court is directed to release him on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) with one solvent surety of the same amount to its satisfaction, subject to depositing the entire fine amount, if it is not so far deposited, at the time of furnishing bail bonds.On being released on bail, appellant No.2 Sudheer shall appear before the Registry of this Court to mark his presence first time on 18.12.2017 and thereafter on all such other dates as may be fixed by it in this regard until further orders of this Court.List the case for final hearing in due course with connected appeals.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge van

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard Sri Raj Kumar Vaishya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State through video conferencing.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Prashant Srivastava with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 152 of 2020, under Sections - 395, 397, 412 I.P.C., Police Station - Colonelganj, District - Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:(i) the applicant is accused of under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC;(ii) against FIR lodged on 16.02.2020, the applicant is in confinement since then;(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation;(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions.(ii) The applicant 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 of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of first bail application filed u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. in respect of crime no.91/2017 registered at Police Station Tighara, District Gwalior for the offences punishable u/Sections 498A, 394B,34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Binu BINU PILLAI 2018.07.03 17:40:04 +05'30'

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

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

Counsel for the appellant submitted that if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, then also offence is not culpable homicide amounting to murder.Incident occurred in a sudden fight without any pre-meditation in a heat of passion upon sudden quarrel.Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant's goat entered the field of deceased Gulab Rajak and started grazing the gram crop and deceased was chasing away the goat.Appellant abused him and assaulted him on his head by 'Khalua'.After the injury was caused, injured was taken to the Primary Health Centre of Dhuma from where he was referred to Medical College, Jabalpur.He died at the Medical College, Jabalpur.Counsel for the appellant is not challenging the findings recorded by the Trial Court about the assault by the appellant on deceased Gulab Rajak.There was no intention on the part of appellant to cause the death of the deceased.Incident has occurred all of a sudden without any pre-meditation.Deceased has received only one grievous injury, which was fatal to his life.He further submitted that Dr. N.S. Kukrele (P.W. 13) has not deposed that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Shri J.K. Jain, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment and submitted that appellant had caused the injury with an intention to cause death.He invited attention to the deposition of Leelabai (P.W. 6) and submitted that appellant told Kamal that he is going to murder the deceased and thereafter appellant gave one blow by 'Khalua' with full force and deceased fell on the ground and later died in the hospital.Learned Counsel for the State, therefore, submitted that this case will fall under clause Thirdly of Section 300 of IPC.Perused the evidence on record.Incident is witnessed by sole eye-witness Leelabai (P.W. 6).Leelabai is wife of the deceased.She was in the agricultural field along with deceased Gulab Rajak.Her presence on the spot cannot be doubted.She admitted that appellant's goat entered their field and started damaging the crop and when deceased went to chase the goat out of the field, appellant gave one blow on his head.This witness has stated that there was single assault.Injured was immediately taken to the Primary Health Centre, Dhuma, where he was examined by Dr. Y.S. Thakur (P.W. 4).On medical examination, doctor found a lacerated wound 4 1/2" 1/2" skin deep on the left fronto-parietal region with huge blood clots and bleeding from the end of artery.(2) A contusion 1/2" 1/2" on the right thigh on the middle 1/3 portion on the back side.Condition of patient was grievous and injury No. 1 was likely to be caused by hard and blunt object and injury No. 2 was simple in nature.He referred the patient to Medical College, Jabalpur.In Medical College, deceased died at 4 A.M. in the morning and his dead body was sent for post-mortem.Doctor has found following injuries on the head:Stitched wound 10 cm (7 stitches) from left parietal region to right parietal region.He was unable to give details of injury and deposed that the doctor who was stitched the wound can only speak about the details of the injury.On internal examination, doctor has found fracture of both parietal bones and extradural and sub-dural haematoma.Brain tissue was lacerated and blood was found in the cranial cavity.He opined that cause of death was injury on the head.Looking to the nature of injuries received by the deceased and the eye-witness account of Leelabai (P.W. 6), we find that the incident has occurred in a sudden quarrel without any pre-meditation.Though, Leelabai has deposed that the appellant told Kamal that he is going to kill the deceased but this part of her statement is an improvement from her earlier statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC (Exh. D-2).In Exhibit D-2, she has not mentioned that the appellant told Kamal that he is going to kill the deceased.On the contrary, it is mentioned that when deceased objected on grazing of his field by appellant's goat, appellant abused him filthily and told him that he will finish him and then caused injury on the head.Considering the evidence on record, it is apparent that the incident has occurred in a sudden fight without any pre-meditation.The incident occurred in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.Appeal succeeds in part.

['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.

So far as Crl.Application No. 826 of 1996 isconcerned, the short facts are that one Tapas D.Neogy was anArchitect & Town Planner in the Department of Town Planningof the Union Territory of Daman and Diu.It was alleged that the accused committed theoffence while on duty and while he was posted as Architectand Town Planner under Government of Daman.The originalplan of Daman was prepared by the Department of Architectureand Planning and was approved by the Town and CountryPlanning Board.In the approved plan, various zones wereearmarked for industries, roads, defence, agriculture etc.It was further alleged that out of total area of land, 7.25%was earmarked for industries and 41.21% for agriculture andopen space.On thesame day, the premises of the mother of accused Tapas Neogyat Calcutta was also searched and certain documents wereseized.The locker in Indian Bank at Calcutta, jointly heldby Tapas Neogy's mother and his brother was also searchedand was sealed and another locker held by the mother andsister of Tapas was searched and was also sealed.TheInvestigating Officer issued instructions to Managers ofdifferent banks not to allow the accounts to be operatedupon.PATTANAIK, J.Leave granted.The said criminalapplication along with four other criminal writ petitionsinvolving the same question of law were decided together anddisposed of by the common judgment which is being impugnedin this appeal.The zoning could be changed by the Town andCountry Planning Board.The procedure to alter theagricultural land into non-agricultural land was that theland owners who wish to change their land tonon-agricultural use were required to apply to theCollector, who was the competent authority to grant suchpermission.Such applications were then forwarded to TownPlanning Department for the purpose of clearance.It wasfurther alleged that Tapas Neogy and accused Narayan Divakarentered into a conspiracy by which Divakar caused a forgedmap of Daman to be prepared, thereby increasing industrialzone.On the basis of the same forged map, accused TapasNeogy issued false certificates indicating that the landfell within the industrial zone.On account of such act,the land prices shoot up from Rs.100/- to Rs.110/- persquare meter to Rs.800/- to Rs.1,600/- per sq. meter, andin the process, accused Divakar and accused Tapas Neogycaused pecuniary advantage to be gained by the land owners.Pursuant to the First Information Report, the premises ofTapas Neogy at Daman were searched on 12th of October, 1993and several incriminating documents were seized.The mother of Tapas then filed an application beforethe Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court,Esplande, Mumbai, under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. to allowher to operate the bank account and for return of thedocuments and articles seized, claiming that they belongedto her.The Magistrate by his Order dated 13th of October,1995, granted the relief in respect of the locker inquestion but refused to allow the mother of said Tapas Neogyto operate the bank account.

['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 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']

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

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, namely, Prabhakar,aged 23 years, who has been detained under the Act 14 of 1982 by branding him as a 'Sexual Offencer', by the District Collector, Sivagangai District, videthe proceedings in Cr.M.P.06/S.O/2018 dated 20.03.2018, pursuant to the crimecommitted in connection with (1) Crime No.3 of 2018 under Section 366(A)376(2) (g) (I) of IPC and Section 5 (g) r/w 6 of Protection of Children fromSexual Offences Act, 2012 @ 366 (A) and Section 5 (g) r/w 6 of Protection ofChildren from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 @ 366 (A) and Section 5(g) r/w 6 ofProtection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 294(b), 323IPC r/w 376(2)(a)(i), 506(ii) IPC on the file of the all Women PoliceStation, Sivagangai, and (2) Crime No.36 of 2018, for the offences underSections 304(A) IPC @ 304(ii), 201 IPC, on the file of Ilayankudi PoliceStation.2.The mother of the detenu has submitted a representation dated08.04.2018 to the respondents stating that his elder brother by nameDhivakar, met with an accident near Tenkasi on 08.04.2018 and died on thesame day.Since her husband is working at Malaysia, it is difficult for himto come down to India immediately to perform the funeral rites of their sonand therefore, she filed the present writ petition, seeking parole/leave forten days to the detenu to perform the said ceremonies.In the result, this writ petition is ordered, with the followingdirections:(i) The respondents are directed to release the detenu, namely,Prabhakar, son of Pandiarajan, who is detained as per the proceedings of thethird respondent in Cr.M.P.06/S.O/2018 dated 20.03.2018, on temporary release/leave/parole, to perform the last rites to his elder brother, on09.04.2018, on condition that the said Prabhakar, son of Pandiarajan,shall report back to the fifth respondent - the Superintendent,Central Prison, Madurai, on 10.04.2018 at about 06.00 p.m.(ii) Sufficient escort with vehicle shall be provided to accompanythe said Prabhakar, son of Pandiarajan at free of cost.According to the petitioner, though the respondents had acknowledgedthe said representation, they have not responded and therefore, filed thepresent petition praying for appropriate direction, directing the release ofthe detenu temporarily on parole/leave to perform the funeral rites onaccount of his brother's demise.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Counsel for the petitioner/motherof the detenu, inviting the attention of this Court to the representationdated 08.04.2018 submitted to the respondents as well as the affidavit filedin support of this petition, would submit that the father of the deceased isnow working at Malaysia and immediately he is not in a position come down toIndia and therefore, in order to perform the funeral rites, the petitionerfiled this writ petition, seeking temporary release/parole/leave of thedetenu.M.P.No.06/S.O/2018 dated 20.03.318, is to be granted temporary release/leave/parole to perform the final rites and other relatedceremonies of his deceased elder brother, namely, Dhivakar.(iii) During parole, the detenu shall abide all theconditions prescribed in the Jail Manual and he shall be brought backto the Prison on 10.04.2018 at about 06.00 p.m.(v)The petitioner shall report before the K.Pudur Police Station,Madurai on 09.04.2018 and 10.04.2018 at about 10.00 p.m. and 08.00 am.on the respective dates.(v) It is also made very clear that the detenu under the guise of thistemporary release/leave/parole shall not misuse the liberty.(ii)Registry is directed to communicate this order to the respondents through fax at the cost of the petitioner.1.The Chief Secretary (Home), State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.2.The Additional Chief Secretary (Home), State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Fort St.3.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.4.The Superintendent Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.6.The Jailor, Central Prison, Madurai.

['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

07.03.2018kasSpeaking / Non SpeakingIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoToThis Criminal Revision is filed as against the acquittal order passed by the First Appellate Court.The Accused was charged for the offence under Section 337 & 338 IPC.The Trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the accused was not responsible for the negligence.As against which the present criminal revision has been filed.2. Heard the counsel on either side.The Revision Petitioner is working as an Assistant Divisional Engineer (Buildings) BSNL.During his tenure i.e. on 10.04.2005, PW1 one Thangaraj was standing near the BSNL building.The pipe attached to the building fell down, as a result he sustained injuries.4.On a perusal of the entire materials, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court.To prove the specific charges as against the accused under Section 337 and 338 IPC.The prosecution initially ought to have proved that the accused has acted in a rash or negligent manner endangering the personal safety of others.5.In the absence of evidence to show that the accused was in charge for the above contract work or the accused has either acted rashly or negligently.Merely some injuries sustained by the passer by, the accused cannot be fastened with criminal liability.6.Hence, I am not persuaded myself to accept the contention of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that due to the rash negligence act of the accused, the revision petitioner sustained grievous injury.Hence the Criminal Revision is dismissed.1.State rep.By The Inspector of Police C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station Chennai 600 0012.The Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.8, George Town, Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 108N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.kasCRL.R.C.No.64 of 200907.03.2018

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

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

This criminal appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment dated 03.12.2011 made in S.C.No.252 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge Cum Fast Track Court No.I, Madurai.Thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 2 along with other witnesses caught hold the accused and produced the accused before the respondent Police with the knife recovered from him.Thereafter, P.W.1, made a complaint and P.W.2 attested the same.Subsequently, FIR has been registered.The respondent police after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 392 r/w 397 IPC before the learned Magistrate.The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked 10 documents as Exs.On the side of the defence no documents were marked and no witnesses were examined.When the incriminating materials culled out from the prosecution witnesses were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the same as false.After analyzing the records, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of offence under Sections 392 r/w 397 and 506(2) of IPC.Both the accused were accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-each, and in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 392 r/w 397 of IPC.The accused are convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(2) of IPC.The sentences are ordered to be run concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused is before this court with the present criminal appeal.The learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence.There is a material contradictions between the complaint and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Even P.W.2 said to have attested the complaint, he has also turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.The learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the material contradictions.Except P.W.1, the other witnesses turned hostile.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.He has substantiated the case before the Court below.The accused has threatened P.W.1 at knife point and chased Rs.500/-.Even though P.Ws.2 to 5 turned hostile, the P.W.1 has proved the casehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 beyond reasonable doubts.He would further submit that the learned Sessions Judge, after analyzing the materials placed before him, has found that the accused have committed the offence under Section 392 r/w 397 and 506 (2) IPC and the same does not warrant any interference.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent/State and also perused the records carefully.8. P.W.1 preferred the complaint before the respondent police P.W.2 attested the complaint [Ex.p1].The respondent police registered the case and after investigation filed charge sheet before the Court below.From the evidence of P.W.1 it could be seen that P.W.2 and other witnesses were present in the scene of occurrence.When the accused robed money at knife point, the witnesses caught hold thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 accused and recovered the knife and money and produced the same before the respondent police along with the accused.Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused, when except P.W.1 all the other witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case.Evidence of P.W.1 has not been corroborated by any one of the prosecution witnesses.It is a well settled proposition of law that to convict the accused the evidence of witnesses and the material evidence have to be taken into consideration.After perusing the oral and documentary evidence, this Court feels that the evidence of P.W.1 is not trust worthy.Therefore, in this circumstances, this Court extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, sets aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No1, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 7Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by Judgment dated 03.12.2011 made in S.C.No.252 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge Cum Fast Track Court No.Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.Bail bond executed by the appellants and the sureties shall stand terminated.23.01.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ta To1.Additional District Sessions Judge Cum Fast Track Court No.I, Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, B1 Vilakuthoon Police Station, Madurai.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 P. VELMURUGAN,J ta Crl.A.(MD) No.6 of 2012

['Section 392 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 prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:-(a) P.W.1 Jeevanandam is the elder brother and P.W.2 Panchavarnam is the mother of the deceased Manickam.A.1 Jayabal is the elder brother of Selvam, the absconding accused.A.2 Saravanan and A.3 Siva @ Sivakumar are friends of A1 Jayabal and Selvam.They were all residing in the same village by name Odaipatti at Virudhunagar.P.W.2 used to go to hospital daily in the morning and evening for giving food to her husband Sethurama Thevar.(c) On 26.04.1996 at about 9.00 a.m., P.W.2 after serving food to her husband at hospital, was coming back to her home at Odaipatti Village.On the way, the absconding accused Selvam, A.3 Sivakumar and one Ramnath were sitting near P.W.3 Ramadoss Chettiar's shop.On noticing that P.W.2 was proceeding towards the road, they eve-teased her by singing a cinema song "Kuchu Kuchu Rakkamma".Objecting to their obscene gestures, P.W.2 scolded them and came home.(d) On the same day at about 8.00 p.m., P.W.2 was proceeding to the hospital to give food to her husband followed by her sons P.W.1 and deceased Manickam.When P.W.2 was nearing Ramadoss Chettiar's shop, the accused persons viz., A.1 Jayabal, absconding accused Selvam, A.2 Saravanan and A.3 Sivakumar restrained and questioned her as to how she could abuse them in the morning.P.W.1 and the deceased Manickam advised their mother P.W.2 to proceed to the hospital without talking to the accused persons, who eve-teased her in the morning.(e) On getting enraged by this, A.1 took a knife from his waist and stabbed the deceased on his chest.On being shocked, P.W.1 questioned the accused as to why the deceased was being stabbed.Selvam, the absconding accused stating that they would attack the deceased in that way only, inflicted injuries on the face and right thigh of the deceased.On seeing this, P.W.1 came near to the deceased.Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the scene.(f) P.W.4 Maheswari, a relative of the deceased, happened to come to the scene of occurrence and saw the victims P.W.1 and the deceased.Then, P.Ws.2 and 4 arranged a cycle rickshaw to take the deceased and P.w.1 to Virudhunagar Government Hospital.(g) P.W.11 Dr. Mohanarajan, attached to the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar, admitted the deceased and declared him dead.P.13 is the accident register relating to the deceased.He sent Ex.P.10 intimation relating to the injuries caused on the deceased to the police.He also sent another intimation Ex.P.W.11 after giving treatment to P.W.1, referred him to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, as his condition was serious.(h) Accordingly, P.W.1 was taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital, where he was admitted by P.W.12 Dr.Pondiaraj at about 10.50 p.m.(i) In the meantime, on receipt of Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11, P.W.9 Head Constable attached to Virudhunagar Rural Police Station, went to Virudhunagar Government Hospital and came to know that the deceased Manickam died and P.W.1 was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.Hence, P.W.9 went to the Government Rajaji Hospital and obtained a complaint Ex.Then, he returned to the Police Station and registered a case under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. Ex.P.12 is the first information report.(j) On 27.04.1996 at about 6.30 a.m., P.W.13 the Inspector of Police received information and went to the scene of occurrence.He prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.2 and drew rough sketch Ex.Then, he went to the Virudhunagar Government Hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased.P.16 is the inquest report.Then, he sent the body for post mortem.(k) On 27.04.1996, P.W.8 Dr. Jeyamani conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased and found as many as five injuries.P.9 is the post mortem certificate.He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries to the heart and lung.(l) On 28.04.1996 at about 1.00 a.m., P.W.13 arrested accused Selvam and on his confession, he recovered M.O.1 Aruval and produced him before the Court.Then, he took steps to arrest the other accused persons.It is the specific evidence of P.W.2 that on 26.04.1996 at about 9.00 a.m., she went to the hospital and came back and at that time, eve teasing incident took place.The fact that her husband was admitted in the hospital and had been taking treatment since 16.04.1996, has been spoken to by P.W.10 Doctor, attached to Virudhunagar Hospital.As narrated above, when P.W.1 and the deceased advised P.W.2 to go to hospital without talking to the accused persons, the accused got enraged and started to attack the deceased.A1 Jayabal with knife inflicted injury on the chest of the deceased.At that time, P.W.1 came near the deceased and intervened and questioned the accused as to why he should attack the deceased.Selvam, the absconding accused shouting that he would attack the deceased like that only, inflicted injuries with aruval on the face and thigh of the deceased.When P.W.1 shouted, A2 Saravanan and A3 Sivakumar with knife and Aruval respectively, attacked P.W.1 and caused injuries on his rib and forehead.Thus, both of them sustained severe injuries and as their cries, the public gathered.Then accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.19. P.W.4 Maheswari, who happened to come to the scene at that time, took both the victims along with P.w.2 in a cycle rickshaw and admitted them in the Virudhunagar Government Hospital.P.W.11 Dr. Mohanarajan while admitting both of them, found the deceased dead.Therefore, he sent intimation Ex.P.10 about the death of the deceased to the Police.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam.1. Jayapal (A1) was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and five years R.I. respectively.2. Saravanan (A2) and Siva @ Sivakumar (A3) were convicted for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 307 I.P.C. and each sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and five years R.I. respectively.Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.Originally, four accused were tried for these offences.At the commencement of trial, A.2 Selvam absconded.In the meantime, he made arrangement to send the material objects for chemical examination.Then, he handed over the case to P.W.14, another Inspector of Police for further investigation, since he was transferred.In the meantime, other accused surrendered before the Court.P.W.14 continued the investigation and ultimately, filed the charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 302 r/w 34 and 307 I.P.C.After the charges were framed, accused Selvam, who was originally arrayed as A.2, was absconding.During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined.P.1 to P.16 were filed and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they simply denied their complicity in the crime in question.On the side of the accused, Dr.Jebamani, who gave treatment to P.W.1, was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D.1 was marked through him.The trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence available on record, concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused thereunder.Hence, this appeal.Mr. M. Mohideen Basha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused, after taking us through the entire evidence, would contend the following:-" The materials available on record would not be sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offences with which they were charged.When the complaint Ex.P.1 was recorded by P.W.9 Head Constable from P.W.1 on 27.04.1996 at about 4.00 a.m., P.W.1 had undergone an operation and as such, the complaint Ex.P.1 could not have been obtained from P.W.1 by P.W.9 as is evident from the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex.The motive attributed by the prosecution is so flimsy and as such, there was no strong motive for murder.There are several contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the eye witnesses and various infirmities in the evidence adduced by other witnesses.Even assuming that the entire case of the prosecution is true, A.2 and A.3 could not be convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34, as they did not participate in the attack made on the deceased, there was no common intention and as such, they are liable to be convicted only for their individual acts, by which they caused injuries on P.W.1 and therefore, the conviction imposed upon A.2 and A.3 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 is liable to be set aside."In order to substantiate the above plea, he would cite the decisions rendered in Ramasamy Ayyangar v. State of T.N. (1976 SCC (Cri) 518), Jaspal Singh v. State of Haryana (1976 SCC (Cri) 615), Rajender Singh v. State of Bihar (2000 SCC (Cri) 796) and Chandrakant Murgyappa Umrani v. State of Maharashtra (A.I.R. 1999 SC 1557).In reply to the above submissions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor read out the relevant portions of the evidence and contended that the evidence let in by the prosecution would be sufficient to hold that the accused are guilty of the offences, with which they were charged.He would further submit that the prosecution evidence would clearly portray that the occurrence had taken place only in furtherance of the common intention.We have carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel on either side and also analysed the materials available on record.Furthermore, P.W.2 abused them questioning their act.P.W.2 informed the deceased and P.W.1, her sons about the eve-teasing incident.At about 8.00 p.m. on the same day, P.W.2 was proceeding to the hospital to serve food to her husband, followed by P.W.1 and deceased.At that time, accused 1 to 3 along with Selvam, the absconding accused, were sitting near P.W.3 Ramadoss Chettiar's shop.On noticing that P.W.2 was proceeding along the road, the accused persons stopped and questioned her as to how she could abuse them in the morning.When P.W.2 was answering to the accused, P.W.1 and the deceased came near her and reprimanded her as to why she was talking with those people, who had eve teased her in the morning.With reference to the above incidents PW1 and PW2 would speak to the details.Therefore, it is clear that on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 26.04.1996, in order to serve food to her husband at the hospital, P.w.2 went to the hospital and was coming back home after serving food.It was elicited from both P.Ws.1 and 2 in the cross-examination that P.W.2 informed about the eve teasing incident, and her scolding to both P.W.1 and the deceased.He gave treatment to PW.1 for the injuries found on his body.He sent intimation Ex.Thereafter, P.W.1 was referred to Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai for further treatment.Then, P.W.1 was taken to the said Hospital.In the meantime, P.W.9 Head Constable on receipt of intimations Exs.P.10 and P.11, went to Virudhunagar Government Hospital and thereafter, on coming to know that P.W.1 had been taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, went to the Hospital and obtained complaint Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 at about 4.00 a.m. These factors have been clearly revealed through the evidence of P.Ws.1 , 2, 4, 9, 11 and 12, through whom Exs.P.1, 13, 10 and 11 have been marked.On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, we are not able to find any ground to hold that their testimony would suffer from any infirmity.On the other hand, their evidence is cogent and creditworthy and their oral testimony has been amply corroborated in Medical evidence adduced by P.W.11 Doctor, who attended to P.W.1 and, the evidence by P.W.8, the Doctor, who conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased.In both the certificates Exs.It was contended on the strength of the evidence of D.W.1 Doctor and Ex.D.1 that P.W.1 would not have been conscious to give the complaint Ex.P.1 to P.W.9 as he sustained very serious injuries on his chest.This contention, in our view, is not tenable for the reason that P.W.11, the Doctor himself would state that P.W.1 told him that he was attacked by known persons with weapons near Ramadoss Chettiar's shop.A reading of the evidence of P.W.11 would make it clear that P.W.1 was conscious throughout.The Doctor D.W.1, who stated that he conducted operation at 1.30 a.m., did not state that he was unconscious thereafter.As a matter of fact, there was no cross examination with reference to the evidence of D.W.1, who stated in his chief examination that he admitted P.W.1 in the Government Rajaji Hospital.Similarly, no challenge was made in the cross examination of P.W.9 Head Constable with reference to the complaint received by him at 4.00 a.m.On the other hand, it has been suggested to PW.9 that he obtained thumb impression from P.W.1 at the relevant time in blank paper and the same has been filled up subsequently.It is true that the weapon had been recovered only from Selvam, the absconding accused and not from other accused.There is no explanation by the investigating officers as to why they did not take steps to obtain police custody of the other accused, who had surrendered themselves before the Court.Of course, this is a flaw on the part of the investigating officers.Further, the details of the injuries on P.W.1 as spoken to by P.W.11, the Doctor, have been corroborated by D.W.1, another Doctor, who conducted operation on him.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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.

There is only a vague statement that the deceased disclosed to his family members that his senior officers are harassing him.There is also reference to a diary in suicide note.The learned Counsel submits that taking the facts of the report on the face of it, the report fails to make out any case against the applicant to call for any action, least the action for committing an offence under the Indian Penal Code.Rule made returnable forthwith.Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.The applicant is before this Court seeking quashment of First Information Report vide Crime No. 82/2016 dated 10.03.2016 registered at Police Station, Washim City, Washim under Section 306 of the Indian Penal ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2017 01:31:49 ::: 2 apl560.16Code against the applicant.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2017 01:31:49 :::3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.It was observed by the President that the deceased was changing his stand from time to time and some times he was tendering the submission by misleading the authority or to suit the purpose.Thus, the President of Zilla Parishad arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was guilty of dereliction in his duties and issued direction to initiate a departmental enquiry against the deceased and also directed to take expeditious steps for suspension of the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2017 01:31:49 :::Shri Chande, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased was carrying a grudge against the senior officers in Zilla Parishad who were discharging their official duties.He then submits that in the FIR, the deceased named Extension Officers Palaskar and Ghuge and these two persons have already approached this Court by filing applications seeking quashment of FIR against them and by order dated 01.11.2017, this Court allowed the applications of these persons and the applicant is on better footings than these two persons.The learned Counsel also submits that the applicant was transferred from Malegaon Panchayat Samiti, District Washim by order dated 29th May, 2014 and is now working at Shefale, Tah.Atpadi, District Sangli.Thus, it is also the submission of learned Counsel that from year 2014 till the crime registered on 10.03.2016, the applicant had neither any concern nor had any authority to look into the affairs at Panchayat Samiti, Washim.Bhajanlal and others (reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC, 335), initiation of criminal prosecution and further continuation against the ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2017 01:31:49 ::: 4 apl560.16applicant is nothing else but an abuse of process of law.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2017 01:31:49 :::Smt. Jachak, the learned APP vehemently opposes the application.Learned APP, by relying on the reply filed by the State, submits that a reference was made in the FIR.It is interesting to note that the statement made against the applicant is that the applicant obtained the signatures of deceased forcibly in a work at Jamkhed and because of this harassment, the deceased committed suicide.The contra material stated above that the present applicant was transferred in the year 2014 and since then he had no occasion to play any official role in the affairs of Panchayat Samiti, Malegaon is also a fact which is of worth consideration.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2017 01:31:49 :::Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2017 01:31:49 :::

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioners put in appearance and thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time because copies of the documents had to be supplied to the petitioners and also they had to inspect the records.On 28th January 1980 Shri Jagmohan filed a reply to the aforesaid application for condensation of delay.His conclusions are contained in the following words : "Iam surprised as to why the prosecution has failed to file at least an affidavit to show its diligence on the aforesaid dates and period.So I find that because of this negligence of the prosecution it could not establish its diligence w.e.f. 31-12-78 to 16-7-79."Accordingly he passed the impugned order.

['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT F.S. Gill, J.All of them were tried together.Two separate appeals have been filed by Man Singh and Prem, while the third one has been jointly filed by Bale, Madan lal and Amar Nath.All the appellants were convicted by Shri B. B. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 15.6.1976 and were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment as stated below.(6) The houses of the parties are opposite to each other.(7) The prosecution case is that on 5.11.75 at about noon Chandu Lal (deceased) and Prem appellants had an altercation at a well near their houses.It is alleged that Prem had administered a danda blow on Chandu Lal's head.In retaliation Chandu had also given beatings to Prem.It is alleged that Nathu Ram, brother of Chandu Lal, had intervened and separated these persons.Both of them then went back to their houses.This incident was, however, not reported to the police.(8) On the same day at about 8 or 8.30 P.M. Chandu Lal was present in his house.At the same time Bale, his three sons, Prem, Madan and Amar Nath.and also his son-in-law, Man Singh, were also sitting in their courtyard.It is a alleged that then Prem, in a threatening tone, exhorted his companions to catch hold of Nathu and others.The actual words used were 'Salon ko pakar 1o." It is alleged that thereafter Bale caught hold of Chandu by his neck, while Madan Lal and Amar Nath then dragged him to their own courtyard.Immediately thereafter.On receiving these blows Chandu fell on the ground and started breeding profusely.Thereafter Prem and Man Singh set towards Padam Singh son of Nathu Ram and gave him 'chura' blows hitting his right portions of the ribs and chest.Padam Singh also could not stand the impact of those injuries.He pressed them with his hands and sat down there,.It is alleged that the entire incident was witnessed by Smt. Sharan Devi wife of Nathu Ram, Smt. Kunta Devi wife of Chadu Lal, Ram Pal, Dharam Singh and others.(10) After causing the various injuries all the appellants ran away from .the spot.Police Control Room was informed.It communicated the message to its van staff-and also to the Kashmere Gate Police.(11) Firstly of all the Police Control Room van reached the venue of the occurrence.The injured were immediately removed to lrwin Hospital.Chandu Lal succumbed to the injuries in the way.The Doctor declared him dead.The Doctor admitted Padam Singh injured but noted that he was not fit to make any statement.Nathu Ram was, however, rendered the requisite medical aid, but was discharged after his injuries were bandaged.(12) Inspector Barkat Ram of Kashmere Gate Police was deputed to investigate into the matter.He immediately reached the hospital and recorded the statement of Nathu Ram there.The said statement is Ex. Public Witness PW1/A. It was sent to the Police Station at 10.25 P.M. for the registration of a case.11 entered the chest cavity through 4th inter costal ' (left), went through the left upper lobe of lung.Under section 302/149 Indian Penal Code Imprisonment for life.Under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for six months.Under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for one year.Under Section 148 Indian Penal Code R.I. for one year.(2) Prem and Man Singh appellants were also convicted under section 27 read with section 25 of the Arms Act and were sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year each.(3) All the sentences awarded under various counts were, however, ordered to run concurrently.(4) Prem, Madan Lal and Amar Nath appellants are sons of Bale appellant.The fifth appellant, namely, Man Singh is the son-in-law of Bale.So all of them are very closely related to each other.(5) On the other hand Nathu Ram complainant is the brother of Chandu Lal deceased.Padam Singh Public Witness Public Witness is son of Nathu Ram.Both Nathu Ram and Padam Singh were also injured in the present occurrence.Only a narrow lane, which is hardly three or four feet wide, intervenes.IT is alleged that all these five persons started abusing Chandu Lal and complained that his people had beaten Prem, when he was all alone and that they would see to them all.At that juncture i.e. when threats were being held out to Chandu Lal, Nathu Ram, brother of Chandu Lal, who was also living in the upper protion of the same house, came downstairs.Meanwhile, Padam Singh son of Nathu also reached there.Chandu Lal asked Bale and others not to abuse them.It is alleged that Bale retorted by shouting that they would avenge the earlier incident.(9) Thereafter all the five appellants went to the courtyard of the house of Chandu Lal and Nathu Ram.Prem appellant, who was armed with a danda', entered first; while the remaining appellants followed him.Immediately on entering.Prem gave a 'danda' blow on Nathu's head..Man Singh appellant stabbed him with a 'chura', which struck him on the left side of his chest Prem appellant also gave a 'chura' blow to Chandu Lal causing minor injuries.On its basis F.I.R.Ex.PW15/Awas recorded under sections 302/307/147/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (13) Thereafter the Investiagating Officer reached the spot and took into possession various articles from there.He also prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for examination.The post-mortem examination was performed by Dr 'Bishnu Kumar on 6.11.75 at 2.10 P.M. The following injuries were found on the deadbody:-1.Incised wound 0 3x0.1 cm on the top of head in mid line in mid partietal region x partial scalp thickness deep.2.Incised wound 1.0 cm in the left outer partietal region 6.5 cm above left ear x partial scalp thickness deep.3.Abrasion 0.3x0.2 cm just above right eye brow middle rigion,4.Abrasion 0.2x 0.2 cm on the inner and on left eye brow.5.Abrasion 2.05 cm over right cheek bone prominence.6.Multiple small abrasions-scartches as if caused by nails on the right side of neck and anterior lateral surface in 5x4 cm area and a few of them are crescentic in shape.7.Multiple small abrasions scartches as if caused by nails on the left enterior lateral surface of neck in 6x4 cm area and two of these showed very distinct crescentic shape.8.Abrasion 2x0.5 cm on the back and upper part of right shoulder joint region.9.Abrasions 0.3 x 0.2 cm on the inner side on left elbow region.10.Abrasion 1.3 x 1.00 cm in the outer upper part of left shoulder joint region.lx 1.5 cm somewhat transverse on the left side front of chest with outer end being in the left anterior axillary line and 8 cm below anterior axillary fold in fourth inter costal space and chest cavity deep.It was directed medially, upwards and backwards slightly.12.Linear abrasion as if caused by a pointed object, transverse 4 x 0.2 cm just below left nipple 2 cm from it.13.Superficial incised wound 0.7x0.3 cm on the left side front of chest 2 cm above and inside left nipple.14.Linear abrasion as if caused by a pointed object 8 x O.I cm transversly oblique on the right side front of chest over 4th and 5th nibs region below nipple.Injuries Nos. 3,4,5,8,9, and 10 were stated to have been caused by some blunt object or surface; injuries Nos. 6 and 7 had been caused by hands, while the rest by sharp single edged weapon.Injury No. 11 was held to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.(14) All the five appellants were arrested by Inspector Barkat Ram.They were got medically examined.Some minor injuries were found on their persons.When Prem appellant was arrested his personal search was effected and 'chura' like knife EX.P. 6 recovered from him.It was taken into possession by preparing a recovery memo.Further, during the course of interrogation Man Singh appellant had made disclosure statement EX.PW9/E staling that he could get the 'chura' recovered from the house of Bale.At his instance 'Chura' EX.P4 was recovered from the place stated by him.It was also taken into possession by preparing a recovery memo.(15) After the completion of the investigation, the appellants were challaned in the court of a Magistrate, who committed them to Sessions.The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced them as already indicated in para 1 ibid.(16) The charges against all the appellants are under sections 302, 307 and 323 read with section 149 and also under sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code The elements of unlawful assembly have necessarily to be present in all these offences.To constitute an unlawful assembly there must be five or more persons? having one of the specified objects described in section 141 of the I.P.C. as their common object.The divergent views expressed by the parties before us are, however, about the 'common object'.According to all the three counsel appearing on behalf of the appellans the common object of their clients, at the most, was to assault the members of the other party.It was nothinig beyond this.But, on the other hand, the State Counsel's plea is that an unlawful assembly was formed at the spot, and that its common object was to commit simple assault on Nathu Ram and murderous assaults on Chandu Lal and Padam Singh.It was in pursuance of this common object of the unlawful assembly .that injuries were caused to Nathu Ram, Chandu Lal and Padam Singh.As a result of those injuries Chandu Lal died, while Padam Singh was lucky to survive.Nathu Ram got simple hurt.We will now see the force of arguments of both the sides in this regard.(18) So far as the formation of an unlawful assembly is concerned, it is amply proved from the statements of Nathu Ram, Padam Singh, Saran Devi, Kunta Devi, Rampal and Dharam Singh Public Witness PWs.Their evidence shows that after there has been exchange of hot words, all the appellants had gone to the courtyard of the house of Chandu Lal.At that time only Prem was armed with a lathi.It has already been pointed out earlier that the houses of both the parties face each other and that a very narrow lane, three or four feet in width, separates them.The courtyards of both the parties are also very small.So, virtually they were quite close to each other when tempers were high and excited.The appellants had gone to house of Chandu Lal they had any weapon excepting a lathi with Prem.After entering the courtyard Prem had given a lathi blow to Nathu Ram on his head.It was a simple injury.None of the appellants had shouted or othewise proclaimed to kill anyone.From the statements of the eye witnesses, it can safely be concluded that the common object of the appellants, when they had formed the unlawful assembly, was to cause simple hurt and not to cause the death of Chandu Lal or Padam Singh.(20) The evidence in this case shows that when all the appellants had gone to the courtyard of the deceased and his brother only Prem was armed with a stick, others were empty handed.There, Prem had administered a blow with his slick on Nathu Ram's head, resulting in simple hurt.Dharam Singh Public Witness Public Witness 9, another eye witness has also deposed that :- "THENBale caught hold of Chandu by 'Gireban' and Madan and Amar catching hold of his arms dragged him into the courtyard of their house.Man Singh then stabbed Chandu with the knife on the left side, while Prem stabbed him on the right side."This witness is an Assistant-Grade I in Food Corporation of India.He is a neighbour of Nathu Ram Public Witness PW.In the circumstances Dharam Singh is a natural witness.His name also appears in the F.I.R. which had been recorded with utmost promptitude.Secondly, Dharam Singh was not a stationary object.He could easily move from one place to the other to watch the incident from any angle.(33) Padam Singh Public Witness Public Witness 5 is an injured witness.He has stated that bids uncle Chandu Lal had been dragged by the appellants into their courtyard.As soon as he was taken there, Man Singh had taken out his knife and stabbed Chandu Lal.This witness has, no doubt, attributed the first stab injury to Man Singh, but.They too have expressly stated about giving of the first 'chura' below by Man Singh to Chandu deceased, but they have not mentioned the seat of the injury.She has deposed that Amar and Madan Lal had caught hold of her husband from two sides and had dragged him into their courtyard.She has further stated that immediately thereafter Man Singh had stabbed him on the right side of the stomach, while Prem had also stabbsd him on the right side of his stomach.She has stated that the blow had struck on the right side of her husband's stomach, while the subsequent blow given by Prem had also hit the same part.According to her, no blow was given on the left side of the chest.We feel that this witness, being the wife of the victimi must have been perplexed and unhinged with the course of events, which had suddenly developred and had engulfed her own husband.The medical evidence shows that there was only one simple injury on the right side of the chest ofthe deceased.It was a linear abrasion 8 x O.1 cm transversly oblique.From the evidence we notice that when Prem had gone to the house of the deceased along with others he was armed with a lathi only.He had not caused any injury to the deceased, as the lathi blow administered by him was to Nathu Ram alone.Thereafter Chandu Lal was dragged from his own house to that of the appellants.(36) In their own courtyard, Man Singh had abruptly taken out the 'chura' and had given the fatal blow to Chandu Lal on the left side of his chest.Came out at its hilum where it cut the bronchial vessels and then entered the left auricle recess.The total depth of this injury in lung tissue was 6.5 cm while the total depth of the injury from skin up to the finish was 8.9 cm, Lung showed injury as mentioned above and the entrance wound measured 2.06 cm and exit wound 2.3 cm.Left lung was partially collapsed and blood approximately 1.5 to 2 litres was present in the left chest cavity.Left auricle of the heart showed a small cut 0.6 cm in its apprendage."(37) On the other hand, the injuries caused by Prem to the deceased were simple in nature.Community of design on the part of Man Singh and Prem to murder Chandu Lal has not been established.There is not evidence to show any kind of exhoriation or raising of lalkara' on the part of Prem, at any state, prompting Man Singh to cause the injuries.It is also not stated by any of the witnesses that Prem had caught hold of the deceased when Man Singh had given the fatal injury.(38) As already pointed out earlier, Prem had only a lathi with him when all the five had gone to the courtyard of Chandu Lal.The distance between the two houses is very small.As soon as Chandu Lal was brought to the appellants' house, Man Singh had immediately taken out the 'chura' and caused the injury.There was never meeting of minds to cause the death.In our view both Man Singh and Prem had never developed a common intention to murder Chandu Lal.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has, therefore, no application.Thus each one is liable for his individual act and not for any vicarious liability.(39) The injuries caused by Prem to Chandu Lal were simple in nature.(c.f. statement of Dr. Bishnu Kumar).This appellant is, therefore, merely liable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing simple hurt to Chandu Lal with a sharp edged weapon.(40) So far as Man Singh is concerned, he had given the fatal blow on the vital part of the body of the deceased.Injury No. 11, already described in detail, was caused by this appellant.The doctor has stated that this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The act of Man Singh thus fully falls under clause 'thirdly of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code The charge of murder against this appellant is, therefore, abundantly proved by the statements of Nathu Ram, Dharam Singh and other eye witnesses.Man Singh's conviction under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code is accordingly converted to one under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (41) There is also a charge under section 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code against all the appellants for attempting to murder Padam Singh.It has already been held that it was never the common object of the unlawful assembly to murder Padam Singh.So the charge under section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Padam Singh cannot be sustained.Bale, Madan Lal and Amar Nath had not caused any injury to Padam Singh.They are, therefore, absolved of any direct or constructive liability and deserve to be acquitted.(42) The next question is about the liability of the remaining two appellants namely, Man Singh and Prem, as, according to the prosecution witnesses, both of them had caused injuries to Padam Singh.He had found the following injuries on his person:-1.Stab wound 1" x 1/2" x? just medial to right nipple."2.Small cut in scalp.3.Linear abrasion about 2" long on the right side in axillary line.4.Stab wound right side chest.The medico legal report is EX.Public Witness PW20/A. The nature of the injuries was not given by this doctor.He has deposed that he had examined Padam Singh, whose medico legal certificate is EX.Public Witness Public Witness 20/A and had assessed his injury as grievous.This he had indicated at point X in green ink on the said certificate.Which of the four injuries was grievous in nature, has not been stated by Dr. Pershad.(43) The eye witnesses have also not stated as to which injury was caused by Man Singh and which by Prem appellant.It is also not proved that any common intention had developed in the minds of these two appellants at any time to murder Padam Singh.In the absence of any such intention they cannot be held jointly liable for the various injuries caused to Padam Singh.They will, therefore, be responsible for their individual acts.(44) No doubt the medico-legal report shows that one of the injaries caused to Padam Singh was grievous in nature but who had caused the same is not proved on record.We accordingly alter their conviction from one under section 307/149, Penal Code, to that one under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (45) Man Singh and Prem appellant have also been convicted and sentenced under the Arms Act. The eye witnesses have stated that Man Singh was in p3ssession of a 'chura', while Prem had a 'chari' like a knife, when they had caused injuries to Chandu Lal and Padam Singh.Inspector Barkat Ram Public Witness PW29,who had effected the search has fully corroborated this fact.Similarly the recovery of 'chura' EX.P4 at the instance of Man Singh appellant is proved by the statements of Rattan Lal and Inspector Barkat Ram Public Witness PWs.The trial court was thus fully justified in holding Man Singh and Prem guilty under section 27 read with section 25 of the Arms Act. We maintain their convictions and sentences.The result of the above discussion is that .-1.Convictions of all the apppellants under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code are maintained, but their sentences are reduced to a period of six months each.2.All the appellants are acquitted of the charge under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code Their convictions and sentences under this count are set aside.3.The convictions and sentences of all the appellants under section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt to Nathu Ramas members of the unlawful assembly are confirmed.302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Chandu Lal.His imprisonment for life, as passed by the tiral court, is maintained.(b) Prem appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code , but is convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt to Chandu Lal deceased and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years.(e) Bale, Madan Lal and Amar Nath appellants are acquitted of the charges under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code Their convictions and sentences are set aside.5.(a) Bale, Madan Lal and Amar Nath appellants are acquitted of the charges under section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit the murder of Padam Singh.Their convictions and sentences are set-aside.(b) Convictions of Man Singh and Prem awarded under section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code are converted to one under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to R.I. for a period of two years each.The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The facts of the case are as follows:On 23.03.2006 at about 19.30 hours, petitioner, who was the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.This revision arises against two concurrent judgments of Courts below convicting petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and sentencing him to 6 months S.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 1 week S.I. for offence u/s.304-A IPC.TN.34D-3241, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit a person, who was riding a TVS Moped bearing Registration No.TN-28K-9255, resulting in his death.A case was registered in Crime No.325 of 2006 on the file of respondent.Upon completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet, the case was tried in C.C.No.301 of 2006 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode.3.Before trial Court, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and 8 exhibits were marked.None were examined on behalf of defence.Trial Court, under judgment dated 01.09.2009, convicted petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and sentenced him to 6 months S.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 1 week S.I. for offence u/s.304-A IPC.Hence, this revision.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.It is admitted by PW1, who has spoken to being an eye witness to the occurrence that deceased met with accident in his attempt to overtake the bus and thus came into contact with bus driven by this petitioner from the opposite direction.It is the further evidence of PW1 that both deceased and his vehicle i.e.TVS Moped went totally under the bus driven by petitioner.The position suggests petitioner/bus driver had no time to react towards avoiding the accident.In the circumstances, the reason afforded by Courts below that if petitioner had shown some caution and care, the accident could have been avoided is unjustified.The benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the petitioner.C.T.SELVAM, JkalThis Criminal Revision Petition shall stand allowed.

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

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

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.53 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent Police, for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition Harassment of Women Act, 2002, as against the petitioners.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.53 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition Harassment of Women Act, 2002, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent Police submitted that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2016, the first respondent Police is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.53 of 2016 and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.15.10.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsg Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.20374 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.1.The Inspector of Police, Palugal Police Station, Kanyakumari District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Crl.O.P(MD) No.20374 of 2016 and Crl.M.P (MD) No.10314 of 2016 15.10.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6

['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.

The above said persons well aware that they have no right over the said property and manipulated the above said forged sale deed.The purchaser Srinivasavarathan died and his legal heirs claiming right and title to the above said property under the said forged sale deed.3.Originally the petitioner herein purchased the above said property from one Ambulu ammal.The instant criminal revision is filed as against the dismissal of the petitioners private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.She filed a suit against the deceased Srinivasavarathan in O.S.No.366 of 1966 and the same was decreed in favour of Ambulu ammal.After the above said Judgment, the father of the respondents herein knowing full well that they have no semblance of right over the property in S.No.1175/4 created the above said forged sale deed.The respondents 3 to 8 herein were kept silent till the death of their father Srinivasavarathan and after his demise they claim right over the said property.The Inspector of Police has registered the case in Cr.No.12 of 2007 on 09.05.2007 against the above said persons for the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC only after the direction obtained from this Honble Court in Crl.The said complaint was investigated and closed as mistake of fact after filing referred charge sheet.The final report filed by the Inspector of Police, DCB was accepted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram against which the petitioner has filed the protest petition and the same was enquired into and ultimately dismissed by order dated 08.04.2010 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram.Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner herein filed Crl.O.P.No.1244 of 2010 before this Honble Court and this Honble Court by order dated 09.12.2013 disposed the same with an observation that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate court to file a private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the petitioner herein filed the present private compliant under Section 200 of CrPC in Crl.O.P.No.472 of 2014 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram.Being aggrieved over the same the present civil revision is filed.5.I heard Mr.21.In the result:(a) this Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside the order passed in C.M.P.No.472 of 2014 dated 03.03.2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram;(d) the complainant is directed to give his fullest co-operation for passing orders by the learned Magistrate within the stipulated period fixed by this Court.No costs.06.03.2018vsInternet:Yes/NoIndex:Yes/NoToThe Judicial Magistrate No.I,Kancheepuram.

['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR was got registered by the victim herself under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C. and SC/ST Act on 17.12.2018 against the appellant and two named persons with the allegation that the victim is employee in polyclinic, the appellant and other two persons have abused her by caste and assaulted her.The appellant had forcibly administered poison substance to her and on account of which she became unconscious and thereafter with the help of other employees of the hospital where she was provided treatment.Learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and could not dispute the aforementioned facts.I have perused the injury report of the victim.The doctor has opined that it is of suspected case of poisoning by four persons and all the offences is triable by the Magistrate.The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, 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 appellant has made out a case for bail.Let the appellant- Guddu Shukla, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 APPELLANT 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 APPELLANT 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 APPELLANT 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 APPELLANT 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 APPELLANT 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 APPELLANT 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 APPELLANT 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.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.Impugned order dated 27.05.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act Kaushambi, is hereby set aside.Order Date :- 28.11.2019 v.k.updh.

['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

..... For the Petitioner Mr. Arun Kumar Maity, Adv.Mr. Rita Datta, Adv...... For the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is in custody for 26 days.It is further submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned Advocate for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for bail.We have considered the materials on record and bearing in mind the nature of allegations in the light of the submission made 2 on behalf of the petitioner and in view of the extent of complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia, Purba Midnapore on condition that he shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.He shall appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing and in the event he fails to do so, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail without further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, thus, allowed.Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon compliance of usual formalities.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the Charge Sheet inC.C.No.31 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,Tiruchendur.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, thefirst respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2018 for theoffence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC., against thepetitioner herein.After filing charge sheet, the same has been taken on filein C.C.No.31 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,Tiruchendur.Now, for quashing the said C.C.No.31 of 2018, the petitioner andthe defacto complainant are before this Court on the ground that they havearrived at a compromise.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing,Mr.C.Pachamal, the Sub Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station,Thoothukudi District, is present.The defacto complainant and the petitionerare present and their identifications were also verified by this Court, inaddition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learnedGovernment Advocate (Criminal side) through Mr.C.Pachamal, the Sub Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Thoothukudi District.Thesecond respondent also filed an affidavit to that effect.The relevantportions of the said joint memo of compromise is extracted hereunder:In the meantime, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent enteredinto a compromise in the presence of elders.The parties have further entered into the compromisememo only on their own volition.The 2nd respondent herein alsofiled a separate affidavit to that effect.?In Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.406, 530 and 864 of 2016 (Prabu and othersvs.State Rep. By The Inspector of Police and others), decided on 28.01.2016,this Court considered the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in this regard in several cases, namely, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjaband another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC675], Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Narinder Singh and othersvs.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.After making payment, acopy of the challan shall be furnished to the Registrar (Administration),Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Note to office:Registry is directed to mark a copy of this orderto the Registrar (Administration),Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.The Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur.The Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Thoothukudi District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

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

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

The key was said to be lying in the courtyard.When the room was unlocked, they found that Indubala's clothes were lying there.As Premwati asked them to wait till the evening, they waited.JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.Heard learned Counsel for the applicants in the aforesaid criminal application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and the said two connected criminal revisions, and the learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.The criminal application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of Smt. Pushpa Devi and Smt. Premwati is being disposed of along with Crl.Revision No. 866 of 1988, moved on behalf of Chunni Lal, Pushpa Devi (again) and Ramesh and Crl.Revision No. 867 of 1988 moved on behalf of Premwati (again) and Satish.Revision No. 866 of 1988 and connected Crl.Revision No. 867 of 1988 was filed on 7.7.1988 when further proceedings in S.T. Ho.871 of 1987 pending in the Court of IV Addl.However, in spite of notice, opposite party No. 2 has not put in appearance in this case.It appears that the criminal application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the applicants, Pushpa Devi and Premwati, even though they were the revisionists in two earlier criminal revisions, in Order to obviate any controversy about maintainability of the revisions against the Orders framing the charge.The basic prayer in the application and the criminal revisions was for quashing the charges against the applicants under Section 302 read with Sections 120B and 498A, I.P.C. Learned Counsel for the applicants states that so far as Satish, husband of the deceased Smt. Indu Bala, who is one of the applicants in Criminal Revision No. 867 of 1988, is concerned, he is not pressing the revision on his behalf.Also, so far as the other accused are concerned, he is not objecting to framing of the charges under Section 498A, I.P.C, but only prays that no charge under Section 120B read with Section 302, I.P.C. should be framed.Indubala's natal family had given more than Rs. 40,000/- by way of dowry, but Satish Chandra, his mother Premwati, his brother-in-law (bahnoi) Chunni Lal were not satisfied with the dowry and they were demanding a motorcycle, a steel almirah and Rs. 10,000/- cash, in addition.They had beaten up the niece Indubala of the informant, Nand Prakash, on several occasions.On 25.6.1987 Satish Chandra, his mother Smt. Premwati and brother-in-law Chunni Lal gave a beating to Indubala and turned her out of their home and told her to come back only with Rs. 10,000/-.On intervention of certain family members, and on their assurances that they would give the dowry items demanded, Satish, his brother-in-law Chunni Lal, sister Pushpa, the mother Premwati, took Indubala back.But, again they brought her back to her maika (wife's parents' home) within an hour.On 21.8.1987, Chunni Lal, Pushpa and one Ramesh Chandra (bahnoi of Chunni Lal), came to the house of the informant and took back Indubala after assuring them that they would not bear her again and would not make any further dowry demands.On 25.8.1987, Chunni Lal and Pushpa are said to have come to the informant to inform him that Satish and Indubala had become traceless.When the informant reached Satish Chandra's house along with Jai Prakash and Pramod and made an inquiry from Premwati, she is said to have disclosed that Indubala had been taken away by Satish Chandra and Ramesh Chandra and they had locked their room.At about 11 or 12 noon, Satish Chandra returned home on 26.8.2004, but he refused to give any information about the whereabouts of Indubala.From this, the informant concluded that Satish Chandra, in conspiracy with Chunni Lal, his wife Pushpa and Ramesh and his mother had removed Indubala or killed her and disposed of her deadbody.On basis of the aforesaid FIR and statements of the witnesses, the charges were framed under Sections 498A and 302 read with 120B, I.P.C. by the learned IV Addl.Sessions Judge, Aligarh, on 26.5.1988, which have been challenged in this application.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It was alleged that the prosecutrix, a minor girl of tender age was admitted in the Hospital and her medical certificate was obtained.The prosecutrix's father's statement was recorded; he stated that his daughter aged 4 years, was playing with one neighbour Kishan on the rooftop around 5:30 PM on the relevant date.His neighbour Chatri Devi brought the prosecutrix who was weeping; on enquiry he found blood on her undergarments.She was unable to disclose anything to her father as she was frightened.In these circumstances, she was taken to Hospital where the prosecutrix's father learnt that she has been Crl.L.P. 9/2011 Page 1 of 5 raped.The Police investigated the allegation against the accused/ respondent and sent him for trial.Charges were framed.L.P. 9/2011 Page 4 of 5 parts, which resulted into bleedings per vagina.Respondent entered the plea of not guilty and claimed trial.L.P. 9/2011 Page 1 of 5The prosecution relied mainly on the testimony of victim and PW-19 the IO of the case, as well as the father's deposition.After considering the evidence on the record, the Trial Court acquitted the respondent of the rape charge.The relevant part of the discussion is as follows: -On the basis of question/ answer put to the witness by the Ld.Predecessor of this court, the child being of tender age was not examined on Oath.In her deposition, the prosecutrix has deposed that one day she was playing on the roof and she was living at the time on the ground floor and that she knew the accused Rajender Mandal as he was residing on the upper floor of her house and that the accused told her that he would give her a chocolate and thereafter she went to the accused and the accused put his hand over her vagina and due to which there was bleeding and that one Kishan, her neighbor, was also playing on the roof who informed her that there was bleeding from her person and that the accused did wrong act with her by putting his hand over her private parts where there was bleeding and that her parents were present at the house to whom she told about the incident and that she was wearing underwear and the shirt which she identified as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 respectively.In her cross-examination, she was asked about her tutoring to which she denied.She could not tell as to how she came down to the ground floor after the incident.She replied that she did not know any lady by the name of Chatri Devi.Her said deposition has been corroborated by PW2 namely Kishan who deposed that he and the prosecutrix were playing on the roof of the house and he knew the accused present in court but he did not know the name of the accused and that the accused lifted the prosecutrix and took her in the room and that he (the witness) remained on the roof and that when the prosecutrix came out from the room, he saw bleeding over her leg and she was taken by her mother.In his cross-examination also nothing came on the surface against his deposition being false.L.P. 9/2011 Page 2 of 5However, a female may be a child of tender age, she may be under anesthesia, she may be of unsound mind, but no person has a right to outrage the modesty of the female.The female possesses the modesty by virtue of her birth as a female and as such, it cannot be contended against her that she was a child not understanding the modesty.The learned APP for the State argued that the prosecutrix was so scared of the incident that when she was produced before the learned Metropolitan Crl.L.P. 9/2011 Page 3 of 5 Magistrate (Mr. Vinod Yadav PW-17) to record her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she was crying and her statement could not be recorded.The learned APP argued that the medical evidence, i.e. MLC Ex. PW-10/A shows tear introitus (L) side, the prosecutrix was found bleeding per vagina, which would be sufficient to hold the respondent guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.L.P. 9/2011 Page 3 of 5This is true that as per the MLC Ex. PW-10/A, the doctor found a small tear over introitus.The prosecutrix was also found bleeding per vagina.Dr. Renu Sehghal, who examined the prosecutrix opined that an attempt to sexual assault could not be ruled out.When the prosecutrix was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she was found crying.Considering her tender age (of about 4 years) she was not found fit to make statement.The Metropolitan Magistrate observed that even with a reference to the mama (nick name of the respondent) the proseuctrix went into a state of shock and started weeping uncontrollably.To form an opinion regarding commission of an offence of sexual assault the Court has to correlate the testimony of the prosecutrix with the medical evidence.The prosecutrix as PW-1 stated "One day I was playing on the roof.I live on the ground floor.I know accused Rajender Mandal present in the court.He lives on the upper floor of my house.The accused told me that he would give me chocolate then I went to accused.The accused put his hand over my vagina and due to which there was bleeding.One Kishan, my neighbourer was also playing on the roof.He told me that there was bleeding from my person.The accused did wrong act with me by putting his hand over my private parts which there was bleeding.My parents were present in our house.I told them the incident, as narrated by me".Thus, the prosecutrix had described the act of respondent to be "wrong act" as the respondent had put his hand on the private Crl.In Sakshi v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 3566, the Supreme Court observed that all forms of penetration such as penile/ vaginal penetration, penile/ oral penetration, penile/ anal penetration, finger/ vaginal and finger/ anal penetration and object/ vaginal penetration could not be interpreted to include within the provisions of Section 375 IPC.On the basis of the observations of the Supreme Court in Sakshi v. Union of India, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill 2000 has been prepared, which is pending consideration before the Parliament.Thus, the trial court rightly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to find that the respondent had committed the offence of rape, as alleged by the prosecution.The State has to seek leave to prefer an appeal.The standard for entertaining and granting leave has been presented and applied for over five or more decades.The Court has to be satisfied that there is a substantial error or there should be a compelling reason to take a second look into the impugned judgment.Having regard to the overall circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the findings of the trial court regarding the guilt of accused/ respondent on the charge of having committed rape has not been made out, is correct.The petition, for these reasons has to fail, and is dismissed.S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J G. P. MITTAL, J APRIL 18, 2011/hs Crl.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

...Petitioners.Mr. Tapodip Gupta, Mr. P. S. Mondal ...for the Petitioners.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that charge sheet has been filed under a lesser offence, namely, Section 376 /511 of the Indian Penal Code.It is further submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

2.The Chief Engineer/DistributionVellore RegionVellore-6 K.CHANDRU,J.(sal)W.P.NO.16893/2007 andM.P.No.1/2007 24.10.2007It is not necessary that any misconduct of an Electricity Board employee must relate to Prevention of Corruption Act alone.Even other offences such as bigamy have been made as part of the Conduct Rules applicable to Electricity Board employees.The said criminal offence under 17(f)(iv)is wider in scope.

['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

At the time of engagement there was no demand from the side of the petitioner's family but father of the 2 Cr.899/2019 prosecutrix had offered that he shall spend a sum of Rs.10-15 Lakhs in the marriage but thereafter father of the petitioner started demanding Rs.40 Lakhs.No.1/State.This Criminal Revision has been filed under the provisions of Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, District Gwalior in Session trial No.440/2018, whereby the charge under Section 376(2) (n) of IPC has been framed against the petitioner.They were going for a love marriage when with the intervention of the family members they were engaged.

['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER V. Kanagaraj, J.The above Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in C.C. No. 8431 of 2002 on the file of the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and quash the same.The petitioners, who are the husband and wife and respectively aged 76 and 68 years, are the accused before the Court below in the said criminal case, which was registered on the complaint lodged by one Dr. A.G. Manimekalai for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 405 and 383 r/w. 384 IPC.The allegations against the petitioners are that during the year 1988-89, the informant Dr. A.G. Manimekalai purchased a house property at Door No. 28, Krishna Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-17 through the first petitioner, who is a broker, and in order to settle the full amount for the purchased property, the first petitioner induced the informant to obtain a sum of Rs.3,50,000/= from him after obtaining the original title deed and a written letter from the informant in the name of his wife i.e. the second petitioner; that the first petitioner promised that whenever the informant settled the said amount at once, he would return the title deed as well as the letter of deposit given to his wife, the second petitioner, but, even after the final payment was effected on 6.3.1991 and in spite of the informant requesting the petitioners to return the original title deed and the letter of deposit, both the petitioners returned only the title deed but not the letter of deposit under a false pretext that it might have been lost and also threatened the informant and her father over phone and in person several times and also through some unknown persons in filthy language with intent to refuse and conceal the letter of deposit and to create certain forged documents and thus caused wrongful loss to the informant.The said complaint of the informant was investigated into by the respondent police and also filed a final report in C.C. No. 8431 of 2002 before the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, which is pending trial.At this stage, the petitioners/accused have come forward to file the above criminal original petition to quash the said criminal proceedings.In the above petition, the petitioners would submit that the informant did not repay the amount borrowed by her and hence the second petitioner filed a suit in C.S. No. 550/2001 on the file of this Court for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,58,000/= and evading summons in the said suit, as a counter-blast, the informant had lodged a false complaint with the respondent; that they filed a petition to quash the FIR in Crl.The learned single Judge has further directed the investigating agency to complete the investigation within a month from the date of the said order.Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that the offence under Section 406 IPC is punishable for a term which may extend to three years and the offence under Section 384 IPC is punishable for a term which may extend to two years; that the complaint was given on 21.12.2001 and the alleged occurrence took place between 15.7.1989 and 6.3.1991 and therefore a complaint on 21.12.2001 is beyond the period of limitation as set out under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and therefore the Court below could not have taken cognizance of the matter; that the complaint for non-return of letter of deposit was stated for the first time after filing of the suit for recovery of the amount based on the letter of deposit and even then, the return of letter of deposit will not come within the purview of Section 405 IPC since the provision contemplates entrustment of a property moveable or immoveable dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use and therefore the complaint and other statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not make out a case under Section 406 IPC.; that the offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out also because there was no demand from the complainant and the question is open for adjudication in the civil suit.The petitioners would further submit that in spite of the observation of this Court to the effect that `I do not think that the offence of criminal breach of trust has been made out' and the direction was to investigate only with reference to the threatening calls said to have been made by the first petitioner, the charge under Section 406 IPC is laid against them, in violation of the observation of this Court; that the allegation of threatening phone calls to the complainant and her father are vague in the sense that no date and time of receiving threatening calls were mentioned and they relate only to the first petitioner and excepting the self-serving statements of the complainant, her father, her husband and her employee, there is no other material for confirming the making of threatening calls and even if the said allegation about the threatening calls is true, it will not make out a case under Section 384 IPC since mere threat will not constitute an offence under Section 384 IPC.On such submissions, the petitioners would pray for the relief extracted supra.Though no petition has been filed to implead the informant Dr. A.G. Manimekalai as the intervener in the above proceedings, Mr. B.S. Gnanadesikan appeared on her behalf and argued the matter, thereby making all efforts to substantiate the complaint lodged by the informant with the police and the final report filed, after investigation, by the respondent police.At this juncture, the petitioners have come forward to file the above criminal original petition praying for the relief extracted supra which is nothing but the same as prayed for in the previous Crl.

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The defence counsel submits the petitioner runs Educare Services, the licence of which is in the name of his father.The said institute sends candidates to appear in the B.Ed.C.R.M. 1496 of 2016 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.02.2016 in connection with Moynaguri Police Station Case No. 438 of 2015 dated 14.9.2015 under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.Apprehending arrest in connection with Moynaguri Police Station Case No. 438 of 2015 dated 14.9.2015 under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Letter dated 16.7.2015 be kept on record.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3

['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 prosecution's case, in short, is that on 9.10.1994 at about 6.00 p.m in the evening the victim Hari Lodhi (PW1) was sitting in his house situated at Village Barme, Police Station Kudila, District Tikamgarh.The victim was called by the respondents and thereafter, they assaulted the victim by sticks.He sustained so many injuries on his 2 Criminal Appeal No.566 of 1999 body.A Dehati Nalishi was recorded on 10.10.1994 and thereafter, a case was registered at Police Station, Kudila.The victim was sent for his medico legal examination and treatment.Dr. S. C. Gupta PW7) examined the victim Hira and found five blunt injuries on his body at various places like right index finger, left upper arm, right upper arm, left back and chest.He gave his report Ex.P/3 and referred the victim for his X-Ray examination.A fracture of metacarpal bone was found to the victim.(Delivered on the 6th day of November, 2012) The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 14.9.1998 passed by the learned Second Judicial Magistrate, Class IInd, Tikamgarg Shri A. A. Ansari in Criminal Case No.520/1994 whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.After due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court.The respondents abjured their guilt.They took a specific plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity.Actually the victim Hira was suffering from the disease of leprosy and therefore, nobody was permitting him to sit with others.In a quarrel of bullocks the victim sustained injuries and thereafter due to enmity he falsely implicated the respondents.In defence Nathu (DW1), Jalam (DW2) and Pancham (DW3) were examined.The learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Tikamgarh after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted the respondents from all the charges.During the pendency of this appeal the respondents no.1 and 2 have expired and therefore, their names were deleted from the title of this appeal.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.Criminal Appeal No.566 of 1999The learned Panel Lawyer for the State has submitted that the victim sustained a fracture of metacarpal bone and it was established that he was assaulted by the respondents and therefore, the respondents are required to be convicted and sentenced in an appropriate manner.The testimony of the witness Hira Lodhi (PW1) and Rampal (PW2) was acceptable which was duly corroborated by the medical report.On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Hira could not know that who assaulted him and therefore, he lodged a delayed FIR at Police Station Kudila where a dispute took place between the complainant and the respondents four days prior to the incident.In FIR he mentioned that the incident took place about 6.00 p.m in the evening whereas he admitted in his cross examination that it was dark at the time of incident and he could not see the culprits.Therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the respondents.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is to be considered as to whether the appeal filed by the State can be accepted and the respondents can be convicted and sentenced for any offence.Hira (PW1) and Rampal (PW2) have stated that the respondents assaulted the victim Hira.Hira has stated that Ramesh assaulted him by a lohangi and Ramcharan by a stick causing him injuries on his fingers and head.He has also 4 Criminal Appeal No.566 of 1999 stated that due to the assault caused by the respondent Bhagwandas, he sustained an injury in his right thumb.Rampal (PW2) has accepted that the respondents were torturing him and his father, due to that disease.Rampal could not tell as to why a report was not lodged in the early morning of the next day.He has accepted that since there was darkness at the time of incident he could not see that which of the assault caused by a particular respondent caused the particular injury to his father.Similarly, the victim Hira could not see that whose assault caused a particular injury on his body.He has accepted in para 5 of his statement that there was darkness at the time of incident and therefore, he could not see that who started the assault or by a particular assault he sustained injury at a particular organ.Dr. S. C. Gupta (PW7) has proved his MLC report Ex.P/3 by which he found 4-5 blunt injuries to the victim whereas Doctor Keshav Singh (PW8) after his radiolgical examination gave his report Ex.He found him a fracture of a second metacarpal bone.It is true that the victim sustained grievous injuries in the incident but, it is pertinent 5 Criminal Appeal No.566 of 1999 to note in this case that the prosecution did not prove the FIR lodged by the complainant.Dehati Nalishi which was lodged by the complainant Hira was not produced in original before the trial Court and therefore, neither it could be proved in the evidence of the complainant Hira nor in the evidence of the Officer who recorded the Dehati Nalishi.Similarly, the FIR lodged on the basis of the Dehati Nalishi was not at all proved.However, these documents are documents of the prosecution and therefore, they can be read in favour of the accused persons.According to the Dehati Nalishi incident took place on 9.10.1994 at about 6.00 p.m whereas the Dehati Nalishi was recorded on 10.10.1994 at about 2.20 p.m i.e 20 hours after the incident.No reason has been shown about its delay either by the complainant Hira or the witness Rampal.It is strange that the time of incident is mentioned to be 6.00 p.m in the Dehati Nalishi whereas Hira and Rampal have accepted that they could not see the actions of the respondents due to darkness.It appears that the complainant Hira was interested to lodge a named FIR therefore, a wrong time of incident was mentioned in the Dehati Nalishi.Also Hira has stated that accused Bhagwandas assaulted him on his thumb and Ramcharan assaulted him by a stick.He did not say anything about respondent Raghunath.He has stated in an omnibus manner that respondent Ramesh assaulted him by a lohangi but, he could not say that he sustained any injury by that assault.At present the respondents Bhagwandas and Ramcharan have expired and therefore, it was for the prosecution to prove the overt acts of the respondent Ramesh and Raghunath.Neither the victim Hira nor the witness Rampal could say anything about the assault of the respondent Raghunath and therefore, if it is presumed that the complainant could see the respondent then still it is not proved at all that the respondent Raghunath assaulted the victim Hira and therefore, he could not be convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 or 323 of I.P.C.Similarly looking to the doubtful evidence of the complainant Hira and Rampal along with the delayed report, a doubt is created as to whether the respondent Ramesh assaulted the victim Hira or not and therefore, a benefit of 7 Criminal Appeal No.566 of 1999 doubt is to be given to the respondent Ramesh.He cannot be convicted for offence punishable under Sections 325 or 323 of I.P.C. Hence the learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Class has rightly acquitted the respondents no.3 and 4 from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.The appeal filed by the State cannot be accepted.

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

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

As per the case of the prosecution, Mohar Singh (PW-1) presented a complaint on dated 24-11-2004 at around 10 am vide Ex.P-1 that he is resident of Village Amodachak and in the vicinity of the Village, a well is placed and the land of complainant-Mohar Singh and accused Bhagirath are just adjacent to it.One day prior to the date of incident, discussion took place between Bhagirath and him about the time of pump irrigation and it was agreed upon, that Bhagirath would keep his pump later on for irrigation.On 24-11-2004, deceased Kadori and Nannu were keeping their pump for irrigation over the well and Gulab Bai (PW-3), Ramkali (PW-7) and his mother Dropdi Bai were irrigating the field whereas complaint was at home.Suddenly, from the well, screaming of the deceased Kadori and Nannu was raised which prompted the complainant alongwith Maharam (PW-2) and Ramsingh (PW-4) to run to the spot where they saw Bhagirath wielding Kulhadi (axe) Shivua with Farsa, Pooran with Stick and Mohar Singh with Iron Rod, Vijay with Farsa and Rakesh, Prem Singh and Ghanshyam with Sticks and with intention to kill Kadori, they started beating him.Manori caused blow of axe over the head of the Kadori, Shivua gave blow of Farsa over his head and Vijay also given blow of Farsa to Kadori.With the blows, Kadori fell down over the ground and blood started oozing.To kill his brother Nannu, Manori gave blow of axe over his head whereas Shivua wielded farsa on which Nannu also fell down over the ground and blood started oozing.Kadori who was lying over ground, beaten by the Moongalal, Rakesh and Prema by lathis over his legs and chest whereas Nannu was beaten by Ghanshyam, Mohar Singh, Moongalal and Prema by lathi and iron rod and also by fists on his stomach.Phoolbai, Kalabai also participated by throwing stones over deceased Kadori and Nannu.Complainants' sister in law (Bhabhi) Gulab Bai, Ramkali and Mother Dropdi Bai also received stones and when complainant intercepted, then with intention to kill, Shivua with the help of farsa and Mohar Singh with iron rod had beaten him up.3 Cr.Phoolbai, Gulabbai through stones and Vijay through handle of farsa given blows over his right buttock.Maharam, Ram Singh were also beaten up when intercepted.At the time of incident, Jagannath, Bharat Singh (DW-1), Mungalal (PW-8), Vishna, Munna, Gulabbai and Halkai were also present and witnessed the incident.After the assault, accused persons exhorting and hurling abusive language escaped from the spot.Town Inspector-Shri D.P. Ahirwar (PW-11) registered the marg intimation report vide Ex.P-45 for decased Kadori and vide Ex.P-46 for deceased Nannu and deceased were taken to the hospital but they found dead and intimation was given to Police Station.Naksha Panchayatnama was prepared vide Ex.P-8 for decased Kadori and vide Ex.(Pronounced on 29th day of June, 2018) Per Justice Anand Pathak, The Criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06/03/2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, District-Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.36/2005 whereby appellants No.1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 have been convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC for murder of Kadori and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation and appellants No.2, 3, 4, 5 have been convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC for murder of Nannu and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation and appellants No.4, 5 and 6 have been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment each and appellants No.1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 have been convicted under 2 Cr.P-9 for decased Nannu.Medical examination of Maharam, Ramsingh and Moharsingh was conducted.Autopsy was done in which cause of death of deceased Kadori was found to be shock due to injury caused over his head and for decased Nannu, cause of death was injury sustained by him over his head.Investigation was conducted and accused-appellants were arrested.Seized goods were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar and charge-sheet was filed before the Competent Criminal Court.Accused-apellants abured their guilt.Trial was conducted and evidence were led by the parties.Trial Court convicted the appellants as referred above therefore, the instant appeal has been preferred.According to counsel for the appellants, eye witness account regarding injuries sustained by the deceased does not match with the medical evidence.Deceased-Kadori sustained 3 injuries by sharp edged weapons and FIR bears the said fact.Manori through axe, Shivua through farsa and Vijay through farsa, given blows to the decased-Kadori.Similarly, Manori wielded axe and Shivua wielded farsa while inflicting injuries to Nannu.Postmortem report (Ex.P-17 and P-18) of both the deceased reflects that there is material inconsistencies and contradictions exist between the medical evidence and eye witness account and therefore, the said inconsistencies and 4 Cr.A.No.273/2007 anomalies render the case of the prosecution as inadequately proved against the appellant-accused.Infact, the incident in the morning occurred in such a fashion where the appellant No.1- Bhagirath and appellant No.2-Manori sustained injuries and therefore, report vide Adham Check was filed vide Ex.D-6 and later on, in a motor accident, deceased died but the prosecution has roped the present appellants as accused persons in the present case.It is further submitted that prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused persons.Dr. B.P. Khare (DW-5) medically examined the accused Manori who sustained injuries.Prosecution does not explain the injuries of accused.Similarly, Bharat Singh (DW-1) supported the story of defence that accused sustained injuries.4 Cr.Learned counsel for the appellants referred the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hallu and Others Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh, 1974 SCC (Cri.) 462, Ram Narain Vs.State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727, Purshottam and Another Vs.State of M.P., 1981 SCC (Cri.) 352, Kasturi Lal Vs.State of Haryana, 1976 SCC (Cri.) 467, Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai Vs.State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484, Dinesh and Another Vs.State of Hrayana, 2002 Cr.LJ 2970 and Thaman Kumar Vs.State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2003 SCC(Cri.) 1362, and submits that if any contradiction, inconsistency, exaggeration or embellishment in the form of ocular and medical evidence exist then same is to be seen with caution and benefit of doubt be given to the accused.It is also submitted at the instance of appellants that case involves violation of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. wherein the Lash Panchayatnama, does not contain name of accused and therefore, while relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of L/NK.Meharaj Singh Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh, 1995 Cr.LJ 457 as well as M.C. Ali and Another Vs.State of Kerala, (2010) 4 SCC 573 submits that if inquest report does not disclose particulars in details then this omission is worth consideration and trial Court erred in ignoring all such omissions.While relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Hallu 5 Cr.A.No.273/2007 (supra), It is reiterated that sharp edged weapon would be presumed to be used from the sharp edge and not from the blunt side.As per prosecution, Shivua and Vijay might have inflicted two blows of farsa over the head.Witnesses alleged to be eye witnesses have exaggerated the injuries, which established the plea of false implication.5 Cr.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State opposed the prayer made by the appellants and on the basis of postmortem report of Kadori and Nannu (Ex.P-17) and (Ex.P-18) respectively as well as by seizure memo (Ex.P-5) opposed the prayer and submits that the case in hand is of murder (two counts) and therefore, no interference is required.Eye witness account sufficiently reached to establish the guilt of appellants.No case for interference is made out.He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.The first and foremost question for consideration in the case in hand is about the nature of death of the deceased persons namely Kadori and Nannu.Postmortem report of Kadori (Ex.P-17) and for Nannu (Ex.P-18) coupled with the testimony of Dr.G.S. Argal (PW-6) indicates that the cause of death was homicidal in nature because of the injuries sustained by the deceased as referred in the report especially over his head therefore, it is established that the death of the deceased Kadori and Nannu were homicidal in nature.Now the question for consideration is the involvement of the appellant-accused in the case of murder of Kadori (decased), for which Bhagirath, Manori, Vijay, Mohar Singh, Pooran, Ghanshyam and Prema were accused and convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentence to LI with fine of Rs.5,000/-.Out of these accused persons, Manori, Vijay, Mohar Singh and Pooran are suffering conviction and jail sentence for murder of Nannu (deceased) also, under section 302/ 149 of IPC.As per FIR (Ex.P-1) at the instance of Mohar Singh deposed as PW-1 6 Cr.A.No.273/2007 Bhagirath with lohangi, Shivua with farsa, Manori with axe, Vijay with farsa and Mohar Singh with iron rod (laggi) inflicted blows over the deceased Kadori.6 Cr.The said version is repeatedly explained by witnesses Maharam (PW-2), Gulabbai (PW-3), Ramsingh (PW-4), Ramkali (PW-7) and Mungalal (PW-8).The version of all these witnesses narrates the same story about the injuries inflicted by different appellants through different weapons wielded by them over the deceased Kadori.Dr. G.S. Argal (PW-6), who conducted postmortem over the body of deceased Kadori, found total seven injuries over the body of the deceased, in which injuries No.2,3,4 and 7 were grievous and sufficient to cause death.Injury No.2 as explained by the Doctor is; (2) Incised wound over left temporal region-7.15cm x 1cm x Bone deep margin, regular, clean cut, tapering present in both incised depth sub cut deep and in middle up to bone deep.Similarly, injuries No.3, 4 and 7 are; (3) Above 2.5cm to 2 injuries i.e. above 2.5cm 2 injury I.W. left tempero-parietal region- 3.5cm x 0.5cm x Bone deep tapering present on both ends depth sub cut level and (4) lacerated wound present in right occipital to left parietal region-7.5cm x 1cm x bone deep clotted blood present in the wounds and (7) Contusion present over upper 1/3 middle to right side of ante chest 8cm x 6cm on dissertion-radish blood mixed lot present at sub cut to middle level # of upper 1/3 part of sternum found.All injuries are ante-mortem in nature.Taking glance over the injuries, it appears that injuries No.2 and 3 were incised wounds, which must have been caused by sharp cutting edged weapon.Here as per the story of the prosecution, Shivua (farsa), Manori (axe) and Vijay (farsa) were the persons who wielded sharp edged cutting weapon therefore, out of these three persons, two injuries have been caused to the deceased.Injury No.4 is a lacerated wound therefore, it might have been inflicted by the appellants who were wielding- hard and blunt objects i.e. Bhagirath (lohangi), Mohar Singh (iron rod) and Pooran Ghanshyam and Prema (lathis).The witnesses have 7 Cr.A.No.273/2007 explained the presence of these appellants who were allegedly instrumental in murder of the deceased Kadori and their weapons have also been seized by the prosecution.Jamna (PW-12) and J.U. Saiyad (PW-9), who were the seizure witnesses, supported the story of the prosecution and the weapons were seized from the accused persons therefore, while considering the said aspect, trial Court rightly implicated the appellants-accused Bhagirath, Manori, Vijay, Pooran, Ghanshyam and Prema in the murder of the deceased Kadori.7 Cr.As explained earlier, when some 8 Cr.8 Cr.The eye witness account testifies and establishes the injuries with the weapons.Although some gray area exists in the case in hand wherein two incised wound have been inflicted over the deceased whereas appellants (three in number) who are charged with inflicting injuries No.2 and 3 through sharp cutting weapons are Shivua, Manori and Vijay.Out of total injuries, injuries No.2 and 3 have been caused through sharp cutting weapon therefore, it is not possible that one of the injuries, at least caused by the same weapon by two different persons by causing two different blows.This is very exceptional and improbable but since, appellants- accused as referred above in respect of murder of deceased Kadori held liable with the liability of Section 149 of IPC also therefore, the individual act of accused has not to be seen with such minute details to fasten him with the liability of Section 302 of IPC.Once he shared common object in respect of causing injuries to the deceased Kadori and in pursuance to that, common object, if accused-appellants have inflicted grave injuries to the deceased then the liability is vicarious.Therefore, the trial Court rightly convicted appellants No.1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 under Section 302/149 of IPC for murder of deceased Kadori and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine.9 Cr.Now regarding murder of deceased Nannu; the trial Court convicted appellants No.2, 3, 4, 5 under Section 302/149 of IPC for murder of Nannu and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine.Since Mohar Singh has died therefore, he is out of discussion.As per the prosecution witness Mohar Singh (PW-1) who is the scriber of FIR, Shivua with farsa, Manori (axe) and Vijay (farsa) inflicted the injuries with deadly weapons while Pooran, Prema, Monngalal wielded lathis inflicted injuries over the deceased Nannu.Now the role of Manori, Vijay, Pooran is to be seen for 10 Cr.A.No.273/2007 causing death to deceased Nannu.10 Cr.Nature of injuries as referred in the postmortem report of Nannu are as under:-(1) Lacerated wound present over right occipital region, oblique-7cm x 1cm x bone deep clotted radish fresh blood II-over left occipital parietal region, oblique-5.3--cm x 0.5 x deep radish clotted blood present in the wound, major irregular (2) Different contusion over left lower thorax-15cm x10cm.Dr. G.S. Argal (PW-6) in his deposition has admitted that injuries No.1-a and 1-b were lacerated wounds over the occipital and occipital parietal region respectively whereas injury No.2 was over lower thorex Contusion wound.Therefore, it is clear that lacerated wound or contusion could not have sustained by any sharp cutting weapon, it could have been sustained by use of iron rod or lohangi or laggi or at times with the blow of lathi.In para 17 of his cross-examination, Doctor has admitted this fact that injuries caused to Nannu (as explained later on in para 19) can be caused by hard and blunt object and were sufficient to cause death.All the witnesses as referred above have specifically maintained their deposition about Manori wielding axe, Shivua (farsa), Vijay (farsa) and Mohar Singh (iron rod) therefore, Manori and Vijay could not have inflicted lacerated wound through their sharp edged cutting weapon.Prosecution could not establish the case about the manner of incident whereby these accused persons have wielded the sharp cutting weapon from the blunt side.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hallu (supra) has considered such exigencies and reiterated the guidance as under:-The postmortem report prepared by Dr. N. Jain Shows that on the body of Jagdeo were found three bruises and a hematoma.On the body of Padum were found four lacerated wounds and two bruises.According to the eye- witnesses the two men were attacked with lathis, spears and axes but that clearly stands falsified by the medical evidence.Not only of the injuries found on the person of Jagdeo and Padum could be caused by a spear or an axe.The High Court however refused to attach any importance to this aspect of the matter by saying that the witnesses 11 Cr.A.No.273/2007 had not stated that "the miscreants dealt axe blows from the sharp-side or used the spear as a piercing weapon".According to the High Court axes and spears may have been used from the blunt side and therefore, the evidence of the eye- witnesses could safely be accepted.If that be the implication it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether a sharp edged or a piercing instrument was used as a blunt weapon."11 Cr.Therefore, it could not be assumed without establishing the fact about the mode of use of weapon that Manori, Vijay and Mohar Singh wielded their weapons from blunt side.It is possible that the other persons who were wielding different weapons specially lathis and iron rods must have inflicted the injuries to the deceased Nannu.When accused persons are more and out of the said group, many accused persons wielded different weapons which could have caused injuries in the form of lacerated wound or contusion wound, then it is possible that the said accused would have caused the injuries to the victim Nannu.In respect of death of Nannu, the case of appellants Manori and Vijay lacks credence and credibility and prosecution could not establish the case against them beyond reasonable doubt.Since the wounds inflicted to Nannu, were the wounds, which could have been inflicted by hard and blunt object by Pooran (lathi) and Mohar Singh (iron rod) therefore, they were rightly convicted under Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC.Manori and Vijay cannot be punished for the offence of murder of Nannu therefore, they deserves to be acquitted from the conviction on double counts and they can only be punished under Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC for causing murder of deceased Kadori only and for causing murder of deceased Nannu, they deserves acquittal.Prosecution could not established the role of these accused persons in categorical terms to establish object to murder Nannu.To sum up the case of appellants Bhagirath, Pooran, Manori, Vijay, Ghanshyam and Prema, their conviction under 12 Cr.A.No.273/2007 Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC for causing murder of deceased Kadori and sentence for suffering LI alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation is hereby confirmed and affirmed.12 Cr.Appellants No.2 and 5- Manori and Vijay are acquitted from the charge of Section 302/149 of IPC for causing murder of deceased Nannu and they are acquitted from the said charge henceforth.Appellant No.3-Pooran is convicted for causing murder of deceased Kadori as well as Nannu under Section 302/149 of IPC (double count) and would have to suffer jail sentence accordingly.From the record, it appears that appellant No.4-Mohar Singh is dead therefore, no order is passed against him.Appellant No.1 Bhagirath, appellant No.3-Pooran, appellant No.6- Prema and appellant No.7-Ghanshyam are on bail therefore, their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the trial Court immediately else, trial Court shall issue arrest warrant to serve remaining part of their jail sentence.Appellant No.2-Manori and appellant No.5-Vijay are in jail therefore, necessary supersession warrant be issued for appellants Manori and Vijay for their acquittal from the charge of murder of deceased Nannu under Section 302/ 149 of IPC, but they will suffer their sentence for murder of Kadori as per law.Appeal stands partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information (Anand Pathak) (Vivek Agarwal) Judge Judge-06-2018 -06-2018 vc Digitally signed by VARSHA CHATURVEDI Date: 2018.06.29 15:33:07 +05'30'

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

sdas allowed C.R.M. No. 12433 of 2017 In Re.: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 08.12.2017 in connection with Kandi Police Station Case No. 813 dated 25.10.2017 under Sections 325/326/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

C.R.M. 16020 of 2013And In the matter of: Radha Gobinda Das and Anr. ...Petitioners.Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, Mr. Amit Sharma ...for the petitioners.Therefore, the accused/petitioner no.1, namely, Radha Gobinda Das and the petitioner no.2, namely, Soumosree Karan, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only each with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, District : Purba Medinipur.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) 2 (Asim Kumar Mondal, J.)

['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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